Talk:International sanctions against Iraq/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC for Iraq sanctions article

Just asking for some others to have a look and provide friendly feedback for Iraq sanctions. Organizationally have we got it about right? Are there perhaps-unintentional POV undertones in one way or other in the text there? Give us a letter grade if you like. DanielM (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Structural issues

There are indeed some structural problems with the article.

Post hoc reasoning

A major structural flaw is the post hoc reasoning thruout the article. The vast majority of the WP:RS (including Unicef and Garfield) are carefully worded such that the sanctions are not attributed to be the sole cause of the deaths. The view that the sanctions alone caused hundreds of thousands of deaths is actually the fringe view. This can be easily fixed by careful avoiding the use of "causal" language when it can be avoided. Doing this will also allow us to remove the "zero" from the estimates section, as neither Cortright nor Rubin claim there were no deaths; they simply dispute the cause. DougHill (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sole cause" is an absolute term. Nobody claims to know an exact number of fatalities with perfect certainty. Nobody claims a study can isolate the "sole cause" of each death. The consensus is in my view that, indeed, the sanctions were the substantial, prominent, and dominant cause of the excess deaths. I don't know exactly what you're referring to w. "zero" but the estimates section is one of the most informative things about this article. DanielM (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Thanks for not letting this developed and reasonably valuable article be listed as "starter class."

There is no such consensus. Unicef and Garfield are very careful to avoid such language. Cortright, Rubin, and Spagat directly challenge it. One reason for the difficulty in establishing causation is put best by Spagat: "we cannot observe anything resembling a controlled experiment that isolates the pure impact of economic sanctions on child deaths". Because this explains the problem so much better than "practical difficulties", I'm going to put this quote back in the article. (I took out the "zero" along with the causal language in an earlier recent edit.)DougHill (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Goals

BTW, why put the "non-express goals" before the express goals (as in a recent edit)? I would have thought that the express goals should go first. DougHill (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The non-denial heard 'round the world

Another problem is the placement of Albright's 60 Minutes interview. (This is a separate issue from recent edits here.) Her (admittedly) poor answer doesn't tell us anything about the effects of the sanctions. However, it is part of the story, so we need to figure out where it belongs. Its role seems to be on the public discourse about the sanctions. Should we create a new section on that? DougHill (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's important and ought to be here somewhere, but it doesn't naturally fit into any of the existing sections. Rather than creating a categorical title, I would just title it "Albright comment" or something. Should there turn out to be other discourse, the title could then be revised. DanielM (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I created this as a sub-section. The photo of the demonstrators falls more naturally in the broader section, so I moved it there too. Albright's response tells us more about her than about the sanctions, so it's OK to keep this section short and refer readers to her page for more. But if we are going to report how her response was misinterpreted, we need to have more from her on her defense. I think we should just leave her words in, and let the readers draw a conclusion or read further elsewhere. DougHill (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not realize that the "appeared coldblooded and cruel" quote was that of Albright herself. Certainly it is appropriate to use it that way. Maybe at some point the notability of that exchange should be evaluated. It seems unfair for her to have been vilified, if it were merely a poorly considered comment that she didn't really mean. Controversy doesn't equal notability I don't think. Yet I wouldn't be ready to wipe that bit out either without a much closer look, because in fact a great number of children were dying. DanielM (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, it's unfair, but it is notable since her comment was widely used to confirm a questionable statistic (and claim of causation) that she (as she admits) should have challenged. BTW, I think the photo of the demonstrators belongs of the page, but it needs some text and citations to tie it into the article. DougHill (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it'd be wrong to blank the Albright bit but you or I or others will hopefully eventually figure out a way to address the seeming unfairness to her personally w. the far greater gravity of the excess child deaths that were occurring. As for the photo, if you look at it closely there's a sign carried by a protester that says "end the sanctions." Wikipedia editors in my understanding don't need to reliably source each picture (though they certainly need to ascertain each picture's lawful use here). In other words, we don't need to cite a photo of Pelé for some example to some newspaper or book if the picture appears to be Pelé and there is no rational reason to doubt it, and if it is non-controversial, and if it really can't be sourced to some newspaper or book because it didn't come from there. Now if you want to challenge not the photo but the particularities of the caption beneath it, that's another matter I guess, but in this case those are also benign so why bother?DanielM (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rahul Mahajan (FAIR) did not address the fairness of the question,[1] so that had to come out. To be fair, the issue probably had not been raised when that article was written. And I agree with Daniel that this is less important that the other things that were going on, so this should be demoted in the controversies section (and does not need to be mentioned earlier). DougHill (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Administration of sanctions

Just how were the sanctions administered? This seems like an important subtopic, one that we should develop in the article. Let me give an example relevant to our current discussion. If the Iraqi authorities needed to import chlorine, whom did they ask? If so, what was the response? If they did not even ask (I'm speculating here), then it would be the Iraqi government response, and not the sanctions, that would be the direct cause of the lack of chlorine, and the indirect cause of the water-borne diseases. Do you see that it is at least possible that the government response, and not the sanctions themselves, that were responsible? (Now to stop speculating, it's pretty clear that the war, then the sanctions, and then the government response to the sanctions, each made a bad situation worse.) DougHill (talk)

Certainly information on the actual operation of the Sanctions (both by the sanctioning parties and by the sanctioned parties) has the potential for improving the article by providing objective information. This would be far more valuable that attempting to assign "blame" for the results by quoting persons with political interests in the event. Give me a little time to look around for sources; they should not be that hard to find. rewinn (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a very preliminary first cut at an "Administration" section. Please feel free to update. It seems to me that a description of how the programme was administered and otherwise worked out is so important to understanding its effects and people's reactions to it, that this section should appear fairly early in the article.rewinn (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good start, but we need more detail. Including, how did specific requests work? How did this differ between north and south? DougHill (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you find such information, feel free to share it. Until then, we should just focus on what most of the sources say, which is that the sanctions caused excess deaths from malnutrition, preventable disease, etc. If you later find sources that talk more about differences between the north and south, I'm sure they can be worked into the article. But there is certainly no requirement that people find sources for you describing in detail how the sanctions worked, before we can report what the sources we currently have say. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Chlorine

I cut out this part:

The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but was banned from manufacture in the country and its import severely restricted due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon.

Here are some of the problems with it:

1. It has a dead link.
2. What is correct (including a citation) repeats right after it with working links.
3. It appears to make a post hoc fallacy.
4. Perhaps Habeeb makes such a claim of causation, and we could make that clear (I.e. "Habeeb claims causation.") But we are unable to check the source. Research on this topic is full of bogus post hoc citations (e.g. Unicef).

However, the dead link is now preserved here. DougHill (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the text and steered the dead link to Wayback. There is a secondary link as well. This is important text because there was malaria and disease and babies dying because of the unchlorinated water. You persistently argue "post hoc" logical fallacy as basis your edits at this article, and I disagree with that quite often, but respectfully it is not for us as Wikipedia editors to critique the logic of the sources. And this is what I find that you are doing, that is to say you are not claiming us *editors* are engaging in post hoc reasoning, you are faulting the logic of the *sources*. DanielM (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem of repetitive links remains in that passage. And if some sources make a claim of causation, we can report who says that. But the better sources are careful not to, so we need to report their arguments as well. And we have to be careful that the page does not assert causation. And again, we must be clear about where this happened. DougHill (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not a minor edit when I took the post hoc out of the section title. I only just noticed the "m", I didn't mean to click that. DougHill (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any grounds for claiming that it is a post hoc fallacy to say that when an urbanized society is prevented from treating their water, that waterborne diseases will skyrocket. It's simply a fact that water treatment prevents disease, and therefore preventing water from being treated increases rates of preventable disease. (It doesn't make sense to me why you would claim that this is fallacious, so perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, please clarify what you were saying for me.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google books search turned up the following, which might be useful for rewriting the passage on chlorine with better sources [2][3][4][5] ... I'm sure plenty more are available elsewhere. Hopefully someone can use these sources to rewrite the passage, including information about the DIA memos stating that they knew that civilian deaths from disease would occur if water treatment facilities were destroyed, and supplies prevented from entering the country. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the page should say more about the chlorine issue. I don't think that the resurrected link adds much to the sources already there. (Since it was attributed to a name not on its page, it appears to have been a sloppy edit, probably made some time ago.) I will look at these book sources, and I encourage other editors to do so also. As to the possibility of post hoc in this case, we must be careful not to attribute causation when that is not done in the source we are citing. (This was done to Unicef in much writing on the sanctions, including earlier versions of this page.) As to the broader post hoc issue,[6] many other bad things were going on in Iraq (as Unicef said), and the sanctions did not exist in the south and centre apart from the government response to them, so we cannot simply blame sanctions as the cause of all the bad consequences. (And if some reliable source thinks we can, we must be careful to present that as a claim, not a fact.) DougHill (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that sanctions did not exist in the south and centre apart from the government response. In fact, sanctions existed in the south and centre regardless of the government response. Moreover, if a government is not permitted to chlorinate its water due to sanctions, it is not any sort of logical fallacy to argue that the natural results did follow. rewinn (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The sanctions did indeed exist apart from the Iraqi government response. This was in the north, where child mortality decreased. The Iraqi government generally fought the sanctions, and some of the sources (on the page) argue that this response was responsible for the dreadful numbers. (Another source challenges these numbers altogether.) Fortunately, our job as editors is just to report it, not resolve it. DougHill (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur. That sanctions did not exist in the north is not probative as to whether sanctions did not exist in the south and centre apart from the government response. Please provide any evidence that "apart from the government response", the "sanctions did not exist". Furthermore, whether the Iraq government did or did not "fight" the sanctions has nothing to do with the general inadequacy of the amount of water purification chemicals and equipment allowed in. One may argue culpability, e.g. if Saddam had left Iraq the sanctions would have ended, but one cannot reasonably argue against causation, e.g. the limits of water purification lead to the cholera and other diseases predicted by our DoD. rewinn (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions did indeed exist in the north too (as discussed in the article). In the south and centre, the sanctions existed. So did the Iraq government response to them. So they existed together. I don't see what is confusing about that. (But see the next section I'm about to add.) DougHill (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What is confusing about it is that, grammatically the phrase "sanctions did not exist in the south and centre apart from the government response" implies that the sanctions are derivative of the government response, whereas causally the opposite is true. If what you are trying to say is that the sanctions and the government response should be analyzed together, then fine. If you wish to trace chains of causing, then by evoking a government response, the sanctions are to some degree responsible for a bit more harm than had they never existed. I really think the metaphysics of this are not helpful to the article however.rewinn (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring the deleted text with a corrected link. In the future, please refrain from deleting text when you don't like the citation. The correct action is to insert a citation needed tag.rewinn (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. In the chlorine section, I challenged the Sole source with rather than deleting it. (Isn't this the correct procedure for a dubious source? Isn't used when there is no source?) I recently deleted a source in "Goals" that did not say what was attributed to it. Other editors may put it back, preferably with a quotation (or some discussion here) to support its relevance. DougHill (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Doug -- Nobody is claiming to be attempting to resolve the issue, instead of just reporting what reliable sources have to say. The problem I think is that the article focuses too much on a minority view, and doesn't give enough weight to the things that most reliable sources consider to be truly important. There are plenty of reliable sources that cover causes of excess mortality during the sanctions; and the majority of them claim that the sanctions caused a significant number of deaths. We have reliable sources quoting DIA memos that show that the U.S. military (DIA) was aware that the policies implemented in the sanctions would cause high excess mortality. Sure, there are a few sources that say "Oh, it wasn't that bad..." or "Yes, we caused it, but it was their fault." But the large majority of high-quality sources say that excess mortality was caused by the sanctions, and that the U.S. government knew this would happen before they enacted them. We should give more weight to the more widely held view, and go into much more detail of what we know that the U.S. government was saying internally about the effects of the sanctions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Doug: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_sanctions&diff=next&oldid=432205742 does far more than merely {{rs} }. rewinn (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot just count the number of sources who say what. As I've said here before, Unicef and Garfield (which I think we can agree are good sources) are very careful NOT to simply blame the sanctions, and Cortright, Rubin, and Spagat (all legitimate scholars) specifically challenge that sanctions caused the deaths, and Spagat even calls the claims of so many deaths into question. I agree with putting the facts first, and the interpretations later. This applies as well to sources who argue that the sanctions were the cause, or the primary cause. DougHill (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You are quibbling over the meaning of the word "cause". Please stop. No one can plausibly argue that the lack of water purification facilities is not causally related to mortality, and that that lack was causally related to the sanctions. You may further argue that the sanctions were causally related Saddam's vileness but if so, why not go all the way back and blame the deaths on the failure of his mother to smother him at birth? At some point, those who ordered and implemented sanctions have to take responsibility for the foreseeable outcome of their deeds. I think we can trust the America DoD when it anticipated mass deaths from damage to the water systems, especially when mass deaths did indeed appear to follow. rewinn (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewinn: what I or you think is irrelevant. We have a number of reliable sources that question whether the sanctions can be blamed. Please read what I wrote below (under "administration") to see what I mean. DougHill (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Doug - Once again, please stop. Your edits are confusing the legal/moral question of "blame" with the factual question of "cause". As you suggest, what you "mean" or "think" is not relevant; this article is about the sanctions, not who you or anyone else think bear legal or moral culpability for deaths. Perhaps you want to start an article Culpability for Iraq Sanctions Deaths. rewinn (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the facts are a major matter of dispute on this topic. In that case, it will not be possible to just state the facts, so a summary the dispute will have to go in the lead. DougHill (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding chlorine: can we get some information on just what happened when the Iraqi government tried to buy chlorine? Did they do this? And what happened if and when they did? Furthermore, what happened in the north? Were they allowed to buy chlorine? DougHill (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, wait. You're saying you don't know whether Iraq tried to get chlorine and other equipment, but you're citing people who fault Iraq for not doing so? This rather undercuts the concept that your citations have any value as authorities. You might start your researches with http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.htmlrewinn (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, cite some sources about how it specifically worked. (Who asked for it; who refused?) Was the north able to get chlorine? Why did the north not have these problems? This detail seems to be missing from any of the sources on the page. (If I'm wrong, could you please redirect me.) Also, which sources fault the Iraqi govt. specifically for not requesting Cl2. DougHill (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such sources. Most of the sources I have found don't seem to feel that the north/south argument is even worthy of consideration. They mostly just say that bombing water treatment facilities, and then preventing water treatment supplies from coming into the country somehow caused the water to carry more pathogens, which caused more people to get sick, which caused more people to die. Of course, you can say that the Iraqi government could have responded better, and that less people would have died. But very few people would expect that you can remove a nations ability to treat water and not have civilians die from it, regardless of the response. The DIA certainly didn't believe that when they said that they knew doing this would cause large numbers of civilian deaths. I think that's why most sources don't focus on the north/south argument -- because it's really just a weak attempt to take the blame off of the people that caused the problem, and say "Well, yeah, we crapped up their water supply, but it's their fault because they didn't respond properly." Regardless of how illogical and inconsistent of an argument it is, however, it's still worth mentioning here, as are many of the other justifications that were made afterwards. But they shouldn't be given undue weight and treated as if they are widely accepted, and most of the article should focus on the most widely held view, which is that removing a nation's access to clean water causes people to die of disease. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many methods of Water purification. If chlorine was not available, why not use Ozone or some other technique? Furthermore, when there is a breakdown in water sanitation (this can happen anywhere), people are informed that they should boil their water (until the problem is fixed). A major inconvenience, but it should not be fatal. Were the Iraqis told to boil their water before drinking it? Was there some reason they couldn't? If not, then I do not see how the sanctions can be blamed. (Note: if you have answers to these questions, PLEASE put them in the article.)

Finally, is anyone going to defend the David Sole source here? (I'm sure he's a well meaning person, but I don't see how he's a reliable source.) If not, I'll delete it. DougHill (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do you fault Sole? In this article, you have previously cited a rightwing talk radio host and an "associate editor and media columnist" but you won't tolerate a chemist's detailed article to support text on chlorine in Iraq's water sanitation? I see where you suggested in the article he might be unreliable and point out he works for Detroit Water and Sewerage. Is there an inference you're asking us to make here? If so, can you be express about it. DanielM (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC) PS: But I suggest take your time and be thoughtful and maybe take a break before doing so. DanielM (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, leave it in if you like. But I still don't see what it provides the article, in addition to the other sources there. DougHill (talk)

If chlorine was not available, why not use Ozone or some other technique? -- Perhaps because it would be ridiculously difficult and expensive to overhaul a nations water treatment system, especially when being bombed and under economic sanctions. I'm not really sure why they didn't just magically switch water treatment methods (perhaps summoning the new system out of the rubble). But regardless of what we might think the reasons are, most high-quality reliable sources (such as the ones I listed above) claim not only that the lack of water treatment caused excess deaths, but that the U.S. military knew it would before they did it. This is all that matters. We don't need to give undue weight to the fringe view that it's the Iraqi peoples' fault for not boiling their water (which I haven't seen any reliable sources say).

Furthermore, when there is a breakdown in water sanitation (this can happen anywhere), people are informed that they should boil their water (until the problem is fixed). ... Were the Iraqis told to boil their water before drinking it? Was there some reason they couldn't? -- When there is an anthrax attack on a major city, people should be told to put on their masks. If they don't, and people die, it's not the fault of the people spreading the anthrax, it's the fault of the city officials for not warning people properly. If I break glass all over the floor, and somebody steps on it, it's their fault, because they should have looked where they are stepping. ... Hmmmm, that doesn't work does it? Yes, of course people could have boiled some of the filthy untreated water to drink, but that's not what is causing the water to be filthy in the first place. If the water wasn't filthy, the people wouldn't be dying from it - period. The commonly accepted solution to high disease rates from waterborne pathogens is to say that people need water treatment, not to say "well they should know better".

A major inconvenience, but it should not be fatal. -- An "inconvenience"?!? That's might be easy for you to say, but I doubt you've ever lived in a densely populated urban environment without treated water. And of course, most of the world medical community disagrees with you and believes that water treatment does prevent fatal diseases. Again, we don't need to promote the fringe view that untreated water doesn't cause disease. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguments over culpability for excess deaths

The existing structure, with the short blockquotes, seems to work pretty well to present the differing arguments. If you must paraphrase them, please do not remove important parts of their arguments. But please DO ADD criticism of those arguments. DougHill (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

disagree - blockquotes draw attention to polemical material, most of which is repetitive and in some cases self-serving. The opinion-based arguments need not be made in an encyclopedia, but merely cited. It is not the function of an article about sanctions to provide space for polemicists to make their arguments; it suffices to briefly summarize their arguments and then refer the reader to the author's full statements which, in any event, will lay out their arguments in greater detail. Remember, this is an article about the sanctions, not an article about the arguments over the sanctions - however the latter may be an interesting article and you may enjoy crafting it. rewinn (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to summarize their arguments, then please summarize them accurately. And if you leave in a long quote (as you did with Rubin), please leave it in blockquotes. Finally, if even the small estimates of deaths during sanctions are accurate, then the culpability for those deaths is of major importance, especially to this article. DougHill (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of what I want; it's a question of what improves the article. Long blockquotes serve very little in an encyclopedia when it is just as easy to link to the entire text. If you prefer a different summarization of the arguments, fine, please implement them ... or give me some time, I'll work on it. I agree that Rubin's quote is too long but that is but to say that the edit is not complete. At any rate, before discussing culpability, is it not important first to establish the actions underlying putative culpability? Truly, it is a waste of time to assign blame when the article so inadequate describes the conduct. This is Iraq Sanctions not Blame For Iraq Sanctions. rewinn (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the culpability section is at this moment of a more appropriate length - a short introductory paragraph, with the four sides to the controversy each given its own bullet point to state its position briefly, with full citation to their lengthier statements. Clinton, as an interested party potentially in the dock for his role, is not included as a source, especially since his contribution to the discussion includes organizations of facts that could be provided by a more objective source. rewinn (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the bullet point summaries. You did a nice job summarizing the arguments. I disagree with leaving Clinton out. He is an interested party, but if we are to apply that standard, any numbers originating from the Baathist govt. would have to come off the page. I believe he should have his say, but I can live with this for now. And a brief look at Das' paper makes it look like he should be listed with Welch and Arnove rather than a separate POV. But I will take a closer look at his paper before changing that. DougHill (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. IMO it'd be ok to put Clinton back in so long as his POV is identified as such, and he's balanced with a reliable source of comparable weight; then let the reader ponder. rewinn (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Because this section deals with regional effects, it should go in the "Effects on the Iraqi people during sanctions" section. Also Das (see pp. 17-19) considers the regional disparity, and draws similar conclusions to Welch and Arnove. He just applies traditional ethical theories to follow the blame to the UNSC. DougHill (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The (previously) last section mentioned the regional differences, so I moved the regional/culpability section after that. Both the casualty number sections and regional/culpability are controversies that deal with cause & effect, so they should go in the same section. I think that this should be the effect section. I don't think there is enough (yet) for Das to get his own section, so I'll merge him into the 2nd POV for now. DougHill (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Culpability is a legal and moral question, not an objective fact, and therefore belongs in the controversy section. You cannot touch culpability, taste it, see it or measure it; you can only argue about it as a matter of law or morality. It is the type specimen of a controversy. Doug, I am trying to assume good faith here so I will ask you to define how you would objectively establish culpability. rewinn (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The casualty estimates are also a source of controversy, so they should go in the controversy sections also. Better yet, let's just scrap the controversy section altogether, and figure out where these things go in the article. DougHill (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with getting rid of the "Controversy" section. Such sections are almost never the right approach -- content from them should be integrated into the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Much of this article is about objective facts, e.g. the structure of the sanctions. The controversies are things about which it may never be possible to have objective agreement because they involve things such as moral culpability on which no agreement is ever likely. For example, Blair's argument that the Iraq War was a good thing because it ended sanctions may be noteworthy, but it is not an objective item on the same level as stating that shipments of hubcaps and clothing could be banned. Some things (e.g. the Albright interview) are just noteworthy sideshows; perhaps instead of "controversies" they should go into "sideshows" rewinn (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Regional disparities section

I went over that section a bit more carefully, checking references (deleting none) and finding repeatedly that they didn't quite match what was said in the section text. I am not faulting anyone particularly because I don't know. I think what happens sometimes is over time successive editorial iterations occur in article text and the text loses sync with the sources, which it may or may not have had at an earlier point. It seems to me that Source A that indeed says a particular point is cited, and then Source B that doesn't really say that but kind of has a similar tone is enlisted to support the point. To illustrate, assume that Source A says "the country of Fictitia behaved badly and is entirely to blame for the deaths" and Source B says "the country of Fictitia behaved badly and shares blame for the deaths," but then the article text says "entirely to blame" and cites both Source A and Source B. That kind of thing. There's was also a bit where this national security educator was described as a "genocide scholar," apparently because his paper was published in a genocide newsletter, which I found a bit tenuous and misleading. I think a fundamental problem with the section may also be WP:SYNTH violations. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") DanielM (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems plausible that, with the best will in the world, successive iterations of editing can take things out of sync, in sort of the wikipedia equivalent of the game "Telephone". rewinn (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. And in fact WP:FAITH says not only is it plausible, but that we must assume it. DanielM (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing in the lede

I am formally asking Doug to stop POV-pushing in the lede. To keep putting into the lede third-level material // a dispute about (level 3) geographic differences in the (level 2) impact of the (level 1) sanction // is not helpful to readers; we might as well put the entire article into the lede and dispense with structure altogether! This article is Iraq Sanctions not Culpability For Deaths Due To Iraq Sanctions although the latter may be worth your time. Please stop. rewinn (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need to provide some space between the lede and the moral/political opinion perspectives about whose fault excess deaths from sanctions were (and indeed the sub-debates and micro-debates and yes fringe-debates whether such excess deaths were from sanctions at all). In the article body, I support the recent substantial reduction of the regional-disparity-based culpability section with extensive block-quoting which was formerly threatening to devour the article. It looks like a fair and nice summarizing job was done with that. (I assume here that the relevant references were not deleted, which I would probably object to.) Perhaps Rewinn is correct that the culpability stuff merits its own article. I would support an editor who sought to originate such an article, although it is not an article I'd stay involved with once it got off the ground. The edits have become near-combative recently, but I think the Wikipedia processes are working and I'm hoping for an outcome that really informs people about the Iraq sanctions, without warping and as succinctly as we can manage. DanielM (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) On closer look I have to amend my comment that implied praise of the regional disparities section, not faulting anyone, because I can't really tell. I describe this in the next discussion session below. DanielM (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, the regional disparity is a big brute fact. There is no dispute about it. It is the "where" that belongs in the lead. Rewinn had done some good work on the article, but is trying to bury the lead here. If it is deleted again, I will have to put a POV tag on the page. DougHill (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Doug, the "lead" is the sanctions, not a POSSIBLE regional disparity in ONE effect of the sanctions. Please stop. If an RfA or a poll is necessary, I would support one. rewinn (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that the lead can speculate as to the number of casualties, when we really have no idea, but cannot say where they died, when we know this perfectly well. If we are to talk about casualties at all, we must say where they were. DougHill (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were making progress, and was willing to let the article rest in an partially unsatisfactory state to accommodate Doug's strong belief in the significance, profound meaning, and accuracy of regional-disparities, but to be frank I'm finding his edits extremely uncooperative and adversarial. There is a place for the culpability analysis in the article, and perhaps even for these college class Logic 101 ruminations, but they should be at least mainly confined to that place and not reach out to infect the article at diverse other points. I tried the RFC. If someone else is ready to undertake some other Wikipedia process, I'll support it. DanielM (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with an RfC. Stating a range of estimates as to an objective fact is not the same as getting into the issue as to who should be blamed for numbers which (as Doug argues) are themselves uncertain - such blame is doubly uncertain because on top of questions as to numbers of deaths are the additional uncertainties as to geographic disparities (which some of Doug's sources deny occurred at all - which makes regional disparities the opposite of "a big brute fact") and on top of THAT are the additional uncertainties as to the physical cause of any disparities (?agriculture? war damage? malfeasance? criminality?) and then on top of THAT is the uncertainty as to the legal and/or moral frameworks that should be applied: should it be an Iraq perspective? an American perspective? rewinn (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But the big point is this: this is an article about the SANCTIONS, not about BLAME. BLAME may be part of the article but is clearly a 3rd-level issue. Top priority is the fact of the sanctions, next are the results, and below that (far below deserving a lede) is who to blame for them. rewinn (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WHERE the people died from the sanctions is important. Child mortality went down in the north, so if there was no regional differences, it must have gone down in the south, too. (I doubt this.) Anyway, the earlier statement of this is the lead was accurate, neutral (I believe), and the result of earlier compromises on the page. Other editors disagree, as is their right. So I invite them to tell us, in the lead, where the people died, in a neutral and accurate manner. I would like to resolve the POV dispute. DougHill (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1. If we can't be sure HOW MANY people died, then why are we not even LESS sure WHERE they died?

2. Why do you state that "WHERE the people died from the sanctions is important"? There is no need to be coy; is it because you wish to push the theory that deaths under the sanctions are not the fault of the Unite Nations? If not: then what reason that this detail about the effects of the sanctions is important enough to go into the lede in the face of the amply-documented uncertainties which you have failed to address.

3. There is ample discussion in the article of geographic differences but please feel free to add documented details to the article. For example, did more children die of cholera in the south than in the north, and was this related to water-purification facilities having been bombed in the south and not in the north? Was the ease with which antibiotics were smuggled through Turkey into Kurdistan associated with fewer deaths from childhood infections there, as compared to the south where the blockade of "dual-use" items, such as antibiotics, was tight? Feel free to add all the verifiable data you can, in the appropriate place in the article. rewinn (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Doug's constructive desire to get the conditions needed to pull down the POV banner (and as he put it up, it may only be he that takes it quickly down without consensus), but I have to agree particular with Rewinn at (2). It is not a platonic interest in geography that is hanging us up here, rather it is an attempt to *imply* in the lede what can't be *directly expressed* without substantive rule-based objections from other editors, namely the questionable stack of questionable propositions: that because A) excess deaths were not felt in the north, and B) Saddam did not rule in the north, and C) sanctions equally applied in the north, that therefore D) Saddam must be blamed for the excess deaths and sanctions didn't hurt anybody. And this is my objection to it, we shouldn't be implying things in the lede or anywhere else really, neither can you get directly to that stack of propositions except perhaps from opinion commentary and fringe sources. DanielM (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm only asking that A and B be put in the lead. This is just a matter of fact, and telling the reader where people died (if the statistics are at all accurate) and the salient distinction between the regions. C is false (see Welch; does the article say otherwise?), so D need not follow. But we have 3 or 4 competing explanations for why A (the regional disparity) was observed. It might be explanation 2 (harsher sanctions south) which does not imply D at all. I think you need to give the reader some more credit here. DougHill (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are now arguing that the falsity of C should be put into the lede. By themselves, A and B imply D; but if C were false, then that implication would be untrue or at least misleading. Ledes should not be misleading. Therefore, if the lede is going to dwell on possible geographic disparities in one of many outcomes of the sanctions, either the lede should be grossly expanded to more fully explicate the relationship (if any) between A, B, C and D to include the "salient facts", e.g. relative porosity of the borders to smuggling; war damage; the tendancy of the Sanctions Committee to block shipments of aspirin and antibiotics to Basra; the sheer vileness of Saddam and his crew; etc, etc --- or the matter should be left in the body of the article, as at present. Ledes should not be unduly prolonged. A full explication of geographic disparities (if any) in the application of the sanctions should not be in the lede. rewinn (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. You keep confusing the issues of blame and location. They are quite different. The lead just needs to say where the excess deaths (if any) occurred. The explanations can come later. It's just silly that a basic fact would be left out because someone might draw a conclusion from it. If we are going to apply that rule, we'll have to remove everything about casualty estimates from the lead as well. BTW, as written now, the estimates are POV since they neglect the posibility that there were no excess deaths (as considered by our sources and listed as theories 3 and 4). DougHill (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So one solution (the one I just implemented) is to remove the casualty estimates from the lead also. That also seems to be an attempt to imply what cannot be stated directly. Now, I would prefer to mention BOTH the casualty estimates and say where they were, if any of these estimates are accurate. But saying neither (and not mentioning the estimates until location is addressed) would resolve the POV issue. DougHill (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That solution is not correct. Ledes are short summaries of major points. There is no rational argument nor factual support for the concept that there were no excess deaths as a result of the sanctions nor that they were a major aspect of the sanctions; indeed they are one of the primary reasons that the sanctions are noteworthy. rewinn (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then we also must say where these excess deaths occurred. DougHill (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You give no reason for this that has not already been addressed. See above. rewinn (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewinn: based on your comments and behaviour, it appears that any attempt to point out in the lead either: that some scholars dispute whether we can know if any excess deaths occurred during sanctions, or where the excess deaths (if any) did occur, will be summarily reverted. Do I understand you correctly? DougHill (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this question was never answered. DougHill (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not proper and therefore no answer is required. You are not going to succeed in getting me to fight; I simply rest on the objective facts. rewinn (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Circumstantial ad-hominem and special pleading

We are supposed to be trying to resolve the POV dispute. (Thanks, Daniel.) Yet all the arguments against saying where all these people allegedly died falls into 2 categories: Circumstantial ad-hominem and special pleading. Circumstantial ad hominem occurs when the perceived motives of the arguer are criticized instead of the argument itself. Every arguer (and editor) has a motive; objecting to a motive is of course irrelevant to the article and violates WP:AGF. It is the article as a whole that needs to be NPOV; it is assuredly not now. The other problems is special pleading: appealing to a rule that one would not be willing to see applied consistently. (There were probably some red herrings thrown in also.)

So, please post an argument, based on a principle we can all accept (and we can all apply throughout the article), as to why we can say neither where these people allegedly died, nor that some scholars dispute whether an excess death count is knowable. Otherwise we will have to come up with a compromise on the lead which addresses all of our concerns. I am capable of being convinced by a good argument; I am also capable of compromise. DougHill (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The preceding two paragraphs do not accurately characterize the dispute. The record clearly shows that the dispute is not about whether anything may be said about where people died, but rather whether fringe theories of geographical disparities go into the lede. It is improper to mischaracterize a dispute.

2. The issue has been extensively argued above on grounds other than those claimed by User talk:DougHill. The paragraphs add nothing new; therefore no response is required.

3. The argumentation concerning special pleading and ad hominem are irrelevant and therefore need not be addressed.

4. Since User talk:DougHill put the NPOV tag on the article, he should argue for its retention or remove it. So far, there has been no argument for its retention other than the naked assertion that the article is currently not NPOV. There is no evidence to support that claim; therefore, the tag should be removed. Thank you for helping improve this article. rewinn (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Attitudes Missing

Is it not striking that this article lacks information from Iraqis themselves? The opinions of those who impose sanctions may be noteworthy but surely the victims of the sanctions may have something noteworthy on the subject. After all, Iraqis are human beings and some may even be wikipedians. rewinn (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to have it too. In the meantime we get by. DanielM (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewinn, I realized it might be possible to get such information by translating the Arabic-language versions of this or similarly related Wikipedia articles, copy-pasting and sourcing the information back here. It seems a little laborious for a limited-time editor, but it's one avenue to chase down if we really want it. DanielM (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We Are Supposed to Be Trying to Resolve the POV Dispute

As DougHill told me. "(Thanks, Daniel.) Yet all the arguments against saying where all these people allegedly died falls into 2 categories: Circumstantial ad-hominem and special pleading."

I am still trying to get over your comment that says in part "where these people ALLEGEDLY died" (caps added). The lowest excess fatality estimate, from the "associate editor and media columnist" you brought in, says 100,000.

You didn't explain your comment about ad-hominem and special pleading. If you feel that you've been done wrong here, perhaps you could state the point in terms of Wikipedia rules. At any rate, I don't think that you have been subjected to ad hominem and special pleading. The other editors have behaved restrainedly in discussion with you, in my opinion, and we will continue to do so.

I value your contributions to the article and hope that you will take the banner down right away, as I do not think it is warranted at all. DanielM (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added a concise regional disparity statement to the lede. I think that, other than the fact itself that it has prominent placement, it is devoid of any implication or suggestive meaning. I will resist any elaboration on the statement that attempts to make it a suggestion of culpability. DanielM (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved the valuable addition of references to statistical studies into the body of the article, where it belongs. As discussed above, allegations of regional disparaties of deaths are a fourth-level issue to this article: 1. The article is SANCTIONS 2. The sanctions had EFFECTS (in addition to mechanisms, legalisms, history etc) 3. One important effect was DEATH (there were other effects) 4. The deaths may have had REGIONAL DISPARITIES. It is improper to put fourth-level effects into the lede (although whether it is Undue Weight or some other form of impropriety may be debated). As to the POV dispute itself, there has yet to be any evidence introduced as to a POV issue in the article as it now exists (with a clean lede). In the abscence of evidence of a POV issue, the tag should be removed. rewinn (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewinn, I didn't find anything new, I just re-cited sources that have been in this article since like 1969. ;) My objection is to the insertion of "culpability" content to the lede. We all should work together. If DougHill can be satisfied with my short cited lede sentence about the regional disparity thing (he hasn't said he is yet), I wish you would be too. It's minor, but I disagree with the tone of your edit comment that the Lancet and UNICEF studies "allege" anything. They are solid sources that we may treat as fact. DanielM (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

DanielM: yes, we should work together. That means all editors should address the issues, rather than worry about who is or is not satisfied. So far, there is no evidence of an actual POV problem in the article, and therefore there is no need to alter the lede with a fourth-level issue. I don't understand your comment about my "tone"; the use of "allege" is not intended to disparage the sources but merely to be precise about the text of the wikipedia article. No fair reading of my contributions could suggest that I doubt the existence of regional disparities or the value of Lancet/UNICEF which I have at other times cited myself. The problem with the POV label does not come from me. rewinn (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewinn: The use of "allege" implies a couple things I think: that whatever it is has yet to be proven, and that whatever it is is unlawful or improper or somehow negative. I don't "allege" that the mailperson drops by my place about 2 pm weekdays and Saturdays for example. My history teacher and those books didn't "allege" that the U.S. stock market crashed in 1929. When you say those key studies "allege," in the absence of any reason to doubt them and in the absence of their suggesting something unlawful or improper, your tone at least questions them. As Wikipedia editors though, I think we treat these as reliable sources. We treat them as fact in the absence of conflict with other reliable sources. Enough of this though, it was only your edit comment where you said the studies "alleged." As to the lede, I'll repeat my position and leave it at that: in deference to DougHill, I don't mind a simple statement in there that avoids hinting of this "culpability" thing that has paralyzed us. Sure I think the "North and Center/South" categorizing a little simplistic (for example, why not "Urban and Rural" or "Desert and Arable and Forested") but "North and Center/South" is what the studies give us. To me my short statement "Key statistical studies divide the country into "north" and "south/center" and note that mortality trends were more severe in the south/center" accomplishes this purpose. DanielM (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I have removed from the lede the discussion of north/south distinction, because no reason has been given for including it in the lede. There is also no reason given for a NPOV tag and I note that it has been properly removed. rewinn (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsection: Regional-difference-grounded culpability debate

While the title of this new subsection appears a bit clumsy, the approach of putting that content more-or-less there seems about right. rewinn (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

POV

Clearly, this once-fine article has been turned into a giant left-wing propaganda machine with no credibility whatsoever. I don’t have sufficient time or patience to battle those determined to keep it so. Virtually every credible source and study that demonstrated Iraqi culpability has been removed; quotes from US officials have been removed while the Iraqi government is cited for statistics; Spagat, Rubin, and the State Department are gone and glossed over as though their claims are outrageous ("some even claim fewer than 500,000"--do you really think that kind of attempt at controlling the confines of the debate is enough to fool me?). Meanwhile, abstract ethical theories blame the UN, and there is even a section on Iraqi civilian attitudes which starts off by informing us that their attitudes are difficult to assess under the horrible Western occupation. I guess editing Wikipedia is how the radical left convinces itself that reality really is whatever they want it to be, regardless of evidence or logic. Not to mention that the article is horribly written and needs plenty of copy-editing. I'd tell you to add a POV tag, but really, I know that's been tried before, and the unemployed lefties have nothing better to do but edit Wikipedia, and thus get their way in the end.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are mistaking this article for Culpability for Effects of Iraq Sanctions. As noted in the Talk above, that article may be worth writing, and you are welcome to do so, but this article is Iraq sanctions; the most important features of which are what the sanctions were, how they were carried out, and what the effects may have been. That has been the content of most of the recent round of edits, prior to which a reader had no notion of how the sanctions operated, e.g. no mention of the Multinational Interception Force and little description of the Allocation of Export Proceeds. Certainly the copyeditting can be improved (the "controversies" section is a bit of a hodgepodge) but it must address what is actually in the article; for example, the phrase "some even claim fewer than" does not occur in the existing edition. There are "only" about 80 citations in the article, including multiple references to U.S. Government sources, so concerns about its factual basis seem unreasonable. rewinn (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just nitpicking. The phrase in question was "In the run-up to the Iraq War, some even disputed the idea that excess mortality exceeded 500,000," again with the "even" implying it is somehow outlandish, even though the former Iraqi government is the source of the accepted figure. I guess you deserve some credit for responding. And I actually like the part of the article where one guy represents several ethical codes and shows how favorably they should view Saddam relative to the UN. It is unintentionally hilarious.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But in all seriousness, I shouldn't be so harsh. That section is clearly the product of a good and moral person who is simply confused. And with that, I bid you adieu, because I have no desire to fight over this Wikipedia article. The truth, whatever it is, will win out in the end.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, TheTimesAreAChanging, it's remarkable to see you come on with such sound and fury and then back out so French and nobly. You're factually incorrect about Spagat, Rubin, and the State Department. They're all still right there in the article like the other sources. And by the way, it's your man Spagat who claims fewer than 500,000. He doesn't claim 200,000, 100,000 or none. He says less than 500,000. DanielM (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem upset. Let me start with a bit of a joke: Iraqis ate meat several times a week under the sanctions--Iranians were lucky to do so once a month. Did millions die of malnutrition and hunger in Iran? You clearly have no knowledge of demography or human capacity for suvival.

A study by Michael Rubin in the Middle East Review of International Affairs disputed the idea that the disparity between north and south was caused by anything other than Iraqi government policy. It argued that South and Central Iraq had the means to purchase an amount of supplies equivalent to the amount of money the North received per capita, but that Baghdad simply refused to order them in sufficient quantities. It further noted that the North suffered a separate blockade imposed by the central government, was plagued by civil war, had far worse medical facilities than the rest of the country, had recently been subjected to chemical genocide, and that its development projects were regularly held hostage by the central government. Finally, the study asserts that, because half the funds Northern Iraq received had not been spent, the amount of supplies the North actually purchased were less per capita than what the central government was provided--even with Baghdad deliberately under-ordering goods. The sanctions, in and of themselves, would actually have saved lives (according to the study)--their goal was not to prevent humanitarian supplies from reaching Iraq, but to force the Iraqi government to spend more of its revenue on such commodities (as opposed to weapons). They required the government to spend at least 72% of its income on human services, whereas the government had previously never spent more than 25%. President Bill Clinton argued that Iraq actually had far more money to spend on humanitarian supplies under the sanctions regime than it would have had over the same period based on the trends that existed before the Gulf War, adding that "we have worked like crazy" to avoid the unnecessary suffering of civilians. These are credible sources. They have been removed. There is an extensive State Department rebuttal of all charges about the Iraq sanctions. It is not quoted here.

Spagat's most important contribution is saying that, because no external observers were allowed, there is a possibility that no net loss of life occurred, and no possibility of 500,000 deaths. The article cites him to basically endorse the 500,000 figure.

Why is George Galloway a source, but not Clinton?

Why is there a section on Iraqi attitudes that doesn't include this statement from a Kurdish leader to Rubin: "The sanctions are a miracle. Never before in history has a government been forced to provide for its people."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Let me first urge you to use indents in your comments, so the thread may be more usefully followed.
• The Kurdish quote seems helpful; can you provide a source so it may be included?
• In general, the history of the edits may be seen by examining the diffs.
• Large blockquotes were deleted because they were argumentative and tendentious, rather than explanatory. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum.
• In general, the quotes concerning the wisdom of the sanctions and/or culpability for deaths arising from them have been grossly trimmed because they were repetitive and did not deal with the central thrust of the article, which are the sanctions and not culpability. Clinton's quote is doubly unneeded, since it basically repeated points made by others, and because he is an interested party (...to balance his POV it would have been necessary to quote Saddam and who wants that? nobody.)
• If Spagat's theory is as you describe, then he is a looney; from the information presented, no rational person can conclude that there might not have been any excess deaths as a result of sanctions; even the strongest supporters of the sanctions state plainly that there were excess deaths.
• I don't understand your "joke"; meat is not usually a vector for water-borne diseases; indeed, meat is not essential for survival although most people find it a good food. One doubts Iran under the mullahs should be a standard by which any good thing is measured. rewinn (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper. "From the information presented, no rational person can conclude that there might not have been any excess deaths as a result of sanctions." Really? I guess if you mean information presented in the article, you might have a point. The simple fact is that independent observers were never allowed to conduct their own large-scale surveying to verify the Iraqi government's official claim that over one million people died. Instead, they accepted official Iraqi mortality figures at face value and used them to estimate the death toll--thus amplifying the problem. This is what Unicef did.
• Iraq expert Amatzia Baram compared the country’s population growth rates over three censuses and found there to be almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent), and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent). Demographically, any excess deaths appear either slight or nonexistent.
• Rubin writes: "In 1999, UNICEF released a glossy, detailed report that again concluded that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of one million Iraqis. UNICEF did not complete the report independently however, but rather co-authored it with the Iraqi government’s health ministry (according to the report’s own front cover). It is this report that is most often cited by activists and journalists, although seldom do they refer to it as a joint publication of Saddam’s government. Both current and former UN personnel admit this report to be problematic especially because its statistics come from the Iraqi government, which blocks independent information gathering. Former UN officials related that many statistics are of questionable veracity. One troubling sign of a lack of objectivity is a map on the first page of the first chapter. While purporting to show the region, the map omits Kuwait, and makes it appear that the country is actually part of Iraq. The inclusion of the map raises the issue of what compromises UNICEF made to complete the study." Only a loon would question the figure, right?
• A September 2000 Food and Agriculture report found that half the Iraqi population was overweight and diabetes and hypertension were a leading cause of death.
• Rubin: "Water purity is a problem is some areas of Iraq, much as it is in areas of southern Iran and Bahrain, where it is heavily saline and not potable. In northern Iraq, quality is extremely good: bottled water is not widely available in Irbil or Sulaymaniyah, and most foreigners drink the water without getting sick. Water is also of adequate quality in large government controlled cities like Baghdad, Mosul, and Kirkuk, according to Iraqi travelers. However, the quality of water declines in the predominantly Shi’i cities of Basra and Nasiriya. Nevertheless, the oil-for-food program has already spent more than $1 billion in water and sanitation projects in Iraq. Baghdad estimates that providing adequate sanitation and water resources would cost an additional $328 million. However, such an allocation is more than possible given the billions of dollars in oil revenue Baghdad receives each year under sanctions, and the additional $1 billion dollars per year it receives from transport of smuggled oil on the Syrian pipeline alone. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein’s government has managed to spend more than $2 billion for new presidential palaces since the end of the Persian Gulf War, and offer to donate nearly $1 billion to support the Palestinian intifada, there is no reason to blame sanctions for any degradation in water and sanitation systems."
• "Since the program began, more than 20,000 families throughout Iraqi Kurdistan have been provided with accommodation. Hundreds of schools with thousands of classrooms have been constructed and many more are being planned. Hundreds of kilometers of village access roads have been completed along with water systems, health centers, irrigation channels, veterinary centers, and other works."-Nasreen Mustafa Sideek, minister of reconstruction and development in Iraqi Kurdistan.
• "In the Dahuk and Irbil governorates alone, the oil-for-food program has spent $110 million so far on housing units, $27 million on schools, and $9 million on health centers, $37 million on water projects, and $7 million on sewage channels."-Rubin
• From Rubin's "Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?": Barham Salih, prime minister of the PUK’s half of the Kurdistan Regional Government, recently called the oil-for-food program "truly revolutionary" in that "never before in our history have we had a government obliged by international law to devote Iraq’s oil revenues to the well being of the Iraqi people."
• "A...potential explanation for the strange patterns displayed by the South/Centre in the [data] is that they were not real but, rather, results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."-Spagat.
• "All alleged post-1990 figures on infant and child mortality in Iraq are supplied by the Iraqi government agencies."-Genocide scholar Milton Leitenberg
• Saddam never allowed independent experts to assess conditions in the country. The article used to say this, but now says that they were blocked "at one point," when this never changed.
• "Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, and you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer—$16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer—$19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He’s got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago. If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it’s because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children."-President Clinton
• Again, why are George Galloway and Iraqi propaganda ministers cited for estimates? When did Galloway study demography? Given that Saddam funded Galloway through the OFF program, isn't he an interested party?
• We all know why you show fringe protestors at the start of the article.
• In summary, there are mountains of evidence conclusively disproving the Iraqi propaganda, everyone from Clinton to Rubin to Spagat to Leitenberg to Baram denies that the sanctions themselves necessarily resulted in any deaths, and the Unicef study was based on Iraqi figures and co-authored by the Iraqi government. Accepting this kind of propaganda from an enemy state is truly unheard of in history, and demonstrates an American mentality of profound appeasement. Noam Chomsky and his ilk are frauds.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

People, I don't know how useful all the verbiage above (at the moment, maybe it'll grow more yet) is. I'll acknowledge there's plenty I'm tempted to respond to, and in a similar tone to how it's being expressed, but I don't think it'd do any good, and we need to mind WP:CIV. I'll say that we could include some of the identified information, but it has to be reasonably succinct (WP:WEIGHT) and of course sourced (WP:VERIFIABLE), and the main onus is on the person who wants it in the article to actually put it in there, not just to type at others in discussion, paraphrasing, "why isn't this in there," as if the rest of us are bound to do it. I will zero on one thing section below, hopefully to move forward on it. preceeding by DanielM (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@DanielM, I hope you don't mind my adding your sig to the above, just to make the conversation clearer. Please feel free to revert it you wish. rewinn (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Spagat's claims

It's not any editorial distortion our current text that Prof. Spagat's excess fatality estimate is less than 500,000. That's the number he expressly argues against. He doesn't estimate zero for example, unless you mean "well, zero is less than 500,000 isn't it." An equally futile comeback is "well, so is 499,999." Blame Spagat for the number. If there's a problem with the tone implied by the word "even," as TheTimesAreAChanging said, I invite him to take out that word. I recall where that came from, it'd take too long to explain, it was an inadvertent artifact of a previous edit, not any effort by the most recent editor of the text to suggest 500,000 is any sort of standard estimate, if indeed the tone suggests that. More problematically with Spagat, I noticed, is our text's (estimates section) previously sourcing him for its claim that the Lancet withdrew its 567,000 estimate. First, I'd like to see the Lancet say so, or a press account of the Lancet saying so. Second even Spagat doesn't really say so. (In an ungrammatical and unclear section heading in his paper he does utter the word "withdrawn") but the only basis he provides in detail is that one of the Lancet paper's authors acknowledged that some component of their data may have been flawed. It's in no way a disavowal or withdrawal of the paper's estimate. Third, and I've said this before, let Spagat speak for Spagat, not kibbutz all the estimates of the others. DanielM (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I read the current version, it cites Spagat's paper for the proposition that statistical evidence and the sheer vileness of Saddam argues against a figure in excess of half-a-million, and then it links to the paper itself so that readers can inquire further. That would seem to be plenty of attention for a paper that is a secondary or tertiary source. rewinn (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

USAF As An Authority

There seems to be a lot of United States Air Force support for the concept that destruction of water facilities led to over 100,000 deaths via epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid. For example, see [7]. All the argument over whether money was spent to rebuild water supplies would be besides the point if the deaths occurred anyway. rewinn (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Food/Medicine in Lede

I have added a phrase to the lede to correct the impression otherwise given that they were traded freely. As the citations in this article amply show, neither commodity was freely traded and were generally in inadequate supply despite willing buyers and seller. This is one of the reasons for the excess mortality which is such an important aspect of the sanctions, and therefore the lede should get it right. rewinn (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

UN Resolution Articles As Links

Good news: there now seems to be wikipedia articles for UN Resolutions, e.g. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 so perhaps instead of linking to external sources we can link directly to those articles where appropriate. rewinn (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Casualty Estimates In Lede

There is a unit of measure problem in the casualty estimates in the lede. Ranges should use the same unit of measure to make sense: either civilians or children. A range from X civilians to Y children is confusing. Since children are necessarily civilians, the latter is the better UOM even though it may somewhat understate the maximum estimate. When more inclusive figures (adults and children) are available from reliable sources, they may be put in. Please keep in mind this is a highly sensitive subject and let us discuss calmly in good faith. There is no intent to minimize or to exagerrate, only to have the best possible article. rewinn (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No POV-Pushing In The Lede, Please

The inclusion of one POV in the lede to explaining away hundreds of thousands of deaths is POV-pushing and not permitted, unless contrasting explanations are also including ... which swiftly converts the lede into the main article. So don't do it. Especially don't do it with a source that is not an expert on the subject, but merely an economist. You might as well cite an auto mechanic. rewinn (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanctions against Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iacenter.org/iraqchallenge/water.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Culpability

"under these frameworks, including rights-utilitarianism, moral Kantianism, and consequentialism"

Should that read, "according to utilitarian, Kantian, and consequentialist ethics"? External link isn't working.

Notreallydavid (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

After the sanctions ended what happened to the $11,000,000,000 that Kuwait was owed by Iraq? Did we keep it or the Iraqis? 75.68.248.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)