Talk:WMD conjecture after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

GA review

Ok, I am the GA reviewer of this article. If you have any questions about the GA review just leave a message here or on my talkpage. Regards, Daimanta 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am havinf major problems with this article. The layout is strange and there is little to no context in this article. The first thing I would like to see is what this is about. I need to see things about why there were WMD inspections in the first place and what was the result of these inspections. Regards, Daimanta 18:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since there is no response I will fail this article within 24 hours if there are no comments. Regards, Daimanta 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you would like the introduction re-written? Judgesurreal777 15:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some context. It should be possible for someone who has never heard about the American-Iraqi war, to read this article and understand what this is about. This article should be able to be independent of other articles as much as reasonably possible. Why is it important that there are no WMDs in Iraq? Why is there a focus on WMDs? What did the UN say about it? Etcetera, etcetera. Regards, Daimanta 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I failed this article. There is no context to draw information from and that makes this article relatively useless. Without context, no GA. Regards, Daimanta 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is hardly neutralVexorg 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and I see nothing BUT POV article in wikimedia in general and wikipedia in particular (dangerosuly biased in favor of liber,al anti-Ameircan and "anti-war" sentiments). It presents the theories as theories, takes no outright position on them, but does contain cotrary viewpoints, as an unbiased article should. This is a rare occasion of real nuetraility... And that is applaudable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.163.79 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I have to agree with Vexorg. Discounting evidence from sources outside the Western media as 'conspiracy theories' shows clear bias. Indeed, the bulk of the article lists sources which each report a neighbor of Iraq receiving chemical weapons from Iraq, usually guarded by Syrian forces. --DeknMike (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is incorrectly titled

This page has nothing to say about the real world WMD search. Force 20 (Delta Force specialists) first sought to uncover WMD caches before the 2003 invasion. Site Survey Teams took over during the initial invasion period. Following behind was the better equipped 75th Exploration Task Force. Next came the Iraq Survey Group. What we have on this page (Post-Saddam WMD search) is a string of speculative theories conflated with a handful of ISG findings. A more appropriate title would be WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The thinly sourced Operation Sarindar can then be merged with Ion Mihai Pacepa, John A. Shaw, WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and a direct link can be added to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction because right now the same theories are scattered across four or five different pages. smb 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, if it makes a stronger whole. Please keep in mind that at the end of the merger, let's make sure that the whole is not pro or anti war, trying to keep POV out of it all together :) Judgesurreal777 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The move would basically consolidate the various WMD theories absent the official ISG findings (which don't need repeating on the new page). Post-Saddam WMD search can serve as a redirect until someone provides actual detail of the weapons search. smb 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is done. Here's the new page: WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war Now I think we need to look closely at Operation Sarindar, which is thinly sourced, and consider merging it with the pages mention above. smb 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though Operation Sarindar now redirects to the poorly titled Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy, and the article is filled with dubious sources. I think a merge is appropriate. csloat 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs another retitle, I think. This page currently exclusively covers neoconservative conjecture. No coverage for "it was a war for strategic oil resources with a known flimsy cover story"? Seriously? Suggest retitling to "Conservative WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq" 203.59.80.62 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Theories versus hypotheses

From the Wikipedia article on Theory:

“ In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. ”

This is a common usage of the word. I do not think any English speaking person could possibly think this article is using the scientific definition of this term. The article was moved and every mention of theory was changed to hypothesis (which is clumsy and implies that we are trying to use some type of scientific definition). How does this change make the article better? Ursasapien (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, and whoever did that should stop. csloat (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The two words mean completely different things in the context of this article. A theory is something which is generally accepted and has a large body of supporting evidence. Maybe this is what you are trying to imply by using the word theory here - but that is just your POV; the generally accepted viewpoint now is that there was no conspiracy, and no weapons of mass destruction.

Why use an ambiguous non-scientific word, why a perfectly reasonable, valid, and well used NPOV alternative exists? What exactly are you trying to achieve by insisting on doing this? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to the argument that this is a non-scientific article, and hence is allowed to be sloppy and clumsy with language: I disagree. All articles should be as precise as possible. And the work of the Iraq Survey Group, and thousands of weapons researchers around the world, which this article is supposed to cover, was certainly scientific. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The two words mean nothing "in the context of this article." The two words have specific but different definitions in the fields of science and mathematics, but in common parlance theory and hypothesis are synonymous (as illustrated by WP's article on theory). I know the point you are driving at, but I think "hypothesis" is no more neutral than "theory" and is more awkward in common English (outside of the realm of science and math). It is very common on Wikipedia to use the word theory in this way. It never implies "generally accepted [with] a large body of supporting evidence." The connotation is more along the lines of opinion or guess. Please examine whether you are trying to improve the article or just make a point. I will make no assumptions, but I think it makes the article more clunky without clarifying anything. Ursasapien (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me give an example. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has the character Sherlock Holmes say, "I am beginning to form a theory," no one would argue that the author is trying to use this word to mean "generally accepted [with] a large body of supporting evidence." And I think no one would argue that Doyle was being "sloppy and clumsy with language." The article could be entitled, WMDs in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. However, this may imply that such weapons exist. The current article aptly describes that some people have alternate explanations regarding WMDs in Iraq. Ursasapien (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that Sherlock Holmes used the word 'theory' correctly in that case - he wasn't talking about forming some random idea of a thing that might have been possible, but of forming a plausible model of what had occurred based on observation of evidence, logical reasoning, and deduction. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my dear Watson. Now, if you are intending to say that the various concepts detailed in this article were not arrived at "based on observation of evidence, logical reasoning, and deduction" then I think you need to write a "Criticism of . . ." section (with appropriate sources, of course). Be careful to not introduce POV in an effort to remove POV. Neutrality is not equal amounts of positive and negative POV. Ursasapien (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...the work of the Iraq Survey Group, and thousands of weapons researchers around the world, which this article is supposed to cover, was certainly scientific. This is distinct from other pages that detail working groups and scientific processes that went into uncovering Iraqi's weapons programs. Post-Saddam WMD search currently redirects here, so if you wish to start such a page, now is a good opportunity. smb (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WTA#Theory. It states "Do not use theory to mean guess or speculation. Words for guesses or speculations in science and history include 'hypothesis' and 'conjecture'." This is a historical article, and theory is an inappropriate word. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Chris, we are not talking about guesses or pure speculation. This article is about researched ideas about what happened to weapons we surely knew were there. Ursasapien (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the point? According to you, we surely knew the WMDs were there. According to the vast majority of experts, there were no WMDs. Now who is pushing their point of view here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing semantics for the sake of introducing your idiosyncratic point of view. For other uses of "theory" in titles see:

• Conspiracy theory
• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• Ancient astronaut theories
• Kennedy assassination theories
• AIDS conspiracy theories
• List of conspiracy theories

Ursasapien (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

there were no weapons

[W]hy isn't there such a section with this title? try not to be so blatantly biased. 72.0.72.121 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a section for this case (it seems ridiculous to ignore it completely!). Adding in supporting information from CNN, the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the CIA's Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD report.--206.195.19.51 (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to describe various allegations that Saddam buried his weapons and/or moved them to Syria, etc. It's not conjecture that Saddam destroyed large stockpiles of prohibited material in the early 1990s, with UNSCOM destroying most of what was left, but rather a documented fact. Iraq retained no WMD, experts do agree. Dynablaster (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What about this? https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?referer&_r=1 Jokem (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You asked the same question on the Saddam Hussein article's talk page, so I will repeat what I wrote there: "As the article says, 'These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion, and they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.' When the Iraq War was launched, the Bush Administration argued that Saddam was still manufacturing WMDs and had lied when he said he had dismantled the program. This is quite different from insurgents and other persons locating abandoned weapons from many years ago and using them against American troops in Iraq or hoping to sell them." --Ismail (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We know he had chemical weapons, and that they were still viable. His brother's international nickname was 'Chemical Ali' and they had used them on their own population. Also, Syria did not seem to have chemical weapons before the US invaded, supporting the 'movement' theory. DeknMike (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Who is "we" in this context? Chemical Ali was a cousin of Saddam, not his brother. No one denies he was well-deserving of his nickname, but the fact remains that in the years following the Gulf War, Iraq dismantled its WMD program. You're going to need stronger evidence than "Syria did not seem to have chemical weapons before the US invaded," since it does not logically follow that if Syria has chemical weapons, it must have gotten them from a functioning WMD program in Iraq. --Ismail (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This article leaves out the theory that turns out to be the most likely theory

Namely: the "The Bush Administration knew fully well that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth when he said he had no WMDs, and Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspection Team was correct when it said that it's investigations had revealed that Iraq had no WMDs" theory.==

That is OPINION, not fact. It should not be included as 'fact' but as opinion (ie, as a theory: "Teh "No Such Weapons" Theeory" and above, with the apporpriate counterpoint). This is that rare gem of unbiased wikipedia article, lets not ruin it with an open bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.163.79 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, let's not ruin it with open bias against presence of weapons. There is speculation the chemical weapons were given to Iraq as part of the Reagan Administration's fight with Iran; we knew, the theory goes, because we gave them to him. DeknMike (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy

It may be of interest to editors here that Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy has been nominated for deletion. ~ smb 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Meagre criticism

I really don't know where user SJSA is going with this. Removal of information that fails NPOV is fine -- as was the case in this instance (diff) because saying "Koppelman found reason to doubt both Sada's and al-Tikriti's statements" lends credence to his conclusion -- but that sentence has now been corrected. There is no guideline, so far as I am aware, that prevents editors from adding a short sentence, effectively saying Person X disagrees with Person Y, before furnishing a reference (or 3 as in this case). If you want to expand criticism, please go right ahead, but I have deliberately avoided doing so because the main purpose of this article is to describe the various allegations re Saddam's illegal weaponry, and what may have happened to it, if undetected by UN weapon inspectors. With this in mind, I'm going to restore these sourced additions and ask that you not remove them again without good reason, and without citing directly the relevant guidline. Dynablaster (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

Move it to something like "WMD conspiracy theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War". Reluctance to call these conspiracy theories what they are gives them unwarranted credence. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was named WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War until November of 2009, but I renamed it after reading the Words to avoid guideline. (diff) Dynablaster (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Theory" and "conspiracy theory" have very different meanings, though. But I guess using "conspiracy theory" could be argued to have NPOV issues. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

That is the name for unfounded conjectures. This article fills a much needed void, i.e. there is no good reason for it to exist. The scope is intrinsically biased, and unbiased (or less biased) articles on this topic exist. NPguy (talk)

This page shoudl exist, as a little universe to itself, to keep those other pages on topic with nothing more that a refrence to "theories exist as to wht WDM's were not found" and a link.

Saddam's Interogation

In the intrests of balance, some refrence should be made to the theory that they never even existed, but were merely a ploy used by Saddam to scare his neighbors, as allegeded by FBI Agent George Piro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Saddam_Hussein). (No judgement on the validity of the claims should be offered, other than outside assesments such as Solomon Hughes' comment in the ssame article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.163.79 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2017 edits

In light of all these TP posts and the fact that this article barely changed since the mid 2000's, I've started to update much of it. The official position of the CIA since 2004 has been that Iraq had no WMDs and wasn't producing any of WMDs. The international community and media has agreed with this view. As such, no undue credence should be given to alternative theories. They can be described as long as this is made clear. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Niche-gamer, if you don't want to press "revert" to notify me of your reversion then please at least notify me when replying to the justification I had given on this talk page. Undoing several large edits silently prevents the other editor from discussing the changes. Wikipedia does not have "relic" articles. "Accusations of" articles are not one-sided and include counter-reasoning, such as Guantanamo Bay homicide accusations. If the subject has been proven, such as at History of Lance Armstrong doping allegations, this is also noted. Therefore, "alternative" theories should be presented as such. The now most widely accepted idea that Iraq cancelled its WMD program in 1991 was also "conjecture" in 2003, yet it's not mentioned once. Many of the claims in the article were made by people who later changed their minds, or are still given as fact. Removing statements such as "The official findings by the CIA in October 2004 were that Saddam "did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them."" because the article is about conjecture is an unsatisfying reason. Much of the article describes current or recent events and statements, yet only from one side: Other investigative bodies continue to examine material evidence relating to past programs. --- Rumors have abounded of possible transportation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to foreign countries, namely Syria, Lebanon and Iran, in the weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. John Bolton told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that these reports give "cause for concern." Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)