Talk:Oil-for-Food Programme/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Oil for food before April 29, 2004

The paragraph regarding the agriculture poll is completely irrelevent and outdated. It needs to be removed or updated. As it is, its useless filler.

Text moved here... originally written by User:192.251.125.40


Someone please tell me how the following paragraph is relevent....

At the end of March 2003, a poll made by Agriculture.com indicated 73% of surveyed American farmers supported the invasion of Iraq. The American government estimated that from 300 thousand to 800 thousand tons of American grain could be sent to Iraq after the war, as urgent food supply. Some analysts said American exports would benefit from the war and claim the war would be a help for US wheat and maize, with current sales well behind last year sales. On the other hand, other American industrials argue that American agricultural market is not in such a good shape for Bush action was contrary to the UN advice. Mark Ritchie, from the Agriculture and Trade Policy of Minneapolis said, "After the 11th of September, the USA exportation was welcome all over the world. But in a very short time, that benevolence was lost, and farmers waiting for other countries' benevolence to sell their surplus were bound to suffer."

--- So...whats the verdict on this? I don't think it belongs....


I do not think you are perhaps aware of commercial wars between Europe and the USA. Wheat trade is a very tricky business on most north african countries. USA and Europe groups are heavily trying to get the market, because it represents a lot in terms of commercial balance. In fact, I will go slightly further. The main producer of wheat is France, and France is one of the major exportator toward these countries. On the other hand USA has recently experienced problems with its wheat stocks, and is very much in need to find new markets to absorb its production. North african market is one of the primary directions considered.
In itself, this might be an argument to explain why many american farmers were in favour of the war (new export market).
why do you *exactly* think the oil for food program was set ? Just to help ? No. No help is never free, it was helping Iraki, and it was helping american agricultural market.
as regards the information being outdated...well...if historical polls were removed for being outdated, I wonder what will stay in Wikipedia :-)
I too think this doesn't belong in the article. I don't feel its particularly useful even mentioning the war per se. Maybe if only to mark the end of the program. Point being many people supported the war for many different reasons, to start listing these seems rather useless.
I already suggested that we should entirely remove from Wikipedia the initial reason why Bush wanted the war (the so-called weapons of mass destruction). After all, it was an false reason, so it seems quite useless to keep it. I am quite abashed at the very active attempt of a couple of editors to remove facts that seems not useful to them. what is mentionned above is a fact and a fact that had a lot of impact in the farming world. I do feel it is useful to mention this fact. fr0069

Diversion of funds

Saddam bribed top officials to look the other way, while he subverted the oil for food program:

  • Billions of dollars that were supposed to provide food and medical care to the Iraqi people were used by Saddam Hussein to bribe powerful people around the world into opposing sanctions against his regime. (Washington Times, unsigned editorial)
  • The program was originally designed to provide food and medication to the Iraqi people, after the U.N.-imposed sanctions prevented Saddam from selling Iraqi oil as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Under the program, all money from the sale of oil was supposed to go into U.N. bank accounts in New York to buy food and humanitarian supplies. (ABC News online)

This is relevant to articles which discuss claims that Saddam was a corrupt dictator. It's evidence for the "corrupt" part. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd support a mention of it, although not the 5 paragraphs that TDC wanted to give it over on the main invasion page. Right now it's an allegation, and given the number of allegations of this type that have continually been proven false, and the fact that many of the details of this one just plain smell bad (it claims that the Russian Orthodox Church and a close friend of the pope are in the oil trade, and that George Galloway - who recently had his finances extensively investigated and was cleared, under an earlier accusation that was proven false - was involved. I'd support adding in that the document has come up, and that the UN has launched an investigation. Once the UN reports back, then we can elaborate. As for who of the laundry-list of politicians and groups to include in the mention, I'd say that pro-war people pick their favorites that they find particularly damning, and that anti-war people pick the same number that they think makes the document seem questionable.

What do others think? Rei

I think that anything regarding Bush or Saddam is going to be controversial for many years to come. So rather than dismissing any allegation as "disproved" (or endorsing it as "well-documented") we'll just have to be neutral. That is, report that supporters or critics of either of those powerful dudes made various claims which justify or condemn the other dude. --Uncle Ed 13:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course the goal is to be NPOV; that's not in question. The question is *how* to be NPOV. For example, I would report on it with a two sentence thing about how an unproven document alleges that various church and government leaders, some of whom have already been cleared from similar charges, and that the UN is investigating. Users like TDC, on the other hand, would write 5 paragraphs of innuendo about a dozen people mentioned, and wouldn't mention a word of the controversy surrounding it. In short, the issue I raise is not whether to be NPOV, it is a question of how to be NPOV. The solution I propose is to have both sides take part in the wording. How is this a bad idea? If only one side picks, then you have created a POV reference. --Rei
By the way - if I were to come out with a document that says that Richard Nixon had been photographed in Vietnam with an underage prostitute, and my claim (however unreasonable) had not yet been officially debunked, would it be responsible to simply report that "A document indicates that Richard Nixon was photographed in Vietnam with an underaged prostitute"? Simply reporting on something without elaboration is effectively an endorsement of something. You should know that. Rei
You're right, Rei, and I'm sorry if my defensive tone implied otherwise. How sad it would be if you and I couldn't work together because of my thoughtlessness :-( --Uncle Ed

Looks good to me Rei. TDC 22:37, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect from Oil for food allegations

Given the deletion discussion about the oil for food allegations resulted in a clear majority for a redirect I moved the relevant information from there to here. Get-back-world-respect 13:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, please refrain from converting this into your personal propaganda site. "Benon Sevan is named as a recipient in the ongoing investigation" is not neutral, nor is "Charges of Corruption" when we already have "UN investigation". Your paragraph starting with "The Oil for Food Program was established in 1996" is redundant given the information is already presented in the introduction plus you did not even care to change it appropriately to this article. It does not make sense to place a link to the page you are editing already. Get-back-world-respect 14:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As you complained that "It was supposed to be a merge, not a hack and slash job", I did not change any of the content except the opening because this article of course already presented information about what the program was. Not about the fact that a lot of money was used for reparations to Kuwait though. Get-back-world-respect

Moribund paragraphs

I moved the following paragraphs from the main article:

At the end of March 2003, a poll made by Agriculture.com indicated 73% of surveyed American farmers supported the invasion of Iraq. The American government estimated that from 300 thousand to 800 thousand tons of American grain could be sent to Iraq after the war, as urgent food supply. Some analysts said American exports would benefit from the war and claim the war would be a help for US wheat and maize, with current sales well behind last year sales. On the other hand, other American industrials argue that American agricultural market is not in such a good shape for Bush action was contrary to the UN advice. Mark Ritchie, from the Agriculture and Trade Policy of Minneapolis said, "After the 11th of September, the USA exportation was welcome all over the world. But in a very short time, that benevolence was lost, and farmers waiting for other countries' benevolence to sell their surplus were bound to suffer."
On March 28, Secretary-General Annan, the United States, and Britain asked the Security Council to ensure that nearly $10 billion in goods Iraq ordered and already approved, including $2.4 billion for food, can enter the country when conditions allow. The governments of the 15 council members asked time to study the resolution, to review Iraq's contracts and make sure food and health supply get priority. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, leading negotiations for the UN oil-for-food program, expects that this humanitarian assistance program will be the biggest of the United Nation history. Another $2.1 million could be voted for Iraqi civilians to cover other emergency needs. U.N. officials estimate they may have to help 350 thousand refugees for everything from tents to food.
However, the resolution into discussion makes clear that the chief responsibility for addressing humanitarian consequences of the war would fall to the United States and Britain if they take control of the country. This refers to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on the responsibilities of the occupying power. Discussions at the Security Council meeting over this new resolutions are being made difficults by relationships between the different negociators. On March 27, 2003, US Ambassador John Negroponte walked out in the middle of a speech by Iraq's representative, Mohammed Aldouri, who accused the United States of trying to exterminate the Iraqi people. In private conversations, Russian and Syrian representatives argued against mention in the resolution of coordination with "relevant authorities," because they feared it might legitimize the invasion or a U.S. installed government. Consequently, the draft papers of the new resolution are only evoking the "necessary coordination" rather than putting any reference of coordination led by the USA or Britain in Iraq.

The paragraphs all relate to past issues. If anything can be salvaged from them they have to take into account the occupation, the fact the program is ended, and current situations. Cecropia 20:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Late VfD discussion

Does anyone object to my removing the "Oil for Food Allegations" from the VfD/Old page? We came to agreement on this, but the other admins skipped over it. Guidelines let me do this, but I still wnat to hear from Rei? GBWR? Cecropia 20:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go for it.  :) --Rei

Former VfD discussion for "Allegation" article

The VfD dispute was solved by consensus, Below is the archive of the discussion. Cecropia 21:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Linked to at 2003 invasion of Iraq where a paragraph containing the propaganda was deleted several times. Solely based on a translation posted at freerepublic.com Will we next ask the Ku Klux clan to write an article about "Black slaves as a human right to white Americans"? Or the democratic underground about "Failure of George W. Bush's presidency"? Get-back-world-respect 19:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The freerepublic.com link has now been replaced with a ling from the source of the translation, MEMRI http://memri.org.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA16404

I must also comment on what a weak attempt this is to get an article whose content embarrasses you deleted.

For shame.

TDC 19:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a better link now. However, if at all the information you provide is needed it would be sufficient to include it in the Oil for Food article. But your history of edits against the warning of Rei, 172 and others show you only want to spread propaganda. Get-back-world-respect 23:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Oil for Food Allegations are a serious issue acknowledged by Kofi Annan himself. GBWR wants to make Wikipedia his personal take on world affairs. Read his user page. Cecropia 00:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I declare on my user page why I am interested in online discussions, that does not mean I include propaganda in encyclopedia articles. If you have any valuable argument on the article in question I am interested, if you want to engage in off-topic chat you may be interested in the stuff TDC has on his user talk: A comment about "sucking one's own dick" for which he got banned for some days, as well as "believe you me that you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]".Get-back-world-respect 00:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I already expressed my opinion of the Oil for Food Allegations above. What has TDC and what he puts on his user page have to do with me? Cecropia 00:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you bring up my user page in the discussion about a completely different topic I can show you this is an own goal. The only reason you provided why you think the article should not be deleted was that it is a "serious issue". That is just an opinion, not an argumentation, and it does not address my suggestion to include relevant information in the Oil for Food article.Get-back-world-respect 00:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK, Oil for Food refers to an historical program, since the program is no longer operative. Oil for Food Allegations refers to a formal investigation into alleged corruption in the said program, and is an ongoing issue in itself. Cecropia 02:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the first encyclopedia to cover allegations based on a single newspaper translation with a 55 line article. Get-back-world-respect 11:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What, did you think this was the Encyclopedia Britannica or something? If you don't like the article, find some other sources and balance it out. Mdchachi 14:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Comment - BBC, Guardian, Boston Globe etc. There are plenty of articles on allegations about the Oil for Food program. Average Earthman 17:06, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am ok if a balanced section of the allegations is included in the article about the Oil for Food program. But this article is over 50 lines long, was initially based on a sole article from freerepublic.com and created in a partisan way by abusive TDC. By the way, did you read your Guardian article? <<The high court in London was told the allegation, based on forged documents given to a journalist by an Iraqi general, was "false and without foundation".>>Get-back-world-respect 18:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And so your solution was to try to get it deleted? Quit whining and start editing. Mdchachi | Talk 20:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, my solution was to try to get it deleted because a freerepublic.com translation is clearly not enough to start a new encyclopedia article. I insist that a remark on the Oil for food article would be fully sufficient to cover the allegations. It still could be changed in case ever substantial parts of the allegations turned out to be true.
  • merge into Oil for food and redirectGet-back-world-respect 02:38, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the content into Oil for food and redirect. Edit the content problems there. Rossami 02:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Premature request. Once you get the info into Oil for Food and this page becomes redundant, then come back and ask for deletion. In fact you don't even need to delete, just convert to a redirect. Mdchachi|Talk 20:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be an important story, and one worhty of a page in Wikipedia. TDC 20:15, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Get-back-world-respect's continual reference to the fact that the original article was allegedly based on a freerepublic article suggests that his concern is more ideological than substantive. He continues to harp on this point despite the fact that much material has been added from other sources, including the United Nations, which is investigating the issue. And consider this information from WP Deletion Policy:
Don't list biased articles [for deletion], even heavily biased articles, but add a NPOV dispute header/disclaimer.
The NPOV header is already placed. The article has been in a process of rewrite, and it is a subject separate from the main "oil for food" program issue, the program as such having ended. Attempting to get the article deleted on a bogus technical basis because one wants the content submerged goes beyond POV to an attempt at outright censorship. Cecropia
As 172 explained above, the main article on the UN "Oil for Food" program reports of alleged corruption and mismanagement, and the content could be merged. An entry with the given title has no raison d'etre on WP. This was the course of action taken when, e.g., Conservative views on American homelessness (see Talk:Conservative views on American homelessness) and Michael Moore on U.S. foreign policy (see Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy) found their way on VFD. I did not list this for deletion because of the neutrality dispute but because the extra article is not needed but biased already in the nature of the title. A lot of the initial content had to be deleted because it was not based on facts, such as the allegations against "high ranking members of the Catholic church", "many French firms" and "Kofi Annan himself". Furthermore, reliable sources had to be added, the original article was in fact and not only allegedly solely based on a freerepublic reference, you can easily check that with the history page. TDC created this article when he saw his edit wars at the 2003 invasion of Iraq were fruitless, and his continuously inappropriate writing ("suck your own dick" [1], "you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]" [2], "limp dicked western historians" [3], or "whine fest" [4] shows very well this person is not here to contribute valuable information. The articles can be merged, the "allegation" one can stay as a redirect. Get-back-world-respect 02:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There are two things I see going on here—there is (1) the issue of the people who wrote/edited this article; and (2) the article. I don't know what can be done about what editors say about things. As to the article itself, it should present the issue, and I and others thinks the issue is currently deserving of a valid article. If the article were titled "TDC views on Oil for Food Allegations" or "Get-back-world-respect views on Oil for Food Allegations" I would vote to delete. Cecropia 02:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Allegations" is enough for an inappropriate title, no TDC needed. Get-back-world-respect 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • As for my two cents, I've reluctantly allowed this article - an article solely about unproven accusations - but have had to fight tooth and nail to stop TDC from insinuating allegations as facts and to get him/her to bear the tiny amount of patience it will take to wait for the actual investigation to pan out, before flooding pages full of articles about what is likely just another entry in a long line of since-disproven slander against antiwar figures. Forged documents and all. Personally, I'd vote to see it either deleted or protected until the UN's investigation is completed. --User:Rei
You've "reluctantly allowed this article"? What standing do you claim to allow an article to appear or not? The "unproven accusations" are sufficient for a formal UN inquiry where Kofi Annan himself sees a probability of wronggoing, as yet undetermined as to source (see the article, with attribution). "Until the UN's investigatiom is complete"? Wikipedia is full of unproven allegations and ongoing speculation. Are you prepared to delete half or so of the GWB article? Cecropia 20:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I "reluctantly allowed" it, the same way as I, and every other user on here, completely nonreluctantly doesn't allow edits that they think are inaccurate, misleading, or POV. Sorry if it sounded haughty to you. "... are sufficient for a formal UN inquiry ..." - Actually, the main inquiry isn't covering what most of this article is about (bribery); there is a small side inquiry about the bribery allegations, which are solely based on a single set of documents reported by an Iraqi newspaper. "Wikipedia is full of unproven allegations and ongoing speculation" - I'd like to think that we try for better than that. --Rei
Well then, if you feel that the biggest issues in the allegations aren't covered, the solution would be for you to add those, wouldn't it? rather than seek to have the article deleted. And my point on the "unproven allegations," etc., is that this is the nature of covering current events in Wikipedia. Cecropia 01:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that the article lets it appear as if the UN inquiry gave credibility to the Al Mada bribery allegations. The actual UN inquiry does not seem to be enough of a scandal to be excessively covered in the media. By far more interesting to throw some more mud on the usual suspects such as Galloway. Get-back-world-respect 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Always difficult to write encyclopaedia entries about current events (given that encyclopaedias have to be detached and neutral) but it's got enough details to justify a separate page and putting it in Oil for food would make that page unwieldy. Dbiv 21:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What is the policy in such cases? 172, Mdchachi, Rossami, Jiang, No-One, and I want a redirect, Rei wants it deleted or protected until the UN's investigation is completed, and Cecropia, Dbiv, and abusive TDC want to keep it as it is. I know that a clear majority is needed for a deletion but in case of a redirect? Get-back-world-respect 03:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's clearly no consensus for deletion, which implies the material be removed. Five days haven't passed, and it will be several days more before a decision is made as the deletions by admins are behind. The policy also says: "When in doubt, don't delete." If I were making the decision, I would depend on the guideline I quoted above: "Don't list biased articles [for deletion], even heavily biased articles, but add a NPOV dispute header/disclaimer." But since this is contentious, and I voted on it, I recuse myself from making the decision.
P.S. I would also have MDCHACHI clarify his/her vote, because it says both "Keep" and "Redirect". Cecropia 04:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep OR move entire-article AS IS into a section in Oil for Food. Either way the article needs work, it doesn't matter to me where you work on it. Mdchachi|Talk 14:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, well, if you redirect the redirection link must be kept, right? I explained above why I initially listed the page for deletion, plus I do not know of a list for redirection. Get-back-world-respect 04:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I could go for merging and redirection, but only if the text is transferred complete and then continue with editing and give-and-take as before (i.e., still have to justify individual changes from what pre-existed). And, yes, policy says the redirect link be kept if the article isn't deleted. BUT the VfD on this is still running, so I would take no such action until after an admin acts on it. Cecropia 04:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • merge with Oil for food. There's plenty of space there and not much here worth merging. This article is inherently POV. --Jiang 04:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just about every article about current events that is at all controversial is inherently POV. In the case of this article, keeping it could be considered POV for people who don't like the UN; OTOH, deleting it could be considered POV as trying to cover up possible wrongdoing in the UN. Cecropia 04:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That is not true, an article about the occupation of Iraq does not have to be POV, and neither the Kerry nor the Bush article have a neutrality dispute message because people balance out each other. The article debated here is POV by its title already, and no one wants to hide valuable information, just move it to were it belongs. Since we have a seven to three majority I start moving. Get-back-world-respect 11:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If the article is POV and you don't like it, then it seems to me that the solution is to edit it and try to make it NPOV. I don't have a problem with the title but if there is consensus against it, then change it. How about Oil for Food Investigations? Mdchachi|Talk 14:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Summarize, merge into Oil for food, and redirect. The arguments have already been made. —No-One Jones 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What to do about recent edit wars

I could point to dozens of entries in Wikipedia which give put too much emphasis on certain aspects of controversial topics. Either this information gets its own page (again) or it stays, either way we should debate this here,t on the talk page before any more changes are made. TDC 20:41, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Every mother knows that "He did it, too!" is not a valid excuse. You know very well that you have attempted to devote a preposterous percentage of this article to allegations instead of to the facts of the structure, operation, founding, etc of the OFF, and that this is almost a textbook definition of POV. It doesn't take a genius to look at the article and tell that you had, singlehandledly and against the wishes of the other editors on here, attempted to turn it into an article that has 3 to 4 times more allegation than fact. You have continually refused to listen to everyone else editing this article. In short: either link to sites making all of the scandal allegations, or leave it alone. Your changes are not wanted, your scandal-mongering is not wanted, your turning wikipedia into a tabloid rag is not wanted - it is all not wanted. --Rei
A great deal of Wikipedia is nothing more than bullshit polemics and feeble left wing attempts at rewriting history. Too many people go to this site to allow this to happen. These so called allegations are more fact than allegation at this point chief. The only reason that they have to be labeled as alleged is because the truth hurts far to many sensitive egos here. The number of hoops I have had to jump over (documentation, sourcing, justifications) when making contributions to any entry far outweigh the standards applied to other people.
If you believe that I have devoted a preposterous percentage to these allegations, then let us break off the article into another seperate page. You know just as well as I do that most if not all of these allegations will be proven dead on in the coming months.
When is an allegation no longer an allegation?TDC 21:14, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
A great deal of Wikipedia is nothing more than bulshit polemics and feeble left wing attempts at rewriting history.
To borrow a favorite right wing saying... "Love it or leave it". If you're going to insult wikipedia that way, get the heck out of here. Wikipedia has produced a *lot* of really good material. If you're going to treat it this way, pick up and go elsewhere.
The reason that these things are "alleged" is because they are alleged. If they were more than alleged, there wouldn't be investigations. An investigation is the process of turning an allegation into facts. These are *allegations*. And you don't have the iota of patience to wait for an investigation before giving us a 4:1 ratio of allegation to encyclopedic details.
To you, this is some sort of big political game. Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. We strive for *balance*. Even I, who hated the invasion of Iraq and the demonization of Saddam, have been over on the talk page about human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam advocating inclusion of more references. We need *BALANCE*, and that is something you seem to have no concept of. It's just some political game in some sort of left-wing debate forum to you.
Do you see me over on the Bush page shoving in allegations of Bush's cocaine use? Do you see me over on Israel/Palestine pages shoving in allegations of the Israeli art ring spies? Do you see me over on the Sept. 11th page pushing allegations that Bush didn't care about 9/11? No? It's because I actually *care* about balance on Wikipedia. I actually care about proof. You, on the other hand, love the slightest bit of gossip and preach it as to pages of gospel truth even when there are investigations upcoming. It's sickening. This isn't a tabloid - you just don't do stuff like that. --Rei
Now quite a bit of the allegations have gone but a new one of an obviously not unbiased individual has gotten its own paragraph? I do not know if this improves on the article. Get-back-world-respect 23:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"The number of hoops I have had to jump over (documentation, sourcing, justifications) when making contributions to any entry far outweigh the standards applied to other people." TDC, have you ever wondered if this might be fue to the nature of your edits? You excessively spread allegations, rumours and gossip, present "facts" that are indeed only statements of a government, and you have repeatedly misbehaved and tried to insult others. Get-back-world-respect 00:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've protected the article. Please work out your differences here on the talk page. I'm just protecting the current version and am in no way expressing an opinion about which is correct. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:30, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

From a post to Bcorr's talk page:
Unfortunately, this issue is unlikely to be resolved on talk without outside intervention. Would you mind stepping in with an outsider's perspective? The situation so far is that there are three active users working on this article: myself (Rei), Get-Back-World-Respect, and TDC. Both Get-Back-World-Respect and myself are advocating for an article about oil for food which is at least *half* about the program; certainly with no more than half of the article about allegations that are currently under investigation. TDC wants to make the article 4:1 about the allegations. Get-Back-World-Respect and myself find this completely unreasonable; at least until the allegations (who are being pushed by Ahmed Chalabi, hardly a reliable figure) are investigated (it's only going to take a few months); otherwise, it is smear. We're perfectly willing to leave a whole half of the article not about the Oil For Food program (which a real encyclopedia would be all about), but about the allegations. But 4:1 just seems ridiculous. Would you mind stepping in with your opinion on the subject? I don't think TDC and our differences will just get resolved on their own; we've been trying to resolve them for a long time, and it hasn't gotten anywhere.
Bcorr suggested that we put in a request for comments, which I have done. Hopefully, we'll start to get some outside opinions here now. --Rei

I have a sneaking suspiscion that a request for comment portion would not alleviate my concerns on this subject, so I will not be bound by it.

I will suggest again, why not make a new page for this (again)?TDC 16:44, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your "concerns"? Have you yet even addressed why you think this should have a 4:1 accusations/facts ratio, or your inability to wait for investigations to pan out (a few months)? This is not a gossip site. This is not a tabloid. We hold higher standards than that. Apparently you don't. --Rei

You seem to believe that all of my contributions are nothing more than pure speculation, and have little if any basis on facts. Well my contributions to the article have been verified by a GAO investigation, and it came to the same conclusions that I have included in the article, and can be summed up here.

  • 1.Money from the UN’s oil for food program was being diverted to the private bank accounts of Saddam Hussein.
  • 2.The vast majority supply contracts were being given out to companies based mainly on following conditions.
  • They were based in nations who’s governments sat on the UN security council and had a great deal of involvement with the Iraqi state oil industry.
    They were based on the companies willingness to deliberately overcharge for supplies and covertly provide a percentage of the overcharged amount back to the regime.
  • 3. Individuals who were given oil sales contracts were Hussein supporters, anti-sanctions activist, or influential persons within the UN Oil for Food program.
  • 4. Individuals at the UN were at best grossly negligent and at worst criminally culpable in this.
  • 5. The corruption began when Ben Sevan took over the program.

The Al Mada list that you so flippantly disregard, is not a list at all. It is more a compilation of 1000’s of documents pertaining to the illegal activities of both the UN as well as the former Iraqi regime. No one to date has come forward and claimed that the information obtained from the Iraqi Oil Ministry (the Al Mada “list”) is fraudulent.

Considering that this will go down in history as the biggest corruption scandal of all time and has the potential to permanently cripple the reputation and perceived legitimacy of the UN (depending on how the UN handles this), these ‘’allegations’’ are far more important than the original program.TDC 18:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

1) The GAO report isn't hardly as damning as you're portraying it. Get off your high horse and read the report. The report doesn't claim that the individuals of the UN were criminally culpable or anything like that; they primarily fault the layout of the program for letting money go through (things like not having the sanctions committee do price review), but they don't accuse anyone of any sort of personal profiting or hidden motives. That is what almost all of your smear is doing. In short, leave the GAO out of your smear, because the report doesn't back it up.

The report most certainly does back up every claim I made. Mabey you should take off you rose colored glasses and put down the picture of Kofi Annan in the heart shaped frame, and go read it again. TDC 19:25, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Point to where in the document they mention Sevan. Point to where they criticize the nationality of the companies. Point to where they say the UN was involved in the overcharging. Point to where they say that the contracts were given to leaders who were Hussein supporters. Point to where they say anyone at the UN was criminally culpable. Can you do any of that? --Rei
2) The Al-Mada list has been provided by the oil ministry. Who is the head of the oil ministry? Bahr Il Uloom. He's friend of multi-count felon embezzler Ahmed Chalabi, which is currently under investigation from the US for misuse of government funds and whose INC continually lied to the US and the media in the runup to the war and has been shunned by almost everyone, including your hero David Kay.

Are you trying to say that simply because Bahr Il Uloom is friends with Chalabi that the documents have little if any validity? Did Uloom spend 8 months forging documents so as to smear his enemies? Interestingly, some of the people on the documents have admitted to their role in the ‘’allegations’’, they too must be part oft his grand conspiracy to destroy the UN’s credibility.

Chalabi and his friends have continually used forged documents and false testimony to try and get their way. What on earth makes you think they'll change now?

I see, so its ‘’wrong’’ to imply that Cotecna received the inspection contract because Kofi Annan’s son worked for them. It must also be ‘’wrong’’ to imply that Galloway’s efforts to end the sanctions had anything to do with the fact (of which Galloway admitted) that Miram Appeal was receiving money from Iraqi “ex-pats” loyal to Saddam. But we can say that it is alright to imply that Uloom forged thousands of documents because he happens to be friends with Chalabi.

Where the hell is the logic in that? TDC 19:25, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Galloway admitted that it was *possible* that some people that donated to Miriam Appeal were connected to Saddam, but that he had no knowledge of it. How on earth would donations to Miriam Appeal help convince Galloway to oppose the war when Miriam Appeal itself was founded by Galloway to attempt to end the sanctions and make the west aware of Iraqi suffering? How much more circular can you get than that? Yes, I know that, to you, if someone opposed the war, they must have loved Saddam and been on his payroll, and that the fact that it is circular logic is irrelevant to you.
It is wrong to imply that Cotenca received the contract because Kojo was a *consultant* for them without evidence. What evidence do you have that it was due to Kojo that they received the contract? Who else was even competing for the contract? How many companies do you think there are that do international inspection services and can show up on a 24 hour notice? Can you name a single competitor? Can you evidence that Kojo was involved at all? If not, they're not only allegations, but they're unfounded allegations.
By the way, you're apparently unfamiliar with Chalabi's spat with the UN. It's flared up again recently with Brahimi, who stated that Chalabi will not be welcome in the new government, and Chalabi accused Brahimi of being an Arab nationalist with a hidden agenda. We have a guy who sent forged documents and lying "defectors" galore to the press and the government, with a known grudge against the UN, one of his allies "comes up with documents" that accuse the UN and people who opposed the war (that Chalabi and his friends fought so hard for - "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."), and to you it deserves 4:1 worth of smearing allegations to content? --Rei
3) Even if *ALL OF THIS WEREN'T THE CASE*, what you have are *STILL* allegations under investigation. What is so hard about this for you to understand? Why do you feel the need to fill the article at a 4:1 ratio with allegations instead of the details of the OFF program? --Rei

Because you are to lazy to expand the first portion, or because you want to pull a Stalin and airbrush out information that makes your chums look bad. TDC 19:25, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Just looking at that page I started myself, I notice that basically 90% of what I originally wrote has been removed. When you guys are over with your edit war, I'll come back to reinsert this. I saw no clear argument for the censorship. SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's sad what this article has turned into, isn't it? Your version was a pretty good article (apart from the agriculture line, which was discussed above); it has now become a UN-bashing tabloid rag. --Rei
The agricultural line has been discussed by ONE person only. I found the arguments non convincing. Unless there are more arguments brought to explain basically the deletion of 90% of the original article (which, forgive me for saying, brought some material from the perspective of a 1) non english 2) person from the agricultural sector) was not justified. Basically, that was just information removal by someone with another perspective. I find this inappropriate on Wikipedia. I'll come back to it in a couple of month :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
it has now become a UN-bashing tabloid rag, Boo freakin hoo. TDC 17:40, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Allegations and Investigation

I guess one of my main points on this subject is that you refuse to acknowledge what I have contributed, because they are nothing more than allegations. Allegations of corruption and graft have not been properly investigated and therefore deserve no place here and will not deserve a place here until a full and formal investigation has been completed. I could make the argument on a number of other Wiki articles.

Henry Kissinger’s entry is devoted more to ‘’allegations’’ made about him than his background. Diebold has much more content relating to allegations that it is involved in schemes of voter fraud than on the company itself. ChoicePoint has more information on its alleged involvement in vote fixing in the 2000 election, than on the company. The IMF page has what one could consider a disproportional amount of the article dedicated to criticizing the article based on allegations. Augusto Pinochet’s entry has a raging debate as to whether or not to include a substantial amount of allegations that the CIA was involved in his coup. The allegations in these pages come directly and indirectly from the work of investigative journalists.

These are just a few of the many topics I could have chosen as examples, but I think they make my point more them well enough.

My contributions on the Oil for Food program and the allegations that surround it has all been researched by investigative journalists as well. Now, these may not be the garden variety left of center investigative journalism people like you are so in love with, but never the less these people, like Claudia Rosett (who testified under oath in front of the House Subcommittee on National Security.), put just as much effort into the work they do as Greg Palast. They just have to perform at a higher level of scrutiny and integrity than their left of center counterparts.

Now if we as a community see no problem with articles, like the ones mentioned above, that devote a seemingly disproportionate amount of space to allegations made in large part by left-of-center investigative journalists, then why do some of us see a problem doing this in the Oil For Food article?

It seems that once again, there are two standards. TDC 19:59, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

First off, I'm not involved in the Kissenger article. Secondly, it is at most half devoted to allegations - something that I've said I would accept here. Finally, the Kissenger stuff has been far, far, far more investigated than this. Surely you will admit all three of those points. I am also not involved in the Diebold, Choicepoint, IMF, and Pinochet articles. While Diebold and Choicepoint certainly could use more balance (don't complain - do!) (both of them have been more investigated than this, especially Choicepoint), IMF is a 1:1 criticism/content ratio, and Pinochet - who has been extensively investigated - has perhaps a 1:7 criticism/content ratio. None of these are even close to what you are trying to do to this article.
You claim investigations. What journalist showed that there actually was oil given as per the al-Mada list? What journalist showed that Kojo Annan had anything at all to do with the Cotenca deal? What journalist did any of this sort of stuff? There is a reason that there are investigations currently - to see if any of this has merit.. What is hard about that for you to understand? Why don't you have the ability to wait the short amount of time for the investigations before edit-warring over a 4:1 allegation/content ratio?
By the way - I'm still looking for a response to one of my earlier comments: "Point to where in the document they mention Sevan. Point to where they criticize the nationality of the companies. Point to where they say the UN was involved in the overcharging. Point to where they say that the contracts were given to leaders who were Hussein supporters. Point to where they say anyone at the UN was criminally culpable. Can you do any of that? "
These were what you claimed the GAO said. Prove it. --Rei
I support Rei's points that the Pinochet article has by far less allegations than this one, that much more is known about those allegations than the ones TDC wants to include here and that some of what he writes has no sources. I also point out that TDC started his allegations based on an entry from clearly partisan "free"republic.com, that he is known to be an abusive user listed as a vandal, and that it is unwise to protect his version. A neutral party is needed. Get-back-world-respect 23:09, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oil-for-Food_Programme/Archive_1&oldid=1172287454"