Misplaced Pages

Talk:Iraq War/to do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Iraq War Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:11, 13 March 2012 editSnootcher (talk | contribs)89 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:26, 13 April 2012 edit undoStumink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,573 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
*More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations. *More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
* Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks. * Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.
*Get better more credible estimated excess deaths estimate than Lancet. Preferably get rid of it if possible since it is actually an Estimated violent deaths and we already have Iraq War Body Count. Read my comments at the bottom of the page on this.

Revision as of 17:26, 13 April 2012

Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:

  • Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
  • More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
  • Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.
  • Get better more credible estimated excess deaths estimate than Lancet. Preferably get rid of it if possible since it is actually an Estimated violent deaths and we already have Iraq War Body Count. Read my comments at the bottom of the page on this.