Talk:U.S. Democrats highlight water quality issues for troops in Iraq

No actionable objections?

Apparently Amgine made a mistake by tagging this article as he says "see talk" but there is nothing here. Maybe he meant to tag a different article? I will wait awhile before removing tag to see if he comes forward with something. Neutralizer 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The documents cited in this article are third and more hand removed, yet are being quoted as stating facts which are not in fact supported.

According to Haliburton employees and internal documents, coalition troops at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water and Halliburton blocked efforts to alert the U.S. military.

This lede includes misinformation and unsupported statements. According to a former Kellog, Brown, and Root employee's testimony to Senate Democrats, and documents he created and filed, KBR employees were exposed to water which tested twice as high for contaminates as the raw water from the river Euphrates. Although it is quite possible this water is dangerously contaminated there are no facts sited here which allows the statement "contaminated water" (all water is considered contaminated, btw; the degree of contamination is what is measured.)

Further, these were KBR employees who were exposed; the US military may have been using the exact same water sources, but we don't have facts which say this. And the accusation is that KBR blocked the reporting of this to the US military, and KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton but is yet a separate company.

Similar misinformation and innuendo is used in this article, resulting in a strong POV bias in this article. This is a misuse of sources, but its strongly political nature suggests it is done with purpose and malice and so it is tagged as a violation of NPOV. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith,Amgine

Amgine, I will not be baited but your comment above "its strongly political nature suggests it is done with purpose and malice" does not sit well with either me nor the project's stated policy of assume good faith. You've preached this policy enough; how about following it yourself? Neutralizer 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to include all of Halliburton's responses. I don't think any edits by me will satisfy Amgine since he is assuming malice on my part. In the name of peace I will have to leave this article to others. Neutralizer 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the initial version of this article has been written based on the authors world-view and the support given to that by the sources which are not clear that the promotion of this issue is partisan. I have made a number of edits, and I would appreciate if any outstanding issues be specified here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)