Talk:Salt Pit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This article needs citations badly.

[edit]  !!

i second that. article needs dates and info as in from where was this article info recieved.

Agreed. It also needs to be checked for neutral point of view. I'm not fond of torture or "death in custody" situations, personally, and this is sickening to me. Still, Wikipedia isn't a forum for personal viewpoints. The phrasing of statements regarding the "bright and eager" CIA case officer involved seems biased to me. Anyone else feel the same way?

P.S.: Hyperlinks need to be added to that same section. I'm not touching that until this is resolved, though.Moonsword 02:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Both the Washington Post and the Bostom Globe quoted colleagues of the CIA officers using the phrase "bright and eager" while describing him.

The article does have an external links section. You realize that if you felt the wikipedia article was insufficiently detailed you could have read the external links? And, if you were so inclined, you could have added those details yourself. -- Geo Swan 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not the "bright and eager" part I'm referring to. That part was cited for clarity on what I was referencing, not the characterization itself. Bad writing on my part. Sorry.I didn't take a close enough look at the links and (mistakenly) thought they didn't refer to that section. The request for hyperlinks was meant for references inside Wikipedia, btw. Anyway, I'm looking up the details now to edit the page. -- Moonsword 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed that section and edited it extensively as well as getting more sources. Better? -- Moonsword 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)