Talk:Energy Task Force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Removed a Cat
I removed [[Category:Government of the United States]] from this page as this is not a formal government agency, branch or department. This Government of the U.S. cat is for institutions of the government.
Epolk 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article smacks of political partisanship.
Much of said appearance would be greatly alleviated if the reader were directed to the original source. The link below will get you there.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
67.128.169.97 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry.
- What exactly "smacks" you about this article? It seems totally objective to me.
- That link is to a web page full of blurbs -- it does not cover the Cheney Energy Plan recommendations. It would be great to get a link to the actual Cheney Energy Plan recommendations. People report that it recommends increasing US consumption of both MidEast oil, and of South American oil, and it recommends getting control of the main reserves (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran) to enable highly-capitalisation intensive upgrades to increase oil flow. These are fairly straightforward and reasonable, if debatable goals, and it would be good to present them, somewhat separately from the current article's focus on secrecy, possible corruption, and so forth. The main article should be about the actual strategy, not the rather side issues of secrecy/corruption/undue influence/whatever. Harvard yarrd
- do we still know all the details of the actual strategy to list? it seems like maybe the article is just fairly representing the parts which have not been released, and speculating what was in the classified section and why it was classified. --68.78.2.189 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures of the Energy Task Force ?
Does anybody have pictures of the Energy Task Force ?
Thank you,
J23yrne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.190.145 (talk) 15:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consistent Left-Wing POV Here
This aricle stands as a benchmark example of ideologs in 'acamedia' (secular progressives) taking over how an issue is defined and the Wikipedia fairness doctrine is violated...viz: "people report, possible corruption, etc." indeed! A major offense to the encyclopedic project and revolting to witness the denial that the approach 'smacks' of any bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.246.65.114 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)