Talk:Rihab Taha

Untitled

I've just expanded the stub considerably. This note is to say that I haven't finished yet, and will be putting up references over the next week or so. Slim 10:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Have also redirected the page from Rihab Rashid Taha, as she is more commonly known as Rihab Taha. The old page history can be seen here Slim 10:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

No US propaganda

This isn't a propaganda machine for the US regime. What the joint chiefs of staff call her is irrelevant and unimportant to anybody. Or else, maybe we should post what the Iraqi or Iranian governments think of Bush.

It isn't propaganda; it's just a fact that this is what she was called, and she was often referred to by these names in mainstream news reports, which is why the information is included here. SlimVirgin 21:59, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

:The "mainstream" US media is mostly government propaganda. For the sake of neutrality, will you also post what the "mainstream" N.Korean or Iranian media says about Bush?

This is properly referenced from an authoritative source and is directly relevant to Taha. Therefore, it stays. The article is not about Bush. SlimVirgin 20:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Authoritative source? What a joke! They're just a bunch of rich arrogant imperialist American leaders. They are the dangerous ones despied by the whole world, not Taha. So yeah, that's propaganda, and down the drain it goes.

That's your personal POV. A report by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and DIA is what Wikipedia calls an authoritative reference. A report prepared by any other government would also be regarded as a source worth quoting. It's not that it's U.S.; it's that it's a government. The other thing in its favor is that it's not just a comment from some government spokesperson; it's a formal report. SlimVirgin 03:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

The government of Iran publishes reports calling Bush a murderer and a threat to world peace. Maybe you should quote that in the Bush article too. Till then, cut the US propaganda crap, and leave the article neutral.

Dossier

She was not charged with any offense, and the report was shown to be a fraud. An "honest" encyclopedia should include this information. Also, a propaganda report by the US chiefs of staff is irrelevant, since the international community does not trust the US government anyway, nor do they care about the opinion of those chiefs of staff. A neutral reference would be better. (posted by User:67.71.1.78)

I think it was you who originally deleted "not charged with any offense." I'll leave the U.S. joint chiefs of staff report out until I can find a specific reference. I have a copy of it, so I know it's true, but I'll try to find an online reference. As for the dossier, it was not proven to be a fraud; what was claimed is that parts of the intelligence were manipulated for political reasons, which is what the previous sentence says. The information in it regarding Taha was subsequently shown to be true: she herself has been the source of most of it, including the recent revelation that the missing gallons of anthrax, which she initially said did not exist, were poured away by her near one of Saddam's palaces. If she had admitted to this prior to the war, who knows how things would have turned out differently? But she said she couldn't, out of fear of Saddam. Please sign and date your posts to talk. You can get your signature by typing four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~ Dossier section from text is below; my emphasis. Anyone wanting to know more about the dossier can go to the Hutton Inquiry, which is why I mentioned it.

It was this dossier that triggered the chain of events that led to the death of British UN weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly, who was accused of telling a BBC reporter that some of the intelligence had been manipulated, and the subsequent Hutton Inquiry into his death. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've found an online reference for the "most dangerous woman" report so I've reinserted it, with a link to the report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Being called "the world's most dangerous woman", is nothing more than the personal OPINION of the US regime. Since this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA that is, presumably, geared towards the whole world (most of which are non americans, and don't give a shit what america thinks), we should stick to undisputable facts that are relevant to everyone, and not the irrational hyperbolic beliefs of a handful of government officials from a country not known for its honesty or integrity. Otherwise, we should also include in the Bush article that he is considered the "world's most dangerous man" by the overwhelming majority of the world's population. (posted by User:67.71.1.165)

With respect, you're the one who does not get it. This is a striking claim (and one which the mainstream press picked up on frequently in headlines) made by an academic in a paper commissioned by the U.S. government; and there is a reference to the paper in the article. Therefore, it is what Wikipedia calls a credible or reputable source. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. We edit according to Wikipedia policy, and not according to what you say the international community (whatever that is) thinks of the U.S. government. We're not allowed to remove properly documented claims from articles if they're relevant. If you know anything about Taha, it would be more helpful if you could add information, rather than continually deleting. And please read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Germ

The article was still infested with "Doctor Germ" nonsense. I've trimmed those references as it was just a nickname used for a time by the press who attributed it to some UN inspectors. --TS 11:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your logic for removing references to her nickname is sadly mistaken. She was notoriously nicknamed that by UN inspectors and the name has stuck to her and is popularly used. You should not have removed it, and I am going to re add it if no one has any objections. Lemniwinks (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rihab Taha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050423181512/http%3A//www%2Ecsmonitor%2Ecom/specials/inspections/suspicions%2Ehtml to http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050423181512/http%3A//www%2Ecsmonitor%2Ecom/specials/inspections/suspicions%2Ehtml to http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/inspections/suspicions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)