Talk:Sam Husseini

Untitled
The tone of this section is clearly not objective. Example: "It ignored the possibility that Iraq had actually complied. This was the case even though Husseini in other instances had questioned the U.S. government claim that Iraq had not complied."

Maybe a "Controversy" section would clear this up.

The subject (Husseini) admits starting this entry himself despite knowing it is proscribed, and that fact is actually linked to (it's on his private blog) in the External links section. In his blog entry, he seems to claim that he "compensated" (my choice of word) for violating the self-editing policy by deliberately criticising himself. Unfortunately he used the term "crited", and from the context one cannot tell whether he meant "cited", i.e. made a typo, or "criticized", i.e. used some obscure journalist-speak abbr.

As for the actual 'controversy', I'm not sure I see it... someone help me with this? TimProof 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the text quoted in inverted commas above - it seems like POV editorialising to me. I think the article is now fairly neutral - does anyone disagree? If not, the POV template ought to be removed. Robofish (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)