Changes

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this

claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion.  There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it.  So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing.  Thank you for your attention to this.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion.  There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it.  So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing.  Thank you for your attention to this.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

 

''reverted material:''

''reverted material:''

* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

 

Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list.  This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology.  I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list.  This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology.  I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

<references/>

<references/>