Talk:Operation Rockingham

Untitled

This is from another section of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

The section where he is called "the Chief Inspector" makes the rest of the article appear to be false.

Following is the quote from this article, while the actual Bio of Scott Ritter is the last quote.

"Operation Rockingham is an intelligence unit whose existence was revealed in June 2003 by the Scottish Sunday Herald. Based mainly on an interview with former US military intelligence officer and chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, investigative journalist Neil Mackay describes the function of Operation Rockingham"

"He acted as head of the Weapons Concealment Unit, leading 30 inspection missions, 14 as team leader.[1] After he was singled out for expulsion from Iraq in August 1998, before UNSCOM was withdrawn, he said on the PBS show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:"

It is factual that he was a team leader, not a chief inspector at any time. Overtly trying to lend more credit to Scott Ritter than is due, inadvertently takes away more credibility than it lends.

This article

.. seems to put the cart before the horse. It begins with uninformed speculation, discusses criticism, and finally comes round to giving the facts in the last paragraphs. Could do with a good copyedit. David | Talk 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

POV issues

This article is in serious need of clean-up and revision. Editorializing ("The press jumped on a suggestion," "This clearly overlooked the public references to Rockingham that had been made in 1991 and 1992") needs to be removed or brought in-line with a neutral pov rather than one that tries to establish credibility merely by insisting it is obviously credible. While there might be something useful here, it really comes across as a conspiracy theory article which cripples credibility. Vygramul 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygramul (talk • contribs)