Talk:World Tribunal on Iraq

vital questions

This article does not answer some vital questions. Who is setting up this body? Are any national governments involved? What legitimacy does it have? Lisiate 02:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Thats why it still says "stub" at the bottom. If others wish to add those further answers it would be a good thing. I'll research them if I can too. FT2 05:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The WTI's own discussion of its legitimacy is here: http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=15

What the hell is this article about. Is there now a Wiki World Court here? 24.226.54.179

Its an article on the "World Tribunal on Iraq". FT2 23:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

For an article on the "World Tribunal on Iraq", it doesn't actually say much about what the World Tribunal on Iraq actually is. Having read it, I still have no idea about what WTI is or how it was formed. This article makes it clear that WTI opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and rejects the validity of the new Iraqi government, but some information about the basis on which the tribunal was chosen would aid the reader. Also, the article makes statements of opinion in a manner that would lead the reader to think they were statements of fact. Perhaps a few more statements should be qualified with phrases such as 'The WTI found", "The WTI believes", etc.Ordinary Person

In the period since I made that criticism, an introductory paragraph has been added to explain what the WTI is. Ordinary Person

Vandalism report filed re 24.226.54.179 see report and diff. FT2 23:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Legal basis and structure

i removed (Taken from tribunal website) - it's still true for the original, but i've made enough changes (in the direction of NPOV and making the text a bit clearer) that the WTI would probably not consider the text theirs anymore, even if it is clearly still rather similar. IMHO the WTI is not a group likely to be paranoid about copyright. In any case, anyone who thinks that the text is still too close should just improve it to make more precise, accurate, and original. Boud 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

excuse me miss

I have removed the following section, entitled 'Basis for war.'

"The war on iraq was baised on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. however there were no weapons of mass destructions found and the us goverment offically abandoned it's search on January 31 2005. Some political protesters suggest the American oil reserves were running low and They went to war to gain unlimited access to the oil wells (since 60% of the worlds oil is found in iraq) other people believe that Saddam Hussain was harbouring and aiding terrorism. but the baisis of the war remains under political debate"

If someone sees a reason why this should be included, feel free to re-write and re-edit. --Marco Passarani 06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

MILHIST project evaluation

This article has some serious POV and OR issues. Perhaps in-line citations and a references list will help to vindicate elements as not being Original Research, but even so, this needs to be written from a point of view that is neither overly anti-war nor particularly opposed to the WTI. For example, having the very first descriptor of the group be "unelected" implies a criticism. Needs cleanup, and then maybe it can be elevated beyond Stub status. LordAmeth 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This article still has serious POV and OR issues. However, Phil Copperman automatically reverts my edits. Phil Copperman, is there any particular reason you have to hammer the revert button to add unsourced rants which present the "tribunal"'s ideas in wikipedia's voice? bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)