Talk:BBC global poll finds majority feel the US led Iraq invasion increased likelihood of terrorist attacks

{{protected|Edit waring starting}}

I have unprotecting the article under the assumption that the heat has cooled off. If one does start back up it will be reprotected Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag ??

Where is the talk page discussion? What are the actionable objections? Neutralizer 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,MrM; I can not figure out what you are complaining about nor how you think the article should be improved. Please be more specific. Neutralizer 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

MrM. maybe thought this was a different article that he's been an edit war over [1]..because he put nothing on this talk page to justify a tag. Neutralizer 00:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bush quote is inaccurately cited. The interview was prior to him leaving for Afghanistan. The source the quote is lifted from does not make the association that is made in our article, namely that the quote is in response to being asked his opinion on the specific poll cited.

The title is inaccurate, 60% is not 4-1 It is 3-2. 80% is 4-1. It Also employs Inconsistent Capitalisation not in line with the style guide. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

60-15 is 4-1. Neutralizer 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about that one Neut. It'd be nice to express that only 15% think it helped, but I don't think you can do that with one number. You could try something longer, but it gets really long really fast. You could also try to simplify the title, forcing people to read the article for the numbers. Nyarlathotep 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've had to rename it toa crap (temporary) title, but I've delt with MrM's critisisms regarding the length and quote. It would be good to further elaborate on the CBS poll. Nyarlathotep 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nyarlathotep is the mathematician; I accept his determination, when it comes to math. Neutralizer 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as it is now, the title talks about both polls, so I doublt we'll put any numbers in, but its open for debate about what the title actually should be. Nyarlathotep 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag Removal

Again, MrM puts on a tag on a published article with no talk page discussion or actionable objections and certainly without any consensus. Neutralizer 17:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with a world paper [Wikinews]] reporting on a BBC poll and a separate CBS poll on topics that spin out the Iraq war, all within the context of one story!!!!!! Where is MrM coming from with this? -68.232.153.54 20:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Basic questions

Why are neither BBC or CBS cited? Where is the instrument and the data for this poll? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag Removal

Again, MrM puts on a tag on a published article with no talk page discussion or actionable objections and certainly without any consensus; however I will remove the reference to the CBS poll and also the Bush quote as MrM seems to wish. Neutralizer 17:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Consensus site disruption

by MrM. Will other admins please step up to the plate here? Neutralizer 22:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Am reading the article and will cross-check with sources. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First (immediate comment) Having read the article and the last copy with MrM's tag it was only in reading the tagged version that I was aware that the information in the article was drawn from two sources. This is bad. Readers should be made aware of the sources to allow them to apply any preconceptions such as source A neutral, source B anti-whatever. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Read again... I don't know about this, really. It is confusing about what information is from which poll, the overall picture it presents is consistent - but that is perhaps where there's a problem. It presents a view that is persecution of the US administration. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I made changes that I hoped addressed the concerns here. I will remove cleanup tag and publish later tonight (if no-one else does) to see if this story flies now. -Edbrown05 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

terrorist?

How can the world terrorist be NPOV, if the cat was not NPOV, once again, different people take what they think of it. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolution needed

The only problem I can see with the article now is that In a televised interview with Elizabeth Vargas of ABC's World News Tonight, which aired last Tuesday, President Bush said, "If I worried about polls, I wouldn't be doing my job.” is not clear enough. What was he responding to? Was he responding to this poll or was he responding to his low approval ratings?

The title could also be considered POV. I can't suggest an alternative right now though.

The article needs to be fixed for publication soon, else it will no longer be news (it is already 4 days since the event). Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The RSS feed already lists this story from 1 day ago. If the headline were changed now, it would create a nasty redirct page. Thank you for your comments above Cartman02. I'm moving this to publish now. -Edbrown05 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All's well that ends well?

Looks pretty damn great to me. Credit to all. Neutralizer 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

minor minor detail

"In an unrelated poll conducted in the U.S. by CBS News, only 36 percent of U.S. respondents thought "the war is going well," and that 30 percent felt "Bush was doing a good job of handling the conflict.""

that 'that' is misplaced. that's all i have to say.. :) nice article. --Sammysam 18:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just found substantial error myself...

Out of the 35 countries polled, only Mexico and Nigeria thought the invasion lessened the likelihood of terrorist attacks. By contrast, 85 percent of Chinese respondents said they felt the invasion increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

It's not actually possible to contrast number of countries with response of one population sample, so the entire second sentence is specious. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 18:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So why hasn't anything been done....? --Sammysam 14:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Category and links

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:CBS News and localize the links for CBS News, ABC (to ABC News (United States), BBC, and Saddam Hussein. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Added a mess of cats, {{w}}-ized, changed infobox (we don't often do that in the archives, but this one seems pretty obvious to me). --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)