This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comar does not seem to have any independent notability from this case, and all of the sources are sources having to do with the case. There's nothing in Comar's article that isn't already contained in the Saleh v. Bush article. Wieno ( talk) 13:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I think parts of this article need a substantial rewrite to neutrally describe the case rather than 80% of it being an in-depth factual analysis of the sources used to make the complaint. Given the minimal coverage the necessity to rely to some extent on the court docs, both the case made in the complaint and the case made in the motion to dismiss should be given similar weight, and there should be a section outlining the timeline of the case. Wieno ( talk) 05:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure the sources don't exist to describe the *case* itself in the view of neutral independent reliable journalists, [1] as opposed to all the pre-2013 sources being used herein to try and *prosecute* the case in the public eye... which I presume cannot possibly mention the lawsuit because they were published before the lawsuit was even filed.... Wikipedia should not have subsections about an alleged violation of some law by a living person, which has NOT successfully been to court, with names like these:

• 2.1 Evidence of PNAC advocacy of regime change in Iraq
• 2.2 Evidence of use of 9/11 attacks
• 2.3 Evidence "fixing" intelligence around invasion
• 2.4 Evidence of misinformation and scare campaign to manufacture public support for invasion
• 2.5 Evidence of false linking of Al–Qaeda to Iraq

We also have a spam-link to the lawyer's firm right in the body-prose, sheesh. Most of the refs are from the lawyer's and plaintiff's website about the case. I don't know whether this is WP:AFD or WP:TNT, but I would ask that somebody please do one or the other. Wieno are you still handy? Also see if Newyorkbrad has anything to advise on this Saleh v GWB matter, since he was very helpful at the page about the Saxbe fix with interpreting the legal ramifications. There was an attempt to cut out the fat in 2014, which looked like this, [2] but a few months later the coatrack was back. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 01:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Responding to the NPOVN notice:

I haven't looked carefully, but I find it hard to believe that AfD could apply here. If someone believes it does, please provide a brief description as to why.

The article looks to be an extension of the legal case rather than encyclopedic description: blatant WP:SOAP. I suggest reverting the the version mentioned above, folding in any third-party sources that were subsequently added, then expanding from there. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

There are a lot of sources listed, but they are all about the history of the neocons, not about Saleh-v-Bush specifically. The refs for the *lawsuit* that are independent third-party WP:RS includes CBS local in San Francisco, plus blog-pieces at Daily Kos and Huffington Post. This is definitely right on the loweest edge of what WP:GNG demands. I have split the refs into three groups to illustrate the difficulty. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 12:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I've reverted to the 01:06, 5 June 2015 version mentioned above, in the hope that it will bring more attention to the dispute. If not, the next step would be to identify all the independent sources that were removed so they can be restored with WP:DUE content. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I made a stab at rescue of the cites that you pull WP:TNT upon, and saved it, but had an edit-conflict with Terrorist96. Who objected that dynamite was a bit overly-bold. Terrorist96, if you are also unhappy with my slightly-less-TNT-used version which reorganizes the cites and deletes most of the explanatory-prose related to Nuremberg and analysis of non-Saleh-specific documents, you are free to revert me as well (or ask me to self-revert and I'll be happy to do it thataway). 47.222.203.135 ( talk)

Thanks to you both for the response and work.-- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

This version is better. I won't revert it. Terrorist96 ( talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I hope Terrorist96 will respond further, as the simple revert without comment here doesn't get us anywhere. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Concur, the current version is far closer to NPOV than their preferred version. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

 Done. I've remove the NPOV-tag from mainspace, my thanks to all who commented here. The article could still use some work, to tighten up the prose and maybe cut down on the further reading list to just the essentials, but the wiki-emergency seems to be over at least for now :-) 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 23:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2013cv01124/264248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.132.46 ( talk) 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Saleh v. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply