Talk:Soft Target (book)

editorializing, not neutarl point of view

The statement that "The above claim puts in place a conspiracy theory not unlike that accusing the Bush administration of masterminding the 9/11 attack" is pejorative and not consistent with a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.119.102 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

controversy about authenticity

Hi all, there has been a discusionabout the authenticity of this particular book, please contribute your thoughts, ideas, comments here so as to keep the discussion unfragmented. LegalEagle (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SoftTargetBook1989.jpg

Image:SoftTargetBook1989.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the use of the following sections?

There seems to be little reason for having a Reference to book and See also sections in this article, as i fail to see as to how do they improve the article. Also I have gone through many articles written on books and i have found overwhelmingly that they rarely contain a standalone section on 'reference to book'. Also the 'Reviews, criticism and praises' section can be retitled as 'Reaction', it would be simpler and according to followed conventions. LegalEagle (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, for the better

The article was, simply put, bad.

At various points in this article's history it's been relatively interesting and well-constructed. But due to dead links, references were removed and the entire uncited sections were subsequently cleared out. I've taken the time to go through the history, find the best parts, and restore citations using the Wayback Machine. There were some WP:ORIGINAL claims I did not bother adding back.

I also added the investigation conclusions from the cited dossier. Canada determined the information in Soft Target combined with Canadian intelligence was not sufficient to establish a conspiracy involving India. Hopefully that gives readers a bit of follow-up. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]