It does not appear that our article supports the evident statement of fact in the first line. Nor does it indicate that the conversations are rehearsed. It may be that the sources support these facts, but those facts aren't in our article. --Chiacomo  (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Words like allegedly are great if you want to maintain a NPOV, but I have to say I don't often see them used when there is video and audio documentation that something has in fact taken place. And in regards to that proof not being in this article, the sources are proof. If you need embedded video and audio in the wiki article, then the word alleged needs to be added to a few hundred thousand other articles as well. (posted by KnuckleBean,  19:18, 14 October 2005)
I agree that "allegedly" doesn't need to be used here, this doesn't make any claims that aren't supported by the sources, which are themselves reporting on what was broadcast for all to see. It doesn't say "the conversations were rehearsed", it says Barber was "coaching the soldiers about what topics the president would be asking questions about", "rehearsing their actions on camera" and "reminding them of what questions have been assigned to each soldier." All of those things are supported by the quotes, which are considered facts due to the wealth of provided reliable sources. If some people are concerned that people will read this article and conclude that the entire thing was staged, then... well, people do have a funny way of examining the facts and using them to form conclusions. -Eisnel 22:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just out of interest, does anybody know how many stories that become the centre of an NPOV dispute AREN'T stories with some connection to President Bush?! Rcameronw 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this moment, Edbrown05 has changed to the title to "Bush teleconference with Iraqi troopers criticized as rehearsed" -- I think this is great. I might make change it to Bush teleconference with US troops in Iraq criticized as rehearsed, but his title is fine. I'm just noting this here in case it changes again and I forget. Does anyone object to Ed's title? --Chiacomo  (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...has been positively identified as sgt. ron long's blog?
Doldrums 14:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:Bush has a rehearsed tele-conference with US troops in Iraq