Jump to content

Talk:Bush–Blair 2003 Iraq memo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beardo (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 7 September 2006 (Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Title

The title was completely inappropriate. That is not the name of the memo but an accusation and therefore that shouldn't be the title. I changed it to this title which is incorrect but at least it's descriptive and not an attempt to push a POV. gren グレン ? 02:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current title: "Bush-Blair memo" is not desciptive enough because there have been other leaked memos between the two of them such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo in this case the title reflects the alledged content of the memo and seems like a good model to follow to me. How about "Bush-Blair spyplane memo"; if this is objectionable then I would suggest putting the date of the memo in the title: "Bush-Blair memo (31 January 2003)" -Greeny 17:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The spyplane title sounds fine to me... the original title was Bush wanted to lure Saddam to shoot down UN plane and that's why I changed the title to something generic... because at least this title isn't defamatory. I am not sure what it has been popularly referred to but if there is a title we should sue that. gren グレン 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Secret?

How can it be a "secret memo". If the contents of known it cannot be secret! surely it was a memo that was intended to remain secret or confidential? Candy 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the obvious sense of "secret memo". This may be an encyclopedia, but it's not a legal document. Septentrionalis 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments