Talk:Bush–Blair 2003 Iraq memo

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)

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)

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)

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)

I wasn't talking about a legal aspect Septentrionalis. I was referring to the fact that any communication between individuals unless done so in a public forum is by its own nature secret. The mail is secret, telephone calls are secret and so are face to face discussions. It would make more sense to me to have written "private". I'm sorry but calling a private document that becomes public a "secret" is partly ambiguous and in one sense contradictory. This after all an encyclopedia.

Candy 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Sounds like more discussion may be needed to determine the final title. This was unobstructed anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Talk:Bush-Blair memo → Bush-Blair memo → Bush-Blair spyplane memo – User:88.110.186.30 said my generic name (to avoid a defamatory title) wasn't descriptive enough. I am putting this move request up on his behalf. gren グレン 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Weak support Seems reasonable. There are doubtless other memos between them. Septentrionalis 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The spyplane bit is not the important revelation here, but that the war was planned to go ahead regardless of events. Bad name. A human 21:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - another name perhaps ? -- Beardo 12:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• It seems "spyplane" isn't the right description. Bush-Blair memo on Iraq ? Bush-Blair 2003 memo on Iraq ? -- Beardo 12:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another go at moving this page

• Bush-Blair memo → Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq memo —(Discuss)— Current title really isn't descriptive enough —Tomgreeny 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• You didn't format the request, but without any response at all I'll assume that there is no consensus at this time for the move. Teke ^(talk) 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$

actual document

im unable to find it anywhere. even the articles (which all include virtually identical information) are unclear. wouldn't a link to the memo itself be a vastly significant addition? if that's not possible, i feel a clarification of why would also be an improvement.

sorry if ive poor wiki-etiquette . 70.106.209.134 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) new user