Talk:Iraq Inquiry/Archive 1

Move to 'Chilcot Inquiry'?
Moved. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 United Kingdom Iraq War inquiry → Chilcot Inquiry &mdash; Given the number of people and media sources already referring to this as the 'Chilcot Inquiry', I believe it would make more sense to rename this as such. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree. Dynablaster (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. — uncontroversial, WP:UCN. — V = I * R  (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

'The Iraq Inquiry'
Now that the move has happened, it appears that the official name has come out as 'The Iraq Inquiry'. Rather than immediately suggesting another move, though, I am simply noting it here for record and suggesting to wait to see if it takes hold, or if it carries on being referred to as 'the Chilcot Inquiry'. Personally, I've not heard it referred to as 'The Iraq Inquiry' yet on BBC News or BBC Parliament. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be moved to The Iraq Inquiry quickly. This is clearly the correct, published name as per the official website and ongoing BBC coverage intentions appear to chime with that name - not Chilcott.  Leaky  Caldron  22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Having seen BBC coverage now, I do agree, and am hereby moving the page to 'The Iraq Inquiry'. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Week by week analysis?
Is it worth having a subsection that summarises, in a few sentences, the goings on of each week, rather like the feature the BBC are running? HJ Mitchell |  fancy a chat?   01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I considered that. After all, if it's good enough for Big Brother it should be good enough for this important topic! I was held back by the thought that someone would come along a slap a big WP:RECENTISM objection or calling it Wikinews. I had intended to draw a summary of the key contributions regarding the 45 minute claim, since that is one of the most controversial aspects of the entire affair and it is interesting seeing the alternative views from those who were involved. I haven't had time yet. I would support and try to help to contribute to your suggestion. Leaky  Caldron  10:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have thought myself that it would be recentism if we have a concise summary of each week's events. My other suggestion would be to do it "by-witness"- Tim Cross's article has a lot of sources on his testimony (I wrote it!) and there'll be plenty to find on the others, particularly Straw and Hoon (and Blair and Brown when they testify) but my personal preference would be the former. It would be nice to make this a bit bigger given the importance of it to British politics. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   13:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Only five people on the panel
Whenever I see footage of the panel asking questions there are three people on the left, and three on the right. However, the wiki page only has five people listed as being on the panel. Is one of the people facing the witnesses taking minutes? Any ideas? 129.174.64.204 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * secretarial support. the stenographers are off-screen to the left. Leaky  Caldron  17:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The 6th person at the table is there to keep records.minute I believe. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. 68.100.66.192 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just using this as a dumping ground for now...

 * Refs

On 22 January it was announced that Gordon Brown would be a witness to the Inquiry before the forthcoming 2010 General Election.
 * info


 * links
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/8375439.stm

May I recommend that you read "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid published in 2000, reprinted 2000 and 2001 by I B Tauris & Co Ltd in London and New York www.ibtauris.com ISBN 1 86004 417 1. It has taken Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani reporter, 21 years to write this book. It was written with the support of friendship of an enormous well known experts. It is probably the best, most truthful and balanced record of the Taliban since Winston Churchill's "The Story of the Malakand Field Force" and "My Early Life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.46.170 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to take a look at Nigel Biggar's Do not be so sure invading Iraq was immoral in The Financial Times. Currently in the process of writing a book on the ethics of war, he is the regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford. Here is what he writes: "Judging by the dominant reaction of the British press, [the sole function of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war] is to prove what we all know to be true: that the invasion was immoral and Tony Blair is to blame. The surfeit of moral certainty among the commentators is suspect; the zealous clarity of their moral waters needs muddying."


 * He goes on to address, openly and dispassionately, all the issues — the Iraq war's alleged moral flaws, its alleged disproportion, its alleged illegality — but he states that "The decisive issue in evaluating the Iraq invasion is not whether it was morally flawed or disproportionate or illegal, but whether it was really necessary to stop or prevent a sufficiently great evil." Asteriks (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

List of witnesses
I'm moving this here for the time being- I intend to put it back in chronological order for those who have testified so far with refs. HJ Mitchell |  fancy a chat?   01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC) -- HJ Mitchell |  fancy a chat?   01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simon Webb
 * Peter Ricketts
 * William Patey
 * Michael Wood
 * Tim Dowse
 * William Ehrman
 * Christopher Meyer
 * Jeremy Greenstock
 * David Manning
 * Edward Chaplin
 * Kevin Tebbit
 * Michael Boyce
 * Anthony Pigott
 * David Wilson
 * Dominic Asquith
 * Tim Cross
 * Desmond Bowen
 * Suma Chakrabarti
 * Dominick Chilcott
 * John Scarlett
 * Brian Burridge
 * Robin Brims
 * Frederick Viggers
 * Andrew Figgures
 * Hilary Synott
 * Andrew Stewart
 * Graeme Lamb
 * John Sawers
 * Geoff Hoon
 * Jack Straw
 * Hans Blix
 * Elizabeth Wilmshurst

The Michael Wood article is nominated for deletion: there is a passage relevant to the Iraq Inquiry in it:
 * "Michael Wood gave evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in November 2009 and in January 2010, in which he stated that he advised Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal without a second United Nations resolution."
 * Anarchangel (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Has this article been abandoned?
More thatn two years since the perfectly reasonable question above and still non-one has bothered to answer it or update this article? What is going on? The absence of any information about publication of a report is a glaring ommission. Even the fact that no report has been issued should be added. On 13 January 2013 Catherine Bennett writing in the The Observer said 'Chilcot's continuing silence on Iraq is an affront to us all'. This appears to indicate that the subject matter is noteworthy enough. Strayan (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (Sydney).

Publication?
It would be useful for the readers to include the intended manner of publication. A report submitted to the House of Commons? I suppose there will be a public report at the end. Perhaps the answer is obvious to native Brits but different countries do this kind of thing differently. Will the report be on sale in the mainstream book trade (or even a free download) or will it be only through public print and circulation to public offices, libraries and media outlets?Strausszek (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/12/chilcot-inquiry-report-blair-bush http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-06-13a.522.0  – Kaihsu (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Iraq Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/hearings/timetable.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/news/20101208-ballot.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Report available
Here Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And this page should be renamed 'Chilcot Report on Britain's decision to go to war in Iraq, 2003' or something like that.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The name of the inquiry is the Iraq Inquiry, (the actual report itself is the Report of the Iraq Inquiry), there is a good commonname argument for switching it to Chilcot report, however this article encompasses the build up to the inquiry, the inquiry and the report, rather than specifically the report. Saying that, the inquiry and the report is not about just the decision to go to war, it also heavily encompasses the prosecution of the war itself and the administration of Iraq after the invasion. So a name change 'decision to go to war' would be factually incorrect unless the article was limited to that scope. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I am not sure that the report itself should not be a separate article with just a small summary of the key findings here. Its one of the most comprehensive breakdowns of a war *close to the event* that I have seen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Should the title not be amended to refer to Chilcot Inquiry and Chilcot Report? Peter K Burian (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate section for Blair's Response?
The article does cover his response, but I wonder if that should be set up as a separate section. Blair is the one that has been vilified (probably justifiably) https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jul/07/national-newspapers-savage-tony-blair-over-the-chilcot-report. Hence, his response is more significant than comments made by other politicians, in my view. Also, in addition to his statement, he held a two hour press conference. (Blair’s two-hour press conference followed three hours after this statement was issued.)

The current coverage includes only the bare essentials of Blair's response. And I suspect we will hear more from Blair in the next few days. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Justifiably in a leftist's eyes. And yes, his response needs to be prominent in the article. 98.67.185.116 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Title
This article should be moved to Chilcot Inquiry or Chilcot Report, its WP:COMMONNAME according to most reliable sources. "Iraq Inquiry" is a ridiculously UK-centric term; from the Iraqi perspective this is rather a United Kingdom Inquiry. --Tataral (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support a move. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Google reported 863,000 results for "Iraq inquiry" vs. 305,000 for "Chilcot inquiry". In scanning the first 4 pages of the Google search results, all seemed to refer to this report published in July 2016.  Moreover, the web site for the report is "iraqinquiry.org.uk".  This suggests it should stay as "Iraq Inquiry".
 * However, I agree that "Iraq Inquiry" is a poor choice of names, especially for the long term.
 * My bottom line: It should probably stay as "Iraq Inquiry".

Main WP news article
Should the main news story link to Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) rather than Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) as it does now? --TBM10 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This Iraq Inquiry article currently does not mention any "Iraqi insurgency" article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)