Talk:16 words
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
[delete, because it's a] nonsensical detail aspect of the Iraq disarmament crisis article. --戴眩sv 22:27, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
- OK, I admit, the detail was too small to create an extra article. Probably in America this was not so much in the news as it was in Europe. But the reason for a war to be called "nonsensical", I have a different opinion on that. Just delete it, if this is the general opinion, I will not oppose. History will tell... Fantasy 22:43, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Delete Ark30inf 08:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a historic concept. A famous casus belli already becoming a catchphrase. Where's the beef? anyone? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
- The detail is too small for its own article. I recommend adding any relevant information to a related article and then deleting "16 words" or changing it to a redirect. M123 09:52, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Make it a redirect. wshun 23:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- One last comment: The Google Search ("16 words" Bush) gives as result about 17.000 pages. Is this relevant to Wikipedia or not? A redirect will (I guess) not show up on Google, so it seems, we are not covering this aspect. Even CNN hat the headline: "CNN.com - Bush's 16 words still hotly debated - Jul. 20, 2003". I let you decide. Fantasy 08:07, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Regardless of how things turn out, the phrase is going to increase in prominence and significance, and the debates centered on it will continue. I would say keep. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
- I think that "increase in prominence and significance" is unrealistic since the phrase was popular for about a week in the news media about a month ago and has since seemed to disapear. It will probably never be as popular as "where's the beef?". Also calling it a 'casus belli' is being overly dramatic since the phrase was almost unnoticed until months after it was uttered. M123 16:18, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- It's become a fairly noted term... there should be something there, but it can be either an article or a redirect, as far as I'm concerned. -- Jake 02:10, 2003 Aug 20 (UTC)
- How about a redirect to American government position on war on Iraq? Or maybe September Dossier would be better? Martin 09:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'd support a redirect somewhere. The encyclopedic content would be a discussion of the dubious Uranium-smuggling claims, not a particular sound-byte phrase that was popularized by some of the news media. It's my guess that in ten years one might be interested in reading about the lead-up to the war in Iraq and dubious claims made in that effort, but few would remember or care about the rather ambiguous term "16 words." --Delirium 04:16, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the 16 words page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "16 words" page.
