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)