Talk:Iraq Intelligence Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Intelligence task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	United States military history task force

Iraq Intelligence Commission seems to be the currently preferred media term for the Commission with an Obscenely Long Title That I'm Really Surprised Wasn't Made Into an Acronym, even though it's not, strictly speaking, accurate (the comission's scope is wider than just Iraq). If usage shifts in the coming weeks, it can always be moved to WMD Intelligenc Commission or whatever is finally settled on in popular usage. - Seth Ilys 03:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I question how much biographical data on commission members should be included on this page. The bullet item on Laurence Silberman is already too long for my taste; I suggest that each name be limited with four or five words of description, max. Other information can be placed on bio pages. - Seth Ilys 05:12, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree: the most important thing about this commission is wether it will be allowed to draw its conclusions independently and there has already been criticism that if its members are appointed by the US president it cannot be truly independent ; therefore the members' biographical data is very important for this article. pir 05:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the members biographical data is very important, especially as it regards the commissions independence and impartiality. However, the biographical data belongs first in the separate biographical articles (where it should be much more detailed than the description on this list can ever be); a section can be added to this article concerning the relative independence of the commission that focuses on the relevant facets of the members past actions and their potential influences upon the commission's activities and report. But: briefly listing, "Republican" or "Democrat" does nothing substantive towards that end. Including such details in the very brief summary encourages shallow analysis by readers, which (IMHO) is something we should attempt to avoid in Wikipedia articles. - Seth Ilys 06:04, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are making a very good point, just labelling the members as Republican or Democrat etc. could almost be said to be POV about the commission's impartiality. IT would therefore be better to expand a little on the biographical data as well as write a paragraph about the commission's impartiality and independence. In the absence of these, we should keep it the way it is at the moment, since it is very unrealistic to assume that all readers of this article will also read all the linked articles. - pir 22:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) - Seth Ilys 03:36, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page Name

A more suitable name for this page may be "WMD Commission Report". This seems to be the mostly widely used name and official unofficial name, so to speak. See Google search on "WMD Commission" OR "Iraq Intelligence Commission". I have generally seen it referenced this way. MLWilson 05:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)