Talk:Butler Review

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Military history: Intelligence / British / European / Middle East

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

From Butler Inquiry Talk Page[edit]

Butler report and butler review are in the meaning two different things. http://www.butlergroup.com/reports/ecia/ (Butler report: Exploiting Corporate Information Assets)

In the moment "bulter report" forwards to "butler review" - I guess this is wrong.

Oooopss.... I just wrote all this because I couldn't find this article nor any links to it. Maybe we can merge both articles. But it's all the governments fault: they didn't give the commission a proper name! pir 03:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Title of the article ought to be changed now the official title of the review is clear. Suggest text of this page id moved to Butler review, and this page is made into a redirect. Washington irving 18:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, as there have been no comments to the contrary, I'm moving the text to Butler Review (small r?), and making this page a redirect. Not sure about capitalization for this like this. I think Butler Review/Butler Inquiry is a proper noun, but maybe others will disagree.

At the same time I am going to delete the parody site, as this seems a bit innappropriate for an encyclopedia (though funny, I admit). No offence intended. If you disagree, just put it back again.

The official site has a photo of the committee. It would be good on this page. It is Crown Copyright. Which I think means it can be used as long as not in a misleading context, but the status of Crown Copyright is a bit murky (to me). Would anyone like to take the plunge? Is it OK for wikipedia? If it were cropped and reduced in size it might be classed as fair use?

Washington Irving | Talk 23:52, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we can use it - but a US contributor could probably upload it under their fair use provision. We can't use Crown Copyrighted materials - we can use materials under a crown copyright waiver - depending on the waiver. There is no futher info on the Review web site so I can't add it to Template talk:CrownCopyright. Secretlondon 20:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. I think it's surely appropriate to feature links to 'About The Butler Inquiry' websites, which category the parody site falls under. Therefore, I've added it back in, but this time with some qualifying text putting it in context. Is that ok?

Date for publication - 14th July 2004 from BBC Secretlondon 20:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butler Review. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821102550/http://www.lynnejones.org.uk/uranium.htm to http://www.lynnejones.org.uk/uranium.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism dated?[edit]

This was a hot issue back in Bush's presidency, especially right after the war, but I feel like there's much less "criticism" of statements that there simply were no stockpiles now. Is the criticism section, which is as long as the conclusions section, still necessary? Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]