Talk:Iraq Dossier

Iraq Mid‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq 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.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copies of HMG's dossier dated 23/09/02 endorsed by T Bliar are available on the Internet from: No10 (www.pm.gov.uk) FCO (www.fco.gov.uk) MOD (www.mod.uk) The Stationery Office (www.official-documents.co.uk) From eclectic-cynic —Preceding unsigned comment added 05:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 06:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Should this be moved to February Dossier? Martin 09:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do people know it as that? I only know it as the dodgy dossier. Would most people understand what the term "February Dossier" referred to? (I genuinely don't know, as I'm hopelessly out of touch with everything...) -- Oliver P. 09:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes it should. Both for NPOV and for navigation. Townmouse 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the whole dossier is a blatant sham, NPOV or not. And Dodgy Dossier is a name, not a discription of the quality or authenticity of the dossier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.201.154 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from the article:

However the Really Dodgy Dossier was the one put forward by Number 10 in the days immediately following the 9/11 massacre. The "Responsibility For The Terrorist Atrocities In The United States, 11 September 2001 was put forward by the Prime Minister's Office to show the "proof" of the involvement of Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks, and was used by the Americans to justify their invasion of Afghanistan.

If someone who knows more about this can verify this, I guess it can be re-incorporated. --Minesweeper 00:13, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

This all seems a little POV to me.... could we rephrase the intro to something like: "The "Dodgy Dossier" is a name coined by Channel 4 News for... "? At the moment this POV name isn't ascribed to its authors until the second paragraph. fabiform | talk 15:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can't the article just be called Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation? Yes, it's long, but it's surely better than calling it a nickname invented by Channel 4 News. After all, the Ken Livingstone article isn't at Red Ken. Billy H 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this nickname has become so widespread on both sides of the political spectrum that I don't think its use in this context indicates a POV. A like-for-like comparison would be that no-one refers to the Beveridge Report as 'Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services'. Agreed with Fabiform about the opening sentence, though: perhaps a more neutral version might read: 'The Dodgy Dossier is a widely used nickname given to a 2003 briefing document prepared by the British secret services for the Blair government, entitled Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation. LDGE 23:41, 9 July 2006 (BST)

February 2007 proposal[edit]

I propose renaming this article Iraq Dossier which is both more descriptive and more NPOV. I have seen a number of references to the Dossier in recent months and none have used the Dodgy Dossier sobriquet. Further, this term does not figure in the David Kelly or Hutton Inquiry articles. TerriersFan 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

– The term "dodgy dossier" shouldn't feature under the David Kelly or Hutton Inquiry articles because the controversy surrounding David Kelly was to do with the September, 2002 dossier. The "dodgy dossier" sobriquet was only attached to the February dossier at the time of publication because of the swift detection that it had been largely plagiarised from the PhD thesis.

As time has passed, some people in the media have referred to the September, 2002 dossier as a "dodgy dossier", either through conflating the two dossiers or as an implied criticism of the political influence on that dossier by Alastair Campbell.Jmorrison230582 20:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's statement before the Hutton Inquiry. Source?[edit]

I have concerns about this point:

"Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who wrote a report which claimed that the September Dossier had been deliberately exaggerated, stated before the Hutton Inquiry that recalling the February Dossier had led him to file his report based on his interview with Dr. Kelly without seeking confirmation from other sources."

Is there anything from the Hutton Inquiry to support this? Alan G. Archer (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

metadata in MS Word file[edit]

This article doesn't even mention the metadata in the Iraq Dossier's MS Word file and what it showed and who discovered it. See https://dfir.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/blair.htm -- Espoo (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]