Talk:Ex-ambassador comes fifth in election in UK Foreign Secretary's seat whilst trying to highlight alleged torture in Uzbekistan

Once more, not news

I refer to Wikinews:What Wikinews is. As you can read, we only report events. Things that haven't happened are not appropiate subject matter for Wikinews. Get a blog. Dan100 (Talk) 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the source materials and relevancy of this article ,given the narrow re-election in the U.K. of the Blair government, makes this story significant ,and it should be tested by other additional information, that could be submitted, as a result of this initial article. - Unsigned comment from User:138.89.170.2

The absence of an event occurring can sometimes be newsworthy. If the government can reasonably be expected to respond to these allegations, and they haven't, then it is in the public interest that this absence be reported. The article could (should) possibly be rewritten to focus on the candidate in Jack Straw's seat, with the stuff about the documentary as background information. - Borofkin 02:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support for this article as is! That's 3-1. Also, an apology for the "get a blog" insult should be offered, in my opinion. - Paulrevere2005 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course this is news. The article mentions a number of events surrounding the absence of something, but also events that are newsworthy on their own. Removing associated tag if present. - Simeon 04:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This is in no way news. As I pointed out, this story does not meet Wikinews policy. Dan100 (Talk) 09:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

After looking at Jpbrenna's comments below, and looking at the revisions of the article and moving it, the article does now centre on a reportable event. Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the dispute tags.

Paulrevere2005 04:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I support the removal of the "not news" tag, but I have no position on the POV tag. I haven't had time to look at the sources, but it seems a bit one sided to me. The Chris Murray Wikipedia article has lots of information on the POV that Murray's dismissal was legitimate. Where is that side of the debate in this article? - Borofkin 04:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put it in Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article is biased and does not address a single event. There are several possible stories here, but no one of them is developed: Craig Murray's campaign and election loss, the reports of abuse and torture in Uzebekestan, or the British government's alleged complicity in Uzbekestan's use of torture/alleged use of information derived from torture to support the invasion of Iraq.

In developing this article, do not rely overly on sources which might be viewed as dubious or biased without also presenting sources which might be viewed as dubious or biased for the opposing POV. It is always better to avoid questionable sources entirely.Q - Amgine/^talk 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me in reading the story that the 'event' is the campaign by candidate X and the media's lack of coverage. Other information given is background. While the story could be improved with respect to attributing to sources, and optimising the news style presentation, I see no major POV problem. It doesn't seem as if the author has presented the information in a biased way, or deliberately obfuscated facts, but rather that they have not rigorously attributed, and I think this story is short enough, and easy enough to verify, that this is a matter of choice. Certainly readers are permitted to further refine the story. - Simeon 04:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• "in an attempt to bring about public debate and public knowledge of Straw's complicity in Uzbek CIA torture"
  • Ascribed motive for Craig Murray's candidacy
  • States Straw was complicit as a fact
  • States Uzbekistan engages in torture
  • States Uzbekistan does so for the US CIA

And this is just a single sentence. This is a biased article in my opinion, but very able to be improved. - Amgine/^talk 05:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is still extremely biased. It has to meet the standards of Wikinews:Neutral point of view before it can be published. Dan100 (Talk) 09:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Which I have now done Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Headline Word Choice

It's not really a "scandal" until it starts making waves, right? And the article is reporting that so far, it hasn't. According to the author, major media in Britain haven't picked it up, and Tony Blair got re-elected, and no one seems to remember the program except our intrepid reporter. So it should say "Silence Over Alleged Tortue" or "Re-elected Labour Government Silent Over Torture Allegations: Potential Scandal Brewing?" If the story proves to be something big and more shocking confirmation of the allegations comes out (Abu Ghraib-style photos etc.) then we can report on that and call it a "scandal."--Jpbrenna 05:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the headline to reflect the thrust of the story Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Current article

I was one of the editors not particulary happy with this article. With the new changes by Dan, I'm about neutral. The language is still a bit raw, with some POV, but not horrible. --Lyellin 13:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to congratulate the contributors to this article; this is the poster-child of recovering a problematic article to a really good article! - Amgine/^talk 17:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit request - disambiguation

{{editprotected}}

Please disambiguate the foreign office link to Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've {{w}}-ized the article. Don't see anything else that needs doing, re that link. --Pi zero (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Foreign Office is a disambiguation page, and the link should be pointing to Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is the UK's foreign office (as opposed to the German foreign office) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it. Yes. It's treated as a shorthand for the previously referenced office, but the wikilink can't know that without being explicitly wired that way — and the previous reference to the office came with an explictly defined abbreviation, which was never used. So I've chosen to replace the second reference with the defined abbreviation, treating it similarly to a typo that doesn't actually change the meaning. --Pi zero (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)