Talk:UK government loses personal information of 25 million people

Why are there November 21 sources for a November 20 story? --SVTCobra 23:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the story was reported on the 20th and the UK is many hours ahead. That happens to me when I use UK sources. —FellowWiki Newsie 00:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But Wikinews is supposed to be on UTC, no? And so is the UK. As far as I understand it this could only apply to sources that are East of the UK (like Japan and Australia) and the Times Online doesn't seem located in such a region. --SVTCobra 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The times online source was added today by a user who is in the UK. That is the only source from Nov. 21. The other one is from October 21. —FellowWiki Newsie 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I shouldn't have used the plural, but even if there is just one it upsets the entire space-time continuum. --SVTCobra 01:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's alright now, it's gone! Markie decided that as it was a comment piece, that it should go. In my defence I'd mention that even though the story broke on the afternoon of 20th, most of the juicy bits (discs not encrypted, etc.) only came out on late night tv and the next morning's papers. I've just upset the purists even more by tweaking the second para at this late stage .... better lock it away quick ... Zir 14:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some very interesting comments, some insider ...

... here <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/21/reader_comments_on_hmrc/> If anyone thinks them relevant, could they add a link at the bottom of the page? I would except i'm not confident enough to edit public-facing pages yet. thanks 81.157.24.173 04:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

a link to another newspaper's commentary section would not be appropriate in our article. Do you The Register would host a link to our commentary? --SVTCobra 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The commentary is little of The Register (to which I have no link or affiliation BTW), instead mostly some very revealing comments by ex or current civil servants, some actually working in HMRC, discussing working practices which suggest how this mess came about. And why it's not likely to be the last. So yes, I think the reg would link to wiki if it had that level of insight on a story. Read it yourself and judge; it's not long. I certainly think it's worth it. thanks 81.157.24.102 14:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is set up as an article with an author (John Oates). But these are just anonymous e-mails from the readers, right? I wish we knew how John Oates verified—if at all—that these people in fact work for the HMRC. Another problem is that our article is from November 20 and it is now already November 22. However, there seems to be plenty of new developments (like Gordon Brown apologising, etc). Perhaps it is time to start a new article to follow developments. --SVTCobra 14:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, verification, I think that is crucial. That they 'look genuine' isn't exactly rigorous enough to justify their linking to from here. So unless and until they can be verified, I withdraw my suggestion. Thanks for picking that up.81.157.24.102 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
--Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 19:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 00:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)