Talk:Con Coughlin

I'm cleaning this article up right now. Please read if you care.

I'm going to remove the neutrality tag. I will be able to do this after I read through the article and add FACT tags where needed. Also, I will remove information that isn't there or implemented correctly under a section...

See Con_Coughlin#Iran:

The article said:

Also in an article published on 27 June 2004 in Daily Telegraph, Coughlin claimed that the temporary closure of the newly built Imam Khomeini Airport in the suburbs of Tehran was the result of a nuclear incident.

This was under Criticism, but this doesn't criticize. It doesn't say that the report was proven wrong, and certainly doesn't provide a citation saying such. It just says that he wrote that article claiming something. But there's no criticism.

I will remove content like this, and FACT tag content that looks appropriate but doesn't have a source. If people are claiming that this article is not NPOV, perhaps you should add some positive commentary on Coughlin, awards and the such to balance it out. Simply having properly sourced criticism does not mean that the article isn't NPOV. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I recommend that if you care about the article add some sourced positive information. And also cite the information that is already presented. I am simply doing clean up to make it look decent.

Thanks. Beam 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically added punctuation, and tags. Only removed that line in the Iran section. Please add these sources, or this content may be removed. There is no POV issue here, the only issue is that there is no positive reviews or awards or the such. I hope these are added for a more balanced article. But it's really not a neutrality issue as the criticism are sourced, or hopefully will be soon. Good luck, I'll stop by in a few days. Beam 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beam. I created the majorty of the stuff here except the stuff above. I agree the content shouldn't be in the criticism section, but instead of being removed should be in an iran section. I will put a bit of effort in soon.Chendy (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Iran section? What? I think having what is left there is good enough. Unless you're going to tie the information I removed into some sort of criticism like "Con said this in this *article*, then 3 months later this *article* published by *person* pointed out that Con was full of shit" Something like that! ;) Beam 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

--Intro to the 'Criticism' section is a bit POV, reads like an apologia. I'll leave the content but remove the opinionated prose. Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.30.10 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

References

False 45 minute claim

This section included a broken link to a Telegraph article, which I have replaced with the archived copy. It also claimed, using that article as a source, that 'Con Coughlin provided the forged document which claimed that Iraq could access its WMDs within 45 minutes'. I have read the article and it does not provide any basis for this pretty remarkable claim, so I have removed it. If the person who made that claim wants to provide any other evidence, feel free to.--Lopakhin (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also going to change the wording of the previous section regarding a fake letter linking Iraq to Al Qaeda - to my knowledge, this letter was not 'highly influential in British politics', as in British politics most of the evidence was placed on Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs, rather than alleged links to Al Qaeda.--Lopakhin (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Torture

The section on Coughlin's public statements about torture was deleted without discussion on this page. Coughlin is a major public figure, with (in his capacity as a Telegraph leader writer) direct influence over the content of a national newspaper in the UK. Regardless of the platform on which he made these public, written comments, his views on this controversial issue are clearly - contrary to the opinions of the person who decided to delete all the reference to them - both notable and significant. 86.166.151.207 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Coughlin has also written on the preference of lawyers to put terrorist suspects' human rights ahead of national-security risks" is pure POV, and I propose to revert it to my original wording "Coughlin has persisted in writing articles supporting the use of torture" unless anyone can give a rational reason not to do so. Supporting torture is supporting torture, illegal and immoral, however you try and weasel it, and it is regrettable, to say the least, to have a columnist in a major British newspaper writing in suppoort of torture.Gordoncph (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Con Coughlin. 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/20100617022607/http://old.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312150842.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312150842.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Con Coughlin. 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/20120222033127/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=3&storycode=39598 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=39598&sectioncode=3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)