Jump to content

Talk:Iraq Inquiry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mention Hutton Inquiry?

[edit]

Shouldn't this article and the one on the Hutton Inquiry each be modified to mention the other? As noted in the article on the Hutton Inquiry, it "cleared the government of wrongdoing": Isn't it fair to say that this July 2016 report says the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry were wrong?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iraq Inquiry. 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:

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) 09:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources seem to say that PDF is an open format

[edit]

This comment is based upon this recent version of the article.

The last sentence of (the article, but also the last sentence of) the Criticism section of the article, says:

There were also criticisms that the inquiry's final report had been published electronically only as Portable Document Format files, including images of scans of photocopies of printouts of electronic documents, and not in an open format.

However, according to various sources -- including this Wikipedia article: PDF -- it seems that, since some time that was several years before the Chilcot report was published, the file format called "PDF" has indeed met the requirements to be considered to be an open format.

I even clicked on the link from footnote number "[84]" of (the above mentioned version of) the article, and it appears that, while the article or item linked to -- that is, the item called "What do you mean Chilcot isn't a technology story?" -- at the URL http://tech.newstatesman.com/big-data/tried-searching-chilcot-report-good-luck -- does say some of the things quoted above -- like things about "including images of scans of photocopies of printouts of electronic documents" -- it does NOT exactly say -- (anywhere I saw) -- that the "PDF" file format is NOT an open format.

Hence, perhaps it would be appropriate for that sentence -- the above quoted sentence, which is the last sentence of the Criticism section of [the above-mentioned version of] the article -- to be edited,

  • (a) to not say that the criticism (leveled by the New Statesman article of "7 July 2016", linked to from footnote number "[84]" there) was [even partly] an assertion that the "PDF" file format does not meet the requirements to be considered an open format;
  • (b) to no longer imply that [it's true that] the "PDF" file format is NOT an open format; and/or
  • (c) to more correctly and accurately explain (or, state) what the criticism was, that was leveled by the New Statesman article "What do you mean Chilcot isn't a technology story?", at the tech.newstatesman.com URL mentioned above.

Doing (b) might require (a), and doing (c) might include doing (a).
Also. just doing (a) and (b) might be relatively easy, and IMHO that might be sufficient to achieve (c).

By the way, this might be a situation in which "It's Complicated"; ... [so] I hope that the above is not an over simplification. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the term "open format" is defined as "a file format for storing digital data, defined by a published specification usually maintained by a standards organization, and which can be used and implemented by anyone", as claimed in the first line of the Wikipedia article on "open format", then PDF is an "open format": The Wikipedia article on "PDF" says, "In 2008, Adobe published a Public Patent License to ISO 32000-1 granting royalty-free rights for all patents owned by Adobe that are necessary to make, use, sell, and distribute PDF compliant implementations."
There are two other issues about "openness":
  1. The material may be copyrighted. In the US nearly all government documents are in the public domain. That's not true in other countries. Copyright law of the United Kingdom is complicated. I don't know an easy way to determine the copyright status of the Chilcot Inquiry, in particular.
  2. Individuals and organizations that are required by law to publish certain information but don't want it easily available often publish in image format, so it cannot be searched (or otherwise processed by software) without first doing optical character recognition (whether by a human or software).
Hope this helps. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_Inquiry&oldid=1207736480"