Talk:London Cage

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. defunct .Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Military history: World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  World War II task force

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

I am a bit troubled by the fact that acts of torture and other extended means of interrogation are mentioned more or less as "allegations", hence doubious, when there are have been several articles as published in "The Guardian" between 2005 and 2006 that report exactly that such illegal treatment of prisoners did take place regularly! For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/17/secondworldwar.topstories3 - or - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world/print While I think I understand why these acts in breach of the Geneva Conventions occurred, it is of no merit to brush them under the carpet and I find it troubling that such sources are not mentioned in the main article. Especially when there such people around who would love to jump on every evidence that the Allies also committed war crimes to make the Nazi crimes seem "relative". I am posting the links here and not in the main article as I am not an authority on this historic period. There could be a good reason for leaving them away, but it is not very obvious to me. I ask the "gardeners" of this section to take a look at them and consider adding them to the sources or even mentioning some of the content revealed by, what I hope, are competent journalists. [[User:L'Etranger|]] (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with L'Étranger. It's now ten years since his comment was made and this article contains not a word about any disinterested investigation into these serious allegations, either proving or denying them. It casts doubt on the veracity of the whole article. Laodah 02:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put quotation marks on the word evidence to indicate I meant "apparent evidence" [[User:L'Etranger|]] (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a clone of Alexander Scotland. I am redirecting back to that article. We don't need two identical articles on one subject. You can discuss your concerns at Talk:Alexander Scotland.Stetsonharry (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives the impression of wanting to play down acts committed. Weasel words are used; "alleged"/"allegations" occurs 11 times. The articles in The Guardian are much more straightforward in their statements [1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.82.253 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

While I'm not doubting torture an "enhanced methods" of interrogation in the London Cage, I think there is a good argument to be made to use the word allegation in connection with it. Or has anybody convicted by a British court in connection with it? Of course there is a lot of other dubious allegation in connection to WW2, and again we are told how certain this is. 105.4.196.180 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]