Talk:Freedom of Information Act 2000

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

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Questions were raised over government actions in the run up to implementing the act. Document shredding increased in government departments, sometimes by as much as 200%. The Cabinet Office also implemented a policy of deleting all e-mail messages more than three months old unless they contained vital information."

Where did *any* of this information come from? It is also vague.

This article needs some serious editing (by someone who knows the content well) to make it readable and understandable to the lay man. --Andrew Phelps 08:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The accusations can easily be found in the media. For example, the Daily Telegraph carried stories about the email deletions and the shredding increases. David Newton 11:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added a chunk on the FoI(Scotland) Act; is it worth splitting it out into an extra page? They do broadly cover the same issues, and the political context is much the same, but when you get down to the details there's a lot of differences, and discussing both in the same article could get confusing. Shimgray 02:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is another instance where they selectively release stuff. May be, they should rename it "Partial freedom of information act" [1]

"Killings carried out by strangers increased a third after Tony Blair came to power" Citation Needed surely--Childoftv (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

I've moved this back to our absolutely standard formation for Acts of Parliament for the United Kingdom.

James F. (talk) 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably worth splitting out the Scottish act, then... Shimgray 17:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed

This entry has the same name and is easily confused with the Freedom of Information Act in the United States.

Freedom of information legislation is effectively a disambiguation page. Freedom of Information Act redirects to Freedom of Information Act (United States). The US act was passed in 1966, so the "2000" ought to be sufficiently disambiguating, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the question originally and I agree that it's disambiguated. Does this mean we'll need a new entry every time a bill is renewed though? :-) Antonrojo 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no - the legislation still keeps the original name, unless they pass a whole new Act, and even then we'd probably keep this one.

Internationally, from 2000, we have a Slovakian "Act on Free Access to Information", a Moldovan "Law on Access to Information", an Estonian "Public Information Act", and a Bulgarian "Access to Public Information Act". None of these should require this page to disambiguate.

As regards ones with a similar name, though... there's at least a dozen called "Freedom of Information Act [year]", so perhaps it might be worth changing the US redirect to a disambiguation page in the future. (At least one - the Australian act - will almost certainly be written about at some point, and the Irish act's pretty likely to get an article too.) Shimgray | talk | 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Freedom of Information Act.svg

Image:Freedom of Information Act.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WhatDoTheyKnow.com

This (new) website allows users to request information under the Environmental Information Regulations and under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I was going to add links to the site, but as I has spent some of my spare time as a volunteer I thought I had better ask first bearing in mind Wikipedia:COI.—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cross (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 Jun, 2008

I have looked at your site and while it does appear interesting and potentially useful, I am a little wary of the warning that "This site really isn't nearly finished yet". Some other editors may hold a different opinion, but I would suggest waiting until the site administrator feels the site is ready enough to remove that warning before considering inclusion of a link at Wikipedia.

Also, this article may not be the best place to put the link, as your site is not about the Act itself. When you think the site is ready I would suggest making a similar request to this one at Talk:Freedom of information in the United Kingdom. Road Wizard (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilution of the final version of the act?

The first paragraph of this entry says "The final version of the Act is believed by Ben Robertson to have been diluted from that proposed while Labour was in opposition". Who is Ben Robertson, and why is his belief notable?

I'm not qualified to comment on this, because I do not have knowledge of UK politics. I'm a citizen of Canada! Daviding (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of Information Act 2000. 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) 10:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Freedom of Information Act 2000. 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) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of Information Act 2000. 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) 17:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]