Talk:News International phone hacking scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scotland Yard, government, and political parties involvement

The Guardian has exposed that not only the press is involved. Scotland Yard is compromised, under two governments. The article (the TOC) should reflect that. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we cover the parliamentary debate?

CecilWard (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just skip it. Unless Tony Blair confesses. Whadoyou expect? Wait, 6 more years, for The Times to be a Reliable Source. Then quote the PM, whoever it may be at that time. But you are trolling, innit. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jut go find the debate on Hansard, that's a reliable source. 91.110.209.169 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Current event

I marked it as a current event given the speed and nature of recent developments.Autarch (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CET is based on the flux of edits, rather than whether an article is in the news. This means that the "current" template tends to be reverted if an article does not have a high edit count.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrests

Arrests are coming fast and furious. I want to consolidate the Coulson arrest with the other ones (3 so far as of this writing), especially since speculation has more arrests coming. Objections??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyranma (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Add it to!Wipsenade (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Loss of advertisers

No mention is made in the article of major advertisers pulling their business? Speciate (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ford and Vauxhall cars dumped them.Wipsenade (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Holidays, the Co-operative Group, Vauxhall Motors, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. are all added and sourced!Wipsenade (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Watson

There is nothing on this article about Tom Watson's considerable role on bringing this matter to wider public attention; see [1], [2], [3]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Add it!Wipsenade (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Done.Wipsenade (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rees

As there is a [who?] by the name Rees, I looked him up. Rees is Jonathan Rees, a private investigator, who is alleged to have, while working for News of the World, illegally obtained information about people and to have bribed police officers. He was, in 2000, sent to prison for seven years for trying to frame a woman to discredit her in a divorce case. In 2005 he was released from prison and re-hired by the News of the World by its then editor, Andy Coulson. In 2008, he was charged with the axe murder of his business partner, but was cleared of the death in 2011. The source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/11/phone-hacking-dark-arts-jonathan-rees?amp&amp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.34.11.191 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman?

According to BBC News' article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14035270 - the phones of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were hacked by News of the World journalists in the world. Not sure if this is true or not but I though it should be brought up? Evilgidgit (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It was their parent's landline numbers which were found among papers, not the mobile numbers, and there is no evidence that these were actually hacked. Wikipedia should not be based on allegations without hard facts (like most of the material in this article...)Dsergeant (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree DSeargent- were the landline numbers ex dir either at the time - ? And there is not actually any evidence they were hacked at all. 79.75.212.133 (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)twl79.75.212.133 (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Affair" or "scandal"?

Just out of interest, I wonder whether "News of the World phone hacking scandal" might be a more WP:COMMONNAME for this article, given that it's referred to as a "scandal" by most of the UK press and also by this article's companion List of alleged victims of the News of the World phone hacking scandal. I assume the article name was going off the precedent set by scandals like the Profumo Affair and so forth, but looking at other similar articles, we have 2009 cash for influence scandal and United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal which are called by that title. I wonder whether "affair" is a little mild, especially after it has all blown up in the last week or so. Bob talk 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Virtually all sources call it a scandal, virtually none call it an affair.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it is more WP:COMMONNAME.86.16.1.219 (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As The Guardian broke the story, they may be considered the authoritative source: "Monkey, with its finger on the pulse as ever, has been keeping a keen eye on the taxonomy of the phone hacking business: what do we call it? It started out as an "affair" and has progressed over the past week through "scandal" to "crisis" in many news stories, while #murdochgate has been getting some play on twitter. But, ladies and gentlemen, we may have a winner. On Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday morning, the terribly, terribly urbane information commissioner, Christopher Graham, described it as a "rumpty-too." Perhaps the more important point is Hugh Grant's elevation to being the moral compass of the nation. 75.60.7.172 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Soon as I saw it just now, use of 'affair' rather than 'scandal' struck me — given the scale & depth of apparent public revulsion — as the sort of euphemism, it's reasonable to suppose, Rupert Murdoch would prefer. Particularly in view of the current & anticipated continuing level of public interest, I suggest the heading is modified as a matter of urgency. An appropriate juncture also, perhaps, to decide whether 'phone hacking' should be hyphenated. My feeling is that it should, better to distinguish it more obviously from the already over-commodious term 'hacking' itself. Any chance of quickly declaring a clear consensus? Any dissenting voices? Wingspeed (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any objection. If Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is considered a scandal, then this is definitely a "scandal". Maybe even a megascandal, or a megasuperduperscandal, but for now lets stick with scandal. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

done. Smatprt (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

very odd indeed

Does anyone else find it odd that there is virtually no mention of this scandal on the Rupert Murdoch article, nor are there any links there to this article? This is the biggest scandal in the history of media and Rupert Murdoch is the king of this empire, yet no real mention of it can be found in the article about him. Great job by the editors here though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that at this point, it is unclear just how involved he is and how much this scandal will effect him specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's very clear how this scandal is already affecting him if you use your Google skills. I would suggest going to Google and tying in the words "Rupert Murdoch" and spend some time reading and you'll quickly learn where this is going and how it's already affecting him and what's in his immediate future. The United States investigation will likely start soon, and plan on at least 3 years of Murdoch legal drama in the UK or USA or both. The company is run by him, and he's the head dude. No doubt he'll deny any knowledge of wrong doing, and the underlings will say they were only following orders. This is pretty common. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this scandal is already affecting him, to the tune of about 3 billion dollars so far (that is a lot of money), not to mention he just put one of the oldest newspapers in the world out of business. That is a measurable effect is it not, you lose 3 billion in value in less than a week, you put one of the oldest newspapers in the world out of business, and the UK is asking you to answer to Parliament, and it appears he will not be doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My "Google skills" are quite fine, and not relevant per WP:GOOGLEHITS. Demonstrate something that deserves inclusion there and it will be included there. For all we know, Murdoch himself had no knowledge of this until it broke in the press and had nothing to do with it. It impacts his corporation, for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The arrest of Neil Wallis

The News of the World exsecutive editor , Neil Wallis, has been arested [[4]]--82.18.199.36 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

John Junor Link?

Sir John Junor was the last UK journalists forced to 'apologise to the house' at a parliamentary committee, for suggesting they were corrupt (he said they were jumping the queues for petrol, which was on ration after WW2). A link to his Wiki article seems appropriate. Was there any in depth investigation of the veracity of his allegations at the time? The allegations were probably true.212.139.108.215 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)pass the sick bag, alice212.139.108.215 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just the NotW

Given the recent suggestions that this controversy extends beyond just the News of the World, and possibly to The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times also, is it time to rename this article to encapsulate all of the associated allegations? Perhaps News International phone hacking scandal would work. --TBM10 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A few US senators are calling for a full investigation regarding the claims that Murdoch's folks hacked into the phones of 9/11 victims. Formal and official requests have been sent to the DOJ from a couple senators. The NotW is probably just the tip of the iceberg as they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I came here to say this same thing. The allegations, whether true or false, have definitely spread beyond merely News of the World. The FBI is investigation is to News Corp, not just NotW. Since this has been suggested twice before without apparent objection, I'll move it to the title suggested by TMB10. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph overhaul

What's happened to the introductory paragraph? It used to outline the full extent of the scandal in terms of the British victims of NotW phone hacking, such as Milly Dowler, British soldiers and 7/7 victims, but now that the investigation has spread to the U.S. it only mentions 9/11 victims. I think it needs to be made clear that this scandal is one that predominantly emanates from Britain and, for now, involves predominantly British victims. Typical that as soon as the Yanks get involved there's a massive slant towards them. --TBM10 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebekah Brooks' Resignation

Surely this[5] should be mentioned somewhere? I'm not sure where though... Stephenb (Talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already dealt with this, although I also struggled with deciding where it belonged. I ended up putting in in section 8.1.Feel free to find a better spot. Manning (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems fine there... Stephenb (Talk) 15:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes

He's been hacked to. [[6]]86.24.14.164 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Size of Compensation Claims?

Could the article shed more light on the likely 'impact' of the compensation claims on News International? Seems that £100K for ~ 100 celebrities makes hacking worthwhile,as criminal charges are unlikely to attract the custodial sentences given to the Royal Hackers(except for the few bent coppers who probably only earned a £1K a piece) who will undoubtedly be thrown in jail. How much is a 'Public Inquiry' likely to cost the Taxpayer? And can the Metropolitan Police Force be sued by victims- and won't the Taxpayer just end up paying compensation to the likes of John Prescott - he was screwing the taxpayer out of his salary whilst screwing a tart in the office, and now seems likely to be rewarded financially for his efforts. 79.70.234.29 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)?79.70.234.29 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone might want to fold the following into the article - it all should be fairly easy to source (Guardian / Sky News / etc)

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows custodial sentences to be applied to those who intercept electronic communications (it allows such punishment to be given in response to those who are responsible for such behaviour whether or not they actually partook in it - it has been suggested by Alan Johnson MP that this may apply to executives at NOTW). The compensation was designed to head of such an issue becoming top of the agenda - this has clearly failed, as most newspapers have led with the story this week, and it has been headline news on the main channels in the UK. Hacking phone messages may also bring action in the US if US citizens were targeted - the FBI has opened a case.

As for the Met, generally they won't be liable to people like John Prescott - his damages would come from News International (and if seen in court may be well in excess of £100k. They would be liable for failure to investigate the crime properly and on corruption charges. Corruption charges would be against individual officers, and not the organisation as a whole. Failure to investigate properly is likely to leed to some people being retroactively fired (which would reduce taxpayer outlay on their pensions), or senior officers on large salaries being fired if they still work for the Met.

News International, as of the time of writing, has had to close one of the most widely circulated English language publications, fire 4 highly paid execs with seven figure compensation packages, and drop a bid on BSkyB forcing them to take costs of millions associated with penalty clauses. Alongside this, they face fit and proper tests by Ofcomm, and pay for costs of lengthly legal and public investigations in terms of lawyers who will charge six figure sums.

They stock price has dropped more than 10%. They face legal action for failing to act quickly. Their are calls for the SEC to investigate how the payments to police and compensation claims were accounted for - which may yet cause fraud allegations. And still the storm continues.

Worth it? For a few hundred thousand extra sales of a newspaper? (It's difficult to estimate how many more sales the stories caused).

I doubt it.

82.13.229.35 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bribery of police

I see no mention of the allegations and admissions about payments made to police officers in return for information, which are surely a significant part of this whole affair - although referred to as 'the phone hacking scandal' etc. it's wider than that. Some have said the practice is widespread, but that doesn't make it right or legal, and it has a bearing on the demand for a judicial inquiry as opposed to a police investigation.Costesseyboy (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth adding.Wipsenade (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been.82.18.204.123 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Hacking"?

Why does the story persist that this is "hacking", invoking thoughts of complex crimes and sophisticated technology.

The parties involved simply phoned up the voicemail retrieval lines, provided by telecom companies to allow voicemail to be picked up from phones other than the normal handset, input the mobile phone number required and then a PIN (which many users leave unchanged from their default number, e.g. 0000, 9999 etc, etc.).

Calling it "hacking" gives it a sophistication it doesn't deserve. At least the article should reference the methodology. Larkim (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's mainly because we usually work with the most common title, and "phone hacking" is how nearly all of the sources refer to this particular crime. It's difficult to find a comparable term, as this isn't quite phone tapping either. Bob talk 17:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As Bob has said, 'phone hacking' is how pretty much all major news sources are referring to the issue. Plus I don't think an act needs to be complex or sophisticated to qualify as 'hacking'. It would be good to have a description of the method used in the article though. RandomLettersForName (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The media in the UK is non-stop on this story at the moment..... I would like to see some intelligent coverage about it, which seems totally lacking. It does seem to be entirely voice mail intercepts, but it is difficult to see what useful information could be obtained that way - messages like 'Bob, please call me back, Jane' don't say much. This morning the BBC, in connection with the 7/7 story, seem to be linking the presence of addresses and phone numbers in journalist's files to hacking having taken place, which is a dubious link. Can we please put some sense of balance (perhaps in the article itself) into the story - at the moment much of the media coverage and linked items is about 'allegations' and they remain just that with no hard facts.Dsergeant (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• added a section differentiating between hacking and unauthorized voicemail access. Hope it's OK. juan^less 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Techniques

At the moment, the article gives no details on how the alleged hacking occurred. Although a large degree of technical skill would not have been required, the term hacking has stuck in the media. There were two likely techniques involved:

• As mentioned above, some people never get round to changing the voicemail PIN from the factory default.
• Caller ID spoofing was at the centre of the Paris Hilton phone hacking controversy in 2006, and may have been used in some of the cases, although the media has been reluctant to go into details. This article needs to give some indication of how the hacking occurred, but without giving ideas to silly people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this criticism. I believe one of the articles (Vanity Fair or the New York Times goes into some specifics about how this was possible (and supposedly more practical with the British phone network than its US counterpart), although in minimal detail (partly because of the technical aspects, partly because the investigators were being tight-lipped and partly to avoid tipping other people off to how to do it, as noted). It did mention the first problem; however how the reporters got the cell numbers they needed to call I don't know) We need something explaining how this was done. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The article phone hacking gives possible techniques. There was some concern about giving ideas to silly people, but since the scandal broke, all of the likely techniques have been discussed in the mainstream media. So far, no reliable evidence has emerged that Caller ID spoofing was used by Glenn Mulcaire or his associates, as it was an uncommon technique in the early 2000s. According to Rory Cellan-Jones in this BBC article, Caller ID spoofing is not supposed to work on UK mobile phone networks anyway, as it is against the Ofcom guidelines (section 6.5, Authenticity of CLI information). Not enough media attention has been given to how Mulcaire obtained the phone numbers in the first place, as many of them are likely to have been ex-directory (unlisted). There may also have been widespread blagging, and this has been alleged in the Milly Dowler case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This 2009 Guardian article is also worth reading. It shows how phone numbers and home addresses were routinely obtained by journalists using illegal access to confidential databases. Steve Whittamore is a key figure in this area, as he is also alleged to have been involved in obtaining the Milly Dowler phone numbers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Phone Hacking should not redirect here

Phone hacking ought to have a page of its own, describing the practise and going into much more specific detail on that topic. Anyone hitting Wikipedia for the meaning of phone hacking (how it works, what is it) will be little the wiser after reading the news corp story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakisan (talk • contribs) 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've started a very basic stub here, but don't have either the time or the knowledge to expand it further. RandomLettersForName (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if somebody has reverted your work and it is a redirect again....Dsergeant (talk)

Note on phone hacking

Since Rangoon11 apparently does not want this information in the article, I'm preserving it here:

The term "phone hacking" in this situation is in fact a misnomer, as this scandal primarily concerns the unauthorized access of voicemail systems (service-provider implemented answering machines). Illegal access to actual phone lines or live phone conversations has not been implied. However, extensive media usage of the term has led to its general adoption when referring to the scandal.

• Thanks, looks like it got put back in under background, which works fairly well. juan^less 17:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, gone again. A little more background in http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2011/07/16/phone-hacking-technology-and-policy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.178.28 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Rees

Following some conversation at the Daniel_Morgan_(private_investigator) talk page it was suggested to start a Jonathan_Rees page as he was begining to dominate that article, I started the relevent page by spining off the relevent content and have linked to it from this page. A lot of work and editing needs to be done on the page (it's sharing a lot of content atm) but it's a start. Failedwizard (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Its presently a heap of un-cited tagged rubbish, and needs urgent work. In fact, most of the edits by Failedwizard are the source of that lack of references! Rgds, --2.97.133.186 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 2.97.133.186, thank you for adding the 10 'fact' templates to the article - it turns out they they were luckily all covered by the references already in the article so I've replaced the 'fact' tags with the proper citations - thank you for entering into the spirit of the work though! I know it does need a lot of work still, particularly copyediting if anyone would like to drop by :) Failedwizard (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch article

There is still not a word of any of this on his article. It needs a section on recent developments - reporting on his actions if nothing else. To say "his role in all this is not clear" doesn't cut it. There is a great deal of factual detail that is clear and that can be written with BLP and legal la la in mind. Looking at the article it seems like it's just another wet Wednesday in March for him, things ticking along nicely, nothing to write home about. This doesn't look at all good for Wikipedia. Span (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not add it then? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking if there is a clear reason for its omission. Span (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is still not a word of any 2011 event on the Murdoch article. I don't have a good enough overview to start a section. It's getting over 100 000 hits a day as people look there for info and find nothing. I'd encourage someone to start so others can join. Span (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this part of Wiki Project Terrorism?

How is this hacking scandal in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism? It only deals with the relatives of victims of terrorism, not terrorism itself.Gee totes (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to with that Wikiproject or this designation, but I had assumed it was because this scandal/allegations involves the phones of victims of terrorism-- 7/7 and 9/11 most notable. The families are, themselves, victims of terrorism in a way, since they lost someone. But also, when their phones were getting hacked, it was in the hopes that it would provide information about the terrorist victims, not the families as unrelated individuals. I have no stake whatsoever though in whether the wikiproject considers this to be something they want to focus on or not though, that's totally up to them. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe I will bring this up with the Wikiproject, as I am part of that project. Our about page states:

"While we have to date limited ourselves to acts of violence against civilians by VNSAs for political gain, users are encouraged to add their own new focus. It is impossible to fully separate "terrorism" from "counter-terrorism", as the methods used are often similar. One should use common sense in labeling an attack on unarmed civilians at the Munich Olympics as "an act of terrorism", while an attack against an Iraqi military base might be better suited to the Military history Wikiproject"Gee totes (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably relates to the victims of 7/7 and 9/11 and their family's phones being 'hacked'.213.81.121.200 (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Watson and Lord Fowler

This section seems mostly unnecessary and I am tempted to remove it. Why is it notable that Fowler demanded an inquiry? Many others did. And was Watson really that responsible for bringing this whole furore to light? I've never heard his name mentioned once in any report or article about the scandal. I'm going to remove this section for now, and if someone has a compelling case for its inclusion then please state it and revert the removal. --TBM10 (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored Tom Watson and adjusted the header. He has unanimously been cited by all political parties as being tirelessly campaigning for this issue to be given proper attention by the Government and has had to contend with vilification by the Murdoch Press in the past.see here The other MP is Chris Bryantsee here who should be included rather than Lord Fowler.Tmol42 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord Fowler is launching yet another probe, buy starting his own.213.81.121.200 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Norman Fowler passage says nothing which is not apparent from the rest of the article, and a public inquiry has now been set up. It keeps being restored though, for some reason. Philip Cross (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Concerns and Implications

Does anyone have any concerns about the style, content and balance of the section added this morning on Ethical Concerns and Implications? Clearly thoroughly researched and cited but its overall length and use of terms such as 'many people', 'many worry', 'many would argue' throughout and the opinionated nature of the polemic style statements places this section in the category of journalistic essay rather than balanced encyclopaedic content. As such it does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would suggest it needs to be substantially rebalanced and cut back significantly or alternatively used a the basis of a new article on "ethics of the tabloid press". Thoughts pleaseTmol42 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

O.K.15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.204.123 (talk)

i mind the quote of the restrictive opinion of shepard. things are either legal or not, doing short of our right for free press doesn't in itself seem to warrant a quote in this article and i dont see another use for quoting it.80.57.43.57 (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this section to address the issues of tone. If no further adverse comments on style suggest the banner is removed in a day or so.Tmol42 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of photo from United States section

United Airlines Flight 175 crashing into the south tower of the World Trade Center on September 11 2001.

The photo shown to the right has been removed from the United States section by IP:66.108.116.248. I am puzzled as to why, as it is a perfectly reasonable illustration of a key aspect of the allegations, and similar photos have been used in third party coverage e.g. [7]. I strongly feel that this image should not be censored from this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really relevant, and it is misleading on many levels. No-one is suggesting News Limited had anything to do with 9/11, only that there are allegations they improperly sought to obtain phone messages of those who were directly impacted by the tragedy. If we put a 9/11 photo on every article that had a connection to 9/11 in some way we would need to place it on thousands of pages, including Paul McCartney because he organised the benefit concert. Manning (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant image at this moment in time as absolutelty nothing has been admitted or proven in regard to 9/11 victims. Why don't you put a photo of Milly Dowler or the 7/7 attack instead? Much more relevant. --TBM10 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How on earth would the inclusion of the photo suggest that News Corporation somehow had complicity in the attacks - do you believe this is what media sources such as The Telegraph are implying by placing very similar photos next to ones of Murdoch? The attacks are highly relevant however, just as are photos of alleged victims, the FBI inquiry is specifically focused on victims of September 11. And yes, I support the addition of photos of Milly Dowler or the 7/7 attack as well. I simply cannot understand how someone could argue that they are relevant but an image of September 11 is 'totally irrelevant'. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The other images are relevant because the NotW essentially admitted it hacked their phones. There is no evidence or admission that News Corp hacked 9/11 victims... yet. --TBM10 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not true, none of these specific allegations have been admitted to as yet. It is also clear that the FBI would not have launched a major investigation without cause. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Rangoon11 launched a concurrent discussion here, about using the same photo in another article. There seems to be a consensus here of 4 to 1. Could Rangoon11 recognize this and please move on? We could all be contributing to articles if not for this rather meaningless debate. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion should be allowed to run its course and it certainly isn't for you to declare that it has (after a grand total of 45 minutes since the first post on the issue). I have yet to hear any convincing reasons as to why this image should be censored from the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. I am not "declaring" any end to this discussion, mainly suggesting that you concede to consensus for the moment. Respecting other users' opinions and learning to concede even in cases where you have a strong opinion is the first and crucial step in participating in a community. Remember that you do not own this article. Accusing others of censorship is also less than helpful. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop acusing others of censorship.86.24.14.164 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Batjik Syutfu, according to the Wiki Consensus standards, a continued debate has fairly neglible importance Cshaase (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, its of neglible importance. I think I can end it thus-

It was reported that the News of the World may have hacked the phones of relatives of 7/7 attack victims (survivors pictured aboard one of the bombed Underground trains).

• This shows a person at the 7/7 attack, who, if he survived and if he had a mobile phone, could have been hacked- thus is on topic. The 9/11 photo shows a destroyed WTC office block- thus off topic (Rupert Merdoch did not cause 9/11 and the WTC building did not have its mobile phone hacked). Shimpels!86.24.14.164 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Both pictures seem pretty irrelevant to me and border on sensationalism ("Look, this topic is vaguely related to 9/11! Here's a picture of the burning towers!"). We could just as well show random pictures of British soldiers in Iraq. --Conti|✉ 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think the Milly Dowler picture is appropriate because it was her personal voicemail that was hacked, but the hackings were not directly related to the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks and therefore the pictures seem a bit over the top Cshaase (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Milly Dowler's definitely in. I feel like, at this point, the 9/11 photo is probably more 'prejudicial' than 'informative'. We know what happened on 9/11, we don't need the photo to remind us. The image being used to illustrate 7/7 is different-- it's an example of the kind of image they might actually have been looking for in connection to hackings related to 7/7 , thus it's pretty informative. "What were they hoping to find?"-- that photo is just one example of the kind of information bad-faith-actors might have been able to access. So, it's kinda special case, to me. If the 9/11-related hackings wind up needing an image, it should be this same kind of image-- the sort that isn't "big and all over the headlines" but is small and might have, in theory, be the kind of information that was being illegally accessed. I don't think we need any 9/11 image at this point. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose both pictures as they are nothing more than an application of argumentum ad misericordiam.Smallman12q (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Grant

I was very surprised that Hugh Grant is not mentioned once in this article. He is always on the news, Question Time, etc. going on about this. IainUK talk 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Piers Morgan, who has also been accused of phone hacking, had this to say about Hugh Grant on his Twitter feed. Probably fails WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Grant wore a wire to help uncover this scandal. [8] Surely that should be mentioned. (I assume that is why he is speaking on the subject in the first place.) Thundermaker (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge article Sean Hoare into section Death of Sean Hoare

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is far too much to be done on this fast-moving topic to waste time debating this particular merger issue of a small part of it. If someone still thinks Sean Hoare needs merging in a week or two, then send it to AFD. At this point, as Sean Hoare expands, and this article develops, a merger risks needing a future demerger anyway. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The newly created article Sean Hoare is premature and should become a redirect to this section. If and when Sean Hoare becomes notable for more than one event or this section becomes unwieldy then we can consider splitting him off into another article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose No, he's notable enough for his own article. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• If he's notable enough for his own article, why not move the section about his death there, or mention it as a parenthetical in the one other place he's actually mentioned in this article, at least until it's been conclusively connected to this issue. The local police are apparently treating it as not suspicious, and, yes, coincidences do happen, despite what conspiracy theorists like to believe. 74.219.66.178 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Even before this scandal, he was an award winning journalist rather famous for his story of the David and Victoria Beckham purchase of an Essex island. [9] It should also be noted that WP:ONEEVENT does not an has never banned articles of people notable for one event. It simply is a guideline on how to deal with those under that circumstance, which this person is not anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose-His participation in the initiation of this debacle is the subject of a lot of journalism. His death has also received significant coverage.Smallman12q (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support until such time as there is more content than could fit into this article. If we split every single subtopic from its main topic no article would be longer than a paragraph - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good point ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ, I totally second that.Gee totes (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support So the police are calling his death "non-suspicious"? Excuse me while I roll my eyes.Yongbyong38 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Oakshade. I think he is a notable journalist in his own right because of his past achivements. He is even mentioned in severla books as a top class editor. Yes, he is most notable for ONEEVENT, but he also in my view meets notability requirements for his previous career.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose He's notable enough. Span (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose notable enough on his own.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Putting his own notability aside - the proposed target violates our neutrality Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; it would be nice to see some coverage of this guy before the last couple of days - otherwise BLP1E seems to apply. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge - he's a journalist....and then there is the one event phone hacking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose With the original NY Times article Hoare set in motion the current hacking enquiry at all its levels; that makes him notable. (reineke (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC))

  That just makes him notable in relation to the phone hacking story it does not make his whole life notable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Significant in his own right and should have his own article, plenty of third party coverage. This main article on NI phone hacking is going to need subsidiary articles quite soon given its endlessly increasing length. Philip Cross (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  "He is now notable" - Can you please explain (with policy) what he is notable for apart for one event - this event - WP:BLP1E a policy, suggests he doesn't/shouldn't have a BLP article under his own name. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose he now is notable enough for own article.--Noel baran (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  "now notable in his own right" - what for, nothing apart from the phone hacking investigation. Just because the article is getting large is not a reason to start creating BLP articles for people that are only notable in regards ot the hacking. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Notable and will inevitably only become more so with time. Ericoides (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Is that according to your crystal ball? Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please get on with something more constructive and stop harassing everybody who votes oppose Off2riorob.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made something resembling a snow-close because we have so much better things to do on this topic right now than worry about merging this. Plus it should probably be handled via AFD anyway. In case this close upsets anyone (I was the first respondent): please remember it's just intended as a temporary "please let's not worry about this not now", not a definitive "no". If someone does insist on following this up right now, please use AFD. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pie was not "successfully stopped"

The article says: "A protestor sitting in the public gallery attempted to throw a shaving-foam pie at Rupert Murdoch.[167][168], though this was successfully stopped by Murdoch's wife. [169] [170][171]"

I watched it on live broadcast last night. The pie was not "successfully stopped". When they resumed, rupert murdoch had discarded his suit jacket and was waering just his shirt. TC 08:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.223.124 (talk)

Article needs images

This article looks very dry. It needs images of the leading protagonists, newspapers, etc; to make it more amenable. Fig (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch has an image in his BLP, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson do not. Newspaper pages also need to meet WP:NFCC. It may be worth a look around on Flickr for free images of Brooks and Coulson.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a screen capture image of Mrs Murdoch spiking the comedian. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC) . . . http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/lifestyle/big-issue/is-mrs-murdoch-worthy-of-her-ninja-title . . . A million Google hits.

Photo requests

A lot of the individuals involved in this scandal don't have Wikipedia photos yet. That should be fixed. We don't necessarily need photos of everyone, just the people who are truly notable. In particular, I'm think of the people whose notability in the business community was established long before this scandal-- we don't especially need pictures of everyone, but their biography articles would look slightly more polished if we had them. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I started a multiple image section for claimants in the admission of liability section, but there should also be ones for accused/implicated (Brooks, Hinton, Coulson, Goodman, etc) and judicial (Cameron, Leveson, Holder, etc). juan^less 21:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a photo-portrait on the WP page of Les Hinton. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare

Former NOTW and Sun Reporter - you should include the fact that Mr. Hoare, was reported to have been found dead on 1807/2011 -he was the first to suggest Andy Coulson knew about phone hacking. Seems rather unique timing, as he was the ONLY source of evidence that Coulson actively encouraged criminal activities. The Metropolitan Police are investigating the death, but have already decided to treat the death as non-suspicious, according to the BBC.79.75.220.73 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)twl79.75.220.73 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which brings back to focus (not for now, but in the future) the first paragraph herein: The Steven Nott comments. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC) . . . These thoughts have no place in current edits, but they are a "stinky-elephant-in-the-room". Nothing here, move on.

Sean Hoare death is too far for now

I just pulled out the section on Sean Hoare's death. Yes, Hoare is connected to the scandal, and yes he died on a day during the height of the scandal, but so far there's no official connection between his death and the scandal. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fine so long as he has his own article and his death is mentioned in the timeline. There will obviously be conspiracy theories about the timing (although reading between the lines of the Guardian's reporting and the first police report I believe his death wasn't unexpected at all), and it appears that his case was ultimately caused by his lifestyle, for which the newspapers can be held accountable. That may be material for another, somewhat related article, but it's probably a bit too tangential for this one. Hans Adler 07:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good comment/analysis. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Upgrade

I added a lot today.Wipsenade (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made some fairly substantial modifications to the article. Given that the article has been modified quite considerably in the last day, I acknowledge that some of these may be contestable. Here's a brief summary of my major revisions:

• Rewritten the lead section. The lead section did not give an adequate summary of the article and did not define the parameters of the article appropriately.
• Modified the overview: "The affair itself". The overview had been created by mish-mashing the previous lead section with an assortment of facts about the affair. I have streamlined this somewhat.
• Removed overview section: "Other related affairs". While the information imparted in the section was doubtless relevant to Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited and the general reputation and history of the newspaper, it was not sufficiently relevant to the phone hacking affair, coming across as a case of giving undue weight to a tangential issue.
• Removed section: "First Max Clifford case". This was already dealt with under the heading, "Max Clifford case". It was not significant enough, in any case, to warrant its own first-level section.
• Removed some citations. It was unnecessary to have eight citations buttressing sentences such as "[Coulson] had joined Cameron's communications team in 2007 after his resignation from the News of the World": between one and three citations is more than sufficient. The additional citations had the effect of creating unnecessary confusion, especially since they were not cited using human-readable footnotes.
• Modified section: "2011: The News of the World admit liability". Some of the information was inaccurate, including the number and identities of litigants. I also consolidated citations in this section according to the same logic as the dot-point immediately above this one.

Comments and suggested improvements are welcome. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Lead section is too long and detailed (six paragraphs?! wayy too long). There doesn't need to be a list of events by date - it's all covered in the body. The arrest of Clive Goodman is mentioned in three separate sections!! Redundant, edited. juan^less 03:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Guys i am new and i hope i am commenting in right section. Only i would like to say is i would like to add some informations to topic but i habe no idea where and how. You might interest:

1- An English Street Artist (Dr. D) Made a street art today : http://stabilitees.com/blog/best-in-the-town/2011/dial-m-for-murdoch-fresh-street-art-from-dr-d-in-london-for-rupert-murdoch-hacking-scandal/

2- Also one T shirt company from Camden did those two designs and they sold more than 300 copies in Camden town today : http://stabilitees.com/blog/best-in-the-town/2011/dial-m-for-murdoch-fresh-street-art-from-dr-d-in-london-for-rupert-murdoch-hacking-scandal/

Any budy can help me about this?

Kind Regards

User: MmarlonN — Preceding unsigned comment added by MmarlonN (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Some criticisms

There are several things about this article that make it a worthless indictment of Murdoch rather than what could have been an excellent scathing of a notoriously bad newspaper & her reporters:

1) The idea of this is part of Wikiproject terrorism is laughable at best, disgusting hypocrisy at the least. The Wikileaks articles, which have more to do with exposing terrorism, and are arguably on the same level of illegality - exposing information obtained illegally, are not labelled as part of "Wikiproject terrorism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guantanamo_Bay_files_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War_documents_leak

2) There is a picture of Murdoch. It's quite obvious an attempt is being made to subconsciously get the reader to make an associating between Murdoch & this. A picture of Murdoch right at the top is as irrelevant as a picture of George Walker Bush Junior, Barrack Hussein Obama etc would be if they had their photos placed on the article of the US recession.

3) There is a link at the bottom "Yellow Journalism". This has absolutely nothing to do with Yellow Journalism - which is about over-hyping non-sensiscal, non-researched material & headlines - if anything, the phone hacking scandal is about someone who did TOO MUCH RESEARCH!!!

98.176.10.163 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps review WP:BASICS. You'll see that Wikipedia is a deeply collaborative project. This means we welcome any editors' constructive changes to articles with reference to the guidelines. You will find above that there is ongoing discussion as to whether the article should be part of the Terrorism project and which images to include. These are not givens. You might like to join the conversation and shape the future of the article. Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view, not to be scathing, lauding, or anything else. We are an encyclopaedia. That's all. Span (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1) I suspect the WikiProject Terrorism tag is there because of the hacking into 7/7 victims' phones. Bit tenuous, but nothing to get upset about - by long tradition, WikiProject tagging doesn't mean anything in particular, it's just a tool for organising articles.

2) Picture is discussed in a thread above. People like adding pictures, even when they're not really useful.

3) I see your point about the Yellow journalism "see also" link, but see the third sentence of Yellow journalism: By extension "Yellow Journalism" is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion. Not sure it's useful to have the link, but it's not completely plucked out of the air.

PS I've toned down the section header; there's no need for that. Rd232 ^talk 23:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To just echo what others have said-- Wikiproject tags are NOT meant to be statements of fact nor do they 'imply' any arguments about the subject. Wikiprojects are just very loose associations of editors who help out, and because of 7/7 and 9/11, they are helping out here. But this does not "mean" anything at all about the subject.

Murdoch is the only person who was in a direct supervisory capacity over arrested chief executive Rebekah Brooks. There's no one but Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks-- and to the face of an arrested executive would be even more prejudicial.

Additionally, Murdoch has a long history of unusually strong control over his board, so his face is clearly the one we should be using to represent NewsCorp leadership-- he's their only still-relevant-but-unindicted supervisor after the Brooks indictment. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Use a more relevant photo?

I would like to see the photo of the highest ranking person, who had knowledge of, and/or orchestrated it. Isn't using RM's photo more akin to using Obama's photo because of a local politcal scandal? Unles RM was aware of, and orchestrated this, I fail to see how he is imminently relevant to this scandal? I think a more proper photo choice would be the one who orchestrated this, and is imminently involved in it. Or am I misinformed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To reflect this line of argument, we could include some information about this editorial of the Wall Street Journal.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The next most-superior individual is Rebekah Brooks, who has been arrested, and thus may not be the best face for News International. Either way, her article doesn't even have a picture yet. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Same is true of Les Hinton who needs a portrait-photo on his page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea, why not build a comprehensive photo gallery of all the key players. We could have thumb nails of Rupert, James, Rebekah, Andy, Les, and the two Scotland Yard agents.Yongbyong38 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Split article?

Instead of wasting time talking about merging an article here which is perfectly harmless, we should consider what to do with this article, which is growing increasingly large and unwieldy, isn't even comprehensive, and can only continue to grow as events are likely to develop for some time yet. I'm not quite sure what to suggest, but I do note that when I created the article last year, it was as "News of the World phone hacking scandal"; this was recently broadened to "News International phone hacking scandal" when events spread beyond News of the World. One possibility would be to split it along those lines, so we have one article covering the development of the News of the World phone hacking scandal up to its closure, and a News International phone hacking scandal which covers the later developments, with a brief summary of the News of the World beginnings (WP:SUMMARY-style). Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't get the difference between those two titles. I would trim the bloat and fluff out of the current article myself - for example the uncited cherry picked timeline section requires removal. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just going to get bigger and bigger. From the evidence of AC Sue Ackers to the HASC, the MetPolice are less than 1% through contacting those who are potentially hacked. Yet at present your own article has an incomplete timeline (with out thinking I have personally added: Unfair dismissal; ICO Report; 2009 Police review; Rupert Murdoch's interview with the WSJ; News Corps MSC creation; IPCC's six investigations); and sub articles are popping up all over the place due to previously non-notable subject areas now becoming headline news. I added Harbottle & Lewis to your template, and that article is already subject to edit by WP:COI editors; from James Murdoch's evidence and H&L's engagement with a topline PR agency/the royal angle, that will only get a bigger article/balance problem. A natural "lull" in events should occur in the next few weeks - we have seen some of it today, with the Murdoch's not going backwards in the CMSC - and the combination of Parliaments summer recess, plus the legal process/inquiry kicking in. Surely you experienced editors must know by now that without a timeline, you can hardly have a credible article; and secondly editing cruft/splitting in two just won't work until you have one. Concentrate on the timeline, which at present looks like poor quality Swiss cheese. Rgds, --78.148.50.120 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As of the moment I type this...

   File size: 382 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 89 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 17 kB
   Wiki text: 121 kB
   Prose size (text only): 55 kB (8959 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 1131 B

Readable prose size of 55kB is perfectly acceptable per WP:SIZERULE. If anything, I'd look for fat to trim here, rather than do any sort of split. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny, you've said that just below a comment explaining how the topic continues to expand and shows no sign of stopping. This is not an article about some minor historical incident (everything done and dusted, no new info), which can be refocussed on the key points to keep length acceptable. Rd232 ^talk 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Have separate pages for investigations like Operation Weeting, Operation Tuleta and the Leveson Inquiry, etc. or along national lines UK/Ireland, Australia, USA/Canada and the rest of the World.82.2.74.209 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe split police investigation, parliamentary/regulatory investigation, newspaper investigations, and civil legal cases. They needn't be separate articles necessarily, they could be sections of a big "investigations" WP:SUMMARY-style daughter article. Rd232 ^talk 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Dan Cooper

I am the Dan Cooper in question. With reference to this text in the Article: "Since 2008, reports have been published on Portfolio.com[137] and in Rolling Stone[138] alleging phone hacking activity at Fox News, directed by network president Roger Ailes. Both pieces reported on the claims of former Fox News executive Dan Cooper, who alleged that he was fired from the network in 1997, after Ailes used Cooper's private phone records to determine whether he had been interviewed anonymously by New York magazine. Cooper has claimed that Ailes got this information through the "Brain Room", a highly-secured subterranean facility in Fox News' headquarters where he alleged "counterintelligence" and "black ops" activities were conducted.[138] Fox News has denied Cooper's allegations.[137]"

I have never alleged that I was fired in 1997. I was fired in 1996, but paid out until summer of 1997. I have never said Ailes used my phone records. I have written and discussed that writing indicating that Ailes could have learned about my on-background and thus anonymous interview with writer David Brock either by obtaining the information from David Brock personally, which I didn't believe, or Ailes could have used the Brain Room to obtain Brock's phone records. This is not "hacking", but illegal obtaining of phone records. If you want to see my allegations, go to the primary source, my online publication Naked Launch at http://dancooper.tv/NakedLaunch.htm. You may also link to may Wikipedia entry Dan Cooper. 24.193.91.185 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I liked it!82.27.25.183 (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the relevant paragraph. Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Article name

In my view it might be time to consider widening/simplifying the article title to something like '2011 News Corporation scandal', in view of the fact that the article covers the FBI inquiry into activities in the U.S., including by other areas of News Corporation, and that a key aspect of the scandal relates to the bid by News Corporation, not merely News International, for BSkyB. The scandal also now clearly goes beyond phone hacking to other activities such as allegedly location monitoring and accessing emails/computer data, and potentially perverting the course of justice etc. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I support changing "News International" to "News Corporation" in the title but nothing else at the moment. 2011 would be a misnomer because the crimes have been happening since at least 2001 and the allegations have been coming out since at least 2006. The MSM is still referring to it as the "phone hacking scandal"; I think we should follow their lead and leave that part in the title for now. Thundermaker (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Has any illegal activity been found beyond the borders of the United Kingdom? Both the United States and Australian reactions have been driven by illegal activity wholly presently within the borders of the United Kingdom, not within their jurisdictions. It is likely that some additional illegal activity will be found within other publications within the UK - you still don't yet mention Piers Morgans biography confession. But again until these are proven, any widening/changing of the articles title - put against the amount of information and resultant scale of the article, which has been discussed to be split - seem preemptive. This is still very much a "proven with references" story about activity within the News of the World and hence within the United Kingdom; beyond that its still investigative and media speculative. Rgds, --2.100.119.144 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of things having been yet proven in a court of law, the start of the FBI investigation in the U.S. is of great importance in and of itself and shows the wider scope of the contents of the article, as does the point about BSkyB. There have been other important allegations made about Fox News activities: [10] [11]. Even in the UK the vast majority of coverage concerns things which are at this point still alleged rather than definitively established through process of law. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another key U.S. development which is nothing to do with News International: [12].Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, your WP:REF is someone terminated 6weeks after starting in a job 15years ago, which is wholly denied; and doesn't mention the UK cases? If you think its relevant, add it to the article about Fox News. Rgds --2.100.119.144 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rangoon. It pretty clearly this thing hopped the pond today with the announcement of formal Floorgraphic investigation of NewsAmerica. The earlier DOJ investigation was, officially, triggered by events in the UK. This new chapter in the investigation is entirely a US matter.

Ironically, I was coming here to suggest we consider retitle by dropping the word 'phone' since this spread beyond phones some time ago. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps News Corporation ethics scandal? Rd232 ^talk 10:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

News Corporation's reporting standards scandal?82.27.25.183 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to create a new article above this one with a 'News Corporation' title. Personally I would prefer to rename this article, and then break content out of it into separate article as necessary.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that keeping one 'main' article is good-- creating new main articles is always confusing, best to break off into summary style and then move titles. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC reports Mirror Group Newspapers used phone hacking

Former Sunday Mirror journalist makes hacking claims to Newsnight: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14258496 So far, the possible involvement of other newspapers (i.e. non-News International titles) has only been suggested. Now the BBC have gone public with a story. How should we handle this? This article is about the scandal arising from phone hacking at News International titles. Do we need a new article called Phone hacking scandal? as an overview, linking to articles specific to each news organisation reported to have been involved? This could get seriously out of hand! Stanley Oliver (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but we might well get there depending on what happens. So far, the substantiated claims all involve NewsCorp, but the Levinson investigation is definitely going to be free to look at other claims, and who knows what they'll turn up. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, allegations about phone hacking at the Daily Mirror have been made in today's Independent by former financial journalist James Hipwell. I've added a paragraph about it, but it doesn't seem to sit right with me because this article focuses on News International rather than the wider press. If more of this comes to light I agree we'll need a separate article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Milly Dowler photo-- We need to find a free one or accept none exist

There's been a bit of copyright concern here, so we need to be on the look out for a free image of Milly Dowler. Currently the article has 6 images of Newscorp execs or statements, and zero images of the 4000+ alleged victims.

Obviously, the most notable victim of the hacking, far and away, is Milly Dowler. However, since she was murdered several months before the first Creative Commons licenses were even developed, it's not surprising that she did not release any images of herself under an open license. Being dead, she no longer has the option to do so.

Right now, these articles are still in a lot of flux, so there are better things to focus on than images. But this article _cannot_ be what it should be without a Milly Dowler image-- the hacking crime committed against her is the primary reason this has even become a global scandal. The omission is glaring, and as the article approaches maturity, the omission will become even more apparent.

So, yes-- everyone be on the look out for free images of Milly Dowler. If absolutely none exist, then we'll have to suffice as best we can with non-free ones. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a photo of Milly Dowler, and I suspect her family would prefer not to have one here eitherEpzcaw (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wild, Epzcaw. I came the exact opposite conclusion using similar reasoning-- based on her family's statements to the media, I imaged they would want her remembered here. Not that family wishes are relevant exactly, but we're all human and we do all wonder about that sort of thing. You imagined a family coming here and being disturbed by an image, I imagined a family coming here and being disturbed by the omission. But upon reflection, I can think of no rational reason to support my imagined scenario and disprove yours. I love it when someone does that. It's what I love about Wikipedia-- you can have a lot of amazing paradigm shifts just talking to fellow editors.

The question of whether we should have an image is slightly different, and I have a less 'hard line' position on that. Including the image of a crime victim on a page about a crime is always going to be touchy, and we want to avoid bias.

My fundamental 'hard line' stance is that we just need to make the best editorial decision-- but copyright really isn't a factor here. Through no fault of her own, she is now a famous historic figure. Being twice victimized is a lousy thing to be famous for, but so it goes.

When we talk about her murder, we of course show her face. When we talk about a similarly famous crime committed against her, it makes sense to show her there too.

My only concern is that I don't want its "prejudicial value to outweigh its probative value", which is admittedly a risk. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

After Sir Paul Stephens quit....

Whach this topic!!!-

The Chief Constable of Cleveland police force and his deputy were arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of corruption and fraud. Officers arrested "three people on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, fraud by abuse of position and corrupt practice," said a statement from Warwickshire Police. [[13]]

A related issue?! 86.29.74.241 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DAILY MIRROR phone hacking allegations

Surely these should be in a different article since this article specifically refers to NI. or else the article should be re-named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.209.99 (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Harbottle and Lewis

I suggest a separate section covering the relationship between NI and this firm of lawyers. Something very "strange" has gone on here, as H&L issued a letter apparently absolving any of the people who wrote the emails which were passed on them, of any criminal activity. Lord MacDonald (ex head of DPP) said that it took him 3-5 minutes to see that criminal activity had taken place. NI initially refused to release H&L from their duty of confidentiality so they were unable to explain this discrepancy. The Guardian is now saying that NI has now given this permission, but other commentators are saying that the permission given does not give H&L complete freedom to explain what happened.

It is a developing situation, and could open a bigger can of worms than anything we have seen so far. Epzcaw (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - yes important and in need of coverage.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I was initially skeptical of the need to go into detail about H&L, but I'm now sold. They're going to testifying to the select committee, so this is clearly something we're going to learning more about. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a section on Harbottle and Lewis's contribution. Epzcaw (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

An unregistered user removed the contents of the letter sent by H&L to NI - no justification was given for doing so. This is a crucial piece of evidence in the story, and I have restored it.Epzcaw (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The marketing executive of Harbottle and Lewis attempted to censor the Harbottle & Lewis wikipedia page which she had created and edited, also the talk:Harbottle & Lewis. Does this merit a mention here?Epzcaw (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't merit mention in any Wikipedia article unless a RS writes about it. And it shouldn't be mentioned in this one unless it has something to do with the phone hacking case. Thundermaker (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Steven Nott comments

My name is Steven Nott and I showed the 2 newspapers The Sun (News International - News of the World ) and The Daily Mirror how to intercept voicemails in 1998 so they could publish the problem as it had massive security issues. They promised to publish and didn't. What did they do with the information I gave them and how did they treat the information they gained from accessing such voicemails ? Check out my TRUE story at www.pensionage.co.uk.

THE LINK YOU’VE POSTED HERE DOESNT WORK , STEVEN.

Moved talk type item from the article to the talk page.86.29.67.67 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be right about the Sun....Wipsenade (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That web page is no longer up but Google has it cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache

The same text is also here: http://www.conspiracyclinic.com/Hackergate.htm Stanley Oliver (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

:-O !Wipsenade (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what edits are being proposed here? The talk page clearly states that this isn't a forum for general discussion on the topic and since the original source is no longer active, I don't really understand the importance of this discussion thread Cshaase (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For future edits, two aspects are important (1) papers were notified and remained passive; (2) info was actively suppressed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Steven Nott may become important for future edits—his widow and family says he will be "vindicated".

View his website, http://hackergate.co.uk/ Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC) . . . It contains a signed letter from John Prescott House of Lords.

I agree with Charles. In 1998-99 Steven Nott showed journalists how to access voicemail on mobile phones. Did people working for those newspapers already know how to do that? Maybe, maybe not - but at the very least it shows that those newspapers had that knowledge as early as 1998-99. This would seem to pre-date any of the timelimes for the phone hacking scandal made public to date. Steven Nott has now been interviewed by officers from Op Weeting and may be called to give evidence in future. This discussion is worth preserving as it points to information which, if proven to be significant, will need to be included in the article.Stanley Oliver (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven Nott may be worth Googling up in time.86.24.23.148 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If form is anything to go by, Stephen Nott won't be around for long. However, it will suit those that it will suit to pretend this only originated in the '90's. It, and many other questionable but widespread practices didn't. Hoare claimed that hacking was "endemic" in the newspaper industry and said he was speaking out because he felt it unfair that royal correspondent Clive Goodman had been painted as a rogue reporter acting alone. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Watergate

The Watergate comparison seems like original research. Even if it were not, it would be over-emphasized. I think we can cover the current scandal on its own (de)merits, and for the most part let readers judge for themselves. Superm401 - Talk 16:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This section should be removed. Maybe some sources are making the comparison. However, is it notable? It would only be notable if it were constantly being made. Even if so, the sentence "Some commentators have made comparisons with the Watergate scandal" would probably be the proper weighting for recording that the comparisons that were being made. I doubt that in all the thousands of stories covering this scandal from hundreds of different angles, this one angle is sufficiently notable to have anything more than a sentence (and personally I'd not even give it that). See WP:WEIGHT. --Scott Mac 00:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree69.126.22.50 (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Many commentators are making the comparison. Googling "watergate phone hacking scandal" brings up some 77 pages with 83,000 results. Though less than the 10-15 million results that come up for "Watergate" or "phone hacking scandal", it still suggests broad recognition of the similarities. I believe the section should be restored. Alternatively, it could become a separate article with "see also" links to both "Watergate Scandal" and "NI Phone Hacking Scandal."Bryantbob (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Livening up scandals by adding the suffix -gate is so common that it has its own Wikipedia article. This has become something of a media cliché and is best avoided. Unless David Cameron resigned over the scandal, direct comparisons are the usual round of media chatter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a tired cliche, and distracts us from improving the article. We aren't able to pronouce such instant historical perspective. Perhaps it can be added in a decades time. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ruppertgate and murdochgate

I have removed the assertion that the scandal is "commonly known as rupertgate or murdochgate" as being bullshit. Where is the evidence this is common? The BBC ref given is only using the reference in that instance as a playful title for an interview with Bob Woodward. That doesn't show common naming here. I've never seen the scandal referred to as any type of "gate" in any quality paper I've read.--Scott Mac 00:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Compare to Climategate, though, where we refuse to call it that, even though it is overwhelmingly the common name. Our consistency on -gate naming leaves much to be desired.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Boycotting?

• A man who runs a newspaper shop near me told me that he intends to stop selling the News of the World because he was disgusted at the phone hackers hacking into the Soham victims' phone message boxes. How much tendency is there for this sort of boycott to happen? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See what happened to sales of the Sun on Merseyside post-Hillsborough. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I plan to publicly burn an edition of the rag-paper, and yes, 2 of 5 my local shops are not selling it due to the troopers' phones being hacked by the traitors at NOTW.Wipsenade (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline refs

I've added refs to all the timeline items and removed the citation tag. I've also removed the 'wikify' tag from the top of the page - whatever the issues of this long and rambling article - it isn't a lack of wikification. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Original Police Inquiry

There is nothing about the first police Inquiry which was remarkably lenient to the point that John Prescott was told that he had not been hacked but subsequently found 44 occasions & said that the police had deliberately concealed this from him. I quote from the Wikipedia article Andy Hayman-

"Hayman was in charge of the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking affair. In April 2010 The Guardian reported that he "subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist." He has contributed to The Times, owned by NI, and there has "written in defence of the police investigation and maintained there were 'perhaps a handful' of hacking victims."

Is it usual that a police officer investigates a suspect, gives him a clean bill of health, then obtains a job working for them? Perhaps this is the real story behind this affair. Cynical people might be reminded of the good old days when senior police officers went on holiday with major crime figures. --Streona (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also - what steps were taken to force the investigation. I think I remember it was forced by a court order that the police proceed, or else they were fobbing it off. There is nothing in the article of the struggle Gordon Brown took to get the investigation moving. The public would like to know so that we can use the same methods if we need police and are not celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.79.150 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article in dire need of update

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/british-police-make-eight-more-phone-hacking-related-arrests.html - February 11th, 2012, British police make eight more arrests to do with phone hacking "related" arrests.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/rupert-murdoch-flies-to-london-to-confront-angry-tabloid-staff.html - February 17th, 2012, Rupert Murdoch flies to London to confront angry tabloid staff.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-james-murdoch-20120301,0,570290.story - March 1st, 2012, News Corp. heir apparent James Murdoch resigns from London post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-newscorp-journalists-pressure-idUSTRE8251HX20120306 - March 7th, 2012, two journalists in suicide attempts.

Adding all of the above information to the timeline, for starters, would be helpful. Then add the same information to the rest of the article in some way, perhaps?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated

Look, I decided to do it myself.

A few things, if anyone and I mean anyone can find any phone hacking related events that happened between 13 December 2011 and 11 February 2012 then please feel free and add them to the timeline. Secondly, I propose a piece be added under the header Fallout from scandal to do with the attempted suicides of the two journalists who have been obviously caught up in this huge on-going scandal. If anyone wants to edit the timeline from 13 December 2011 to 7 March 2012 (my editing) then feel free to do so as in being more clear about what happened, who was involved and also maybe using different descriptive wording... adjectives.

Last but not least, someone has appeared to have vandalised (not an honest mistake) the timeline in the article by doubling the dates up and bolding one of them. I decided not to fix it while I had the chance because I wanted everyone to see it and I think we should wait and see to find out if the cheeky devil will fix it him or herself especially now I have spoken out about it. That appeared to have happened at the same time I was making my changes to the article. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated

A new development today (13 March 2012) and a rather big one too if I may say so, so that has been noted in the timeline and perhaps also somewhere else in the article? Anyone? So, geez, where is everyone? Has the upkeep of this article fallen on the shoulders of me? For now?

Two things, if anyone knows whether James Murdoch was questioned by the same parliamentary committee that he was on the 10 November 2011, that is... the Culture, Media and Sports committee and not another then please edit the timeline, someone, to correct that? Secondly, if anyone thinks that I could word myself better with my timeline editing then please feel free to edit it yourselves but right now, I think I am allll byyyy myyyyself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated

I think I am finished updating the article for now. I added a new piece under Fallout from scandal to do with the attempted suicides of the two News International journalists. I think that if there is a successful suicide in future, it will be of course detailed in the article and timeline, if not by me then someone else (hopefully), but the heading should change to Suicides and maybe the piece on the two attempted suicides should be moved under any new development like that.

While editing, I noticed that many of the dates are correct, but missing years on the end, I feel this is important. What if a reader logs on and reads July 17 but is kept in the dark by not knowing which year? This has happened in the timeline as well as the rest of the article. This scandal, or how some others have said they would like for it to be referred as, affair, has been simmering for years but boiled over in mid-July 2011 as we all know. So does that not warrant the year being noted with a date such as July 17 or November 11 so the reader knows when exactly that development happened? Please, if there is anybody out there, submit your thoughts on this or anything else I have raised.

I also noted the second arrest of Rebekah Brooks on March 13. In the report that was sourced from The Wrap, according to them four others were also arrested. Does anyone else believe this? Who are these people that were taken in by police in the arrest? I think this is a nuisance of a fabrication myself but I included it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated

So I have finally added the latest developments I raised when I first stumbled upon this Wikipedia article to the well, article. Again, if anyone reads my edits and thinks there is something wrong, then please feel free to make any changes.

I think that is all. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the reverted edits were unsourced. They were also written in a slangy tabloid style. Please find reliable sources for these additions before re-adding them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is not 'slangy tabloid style' appropriate for the subject? ;)

Many are probably thinking along the following lines:

Journalistic investigation will involve a certain amount of grey hattery.

If 'them at the top' knew that the journalists were going into black hat domains they are culpable.

If them at the top didn't know 'they should have'/they created a climate in which it could occur, so they are culpable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Future

With News Corporation possibly splitting in two in the future, I think Rupert Murdoch and his family should keep a closer eye on what goes on at News Corp. Hopefully, another scandal can be prevented.

173.57.39.183 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

Well that is what you think but I will remind you that the talk page is for discussion of the article, as in the article, not the articles subject. I edited the article and updated it many a time but some wiseguy came along and deleted all my edits except for those in the timeline. I'm not going to familiar myself further with Wikipedia policy, forget it. So with that I'm not making any more updates to this article. I still visited today to see if anyone else had been updating this article and yes someone has appeared to have done so. 02:49, 12 July 2012‎ User:60.234.214.63

Trolls trolling this talk page

I just want to let everyone know do not pay any attention to the trolls especially at the top of this talk page. It is obvious they are trolls because they are there to try and hide inside knowledge and sway public opimion in favour of the media conglomerates rather than the victims. I would have liked to have seen more coverage of this and there should be, but this article needs more updates and someone should do it for ultimately the sake of education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)