Jump to content

Talk:2011 News Corporation scandals

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

New source

[edit]

This recent article in the New Yorker provides a broad overview of the scandals over the British press, and could be used as a source here: [1] In particular, it could be used to support the section about Paul McMullan, which is rather poorly sourced at the moment. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The user VsevolodKrolikov removes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=News_Corporation_scandal&curid=32496374&diff=445604884&oldid=445592865 )now for the 2nd time a link i try to establish between hacked climate emails and the News Corp Scandal. He claims VsevolodKrolikov "As explained on the CRU emails talkpage, the basis for this link is an opinion piece explicitly speculating with no facts established.". However as i pointed already out to him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#See_Also_section_-_Adding_News_Corp_Scandal_link

with the important part here beeing:"The so-called "Climate-Gate" controversy - in which e-mails about Global Warming were stolen from researchers at Britain's University of East Anglia in November, 2009 - now turns out to bear the stamp of Neil Wallis, one of the key figures in Murdoch's hacking of the phones, voicemails, and other electronic communications of thousands of people. Wallis is unique in this scandal. He had been the Executive Editor of Murdoch's "News Of The World" when hacking was at its peak. Yet in 2009 he wound up being hired by the police as a public relations consultant, while the police investigated the hacking scandal - and he wound up spying for Murdoch's people on what Scotland Yard was investigating. Wallis was, as the New York Times put it: "…reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996814/-When-MurdochGate-Met-ClimateGate " There is a connection established, so it is not just an opinion piece with no facts as VsevolodKrolikov alleges.

Further there is a connection with climate denial and a News Corp journal, from above discussion page i quote:"...the WSJ has been accused of editorial bias in regards to climate change prior to the 2007 merger of News Corp. and Dow Jones, I have an answer. As it turns out, I had completely forgotten that the original allegations of global warming conspiracy theory against the IPCC had their roots in the Ben Santer controversy which began with a letter the WSJ published by Frederick Seitz on June 12, 1996. The letter was titled, "A Major Deception on Global Warming" (Lahsen 112) and the WSJ appears to have been published Seitz's letter just days after the IPCC released "The Science of Climate Change 1995", the first new report on the state of the climate since 1990. Seitz's letter to the WSJ had the same effect as the release of the CRU e-mails that disrupted the Copenhagen conference. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC) " Because the user refuses to re-add the link and seems unwilling answering my questions (instead he ask me to go and blog about it) i ask someone else to re-add the link for now. Gise-354x (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Ben Santer was at the time climate researcher at the CRU in UK! Gise-354x (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Kos is a blog. Gise appears to be engaging in WP:OR. Nuff said.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read the blog post, it cites two Media outlets, in particular: Phone hacking: Claims Neil Wallis was ‘reporting back’ to paper from Met http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8643820/Phone-hacking-Claims-Neil-Wallis-was-reporting-back-to-paper-from-Met.html and the New York Times quote from above, which is evidence for the involvement of NCS, quote "On Friday, The New York Times learned that the former editor, Neil Wallis, was reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case. " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/world/europe/17police.htm The hacking case is the wiki entry i try to link here, so do you still pretend that this is just "opinion piece explicitly speculating"?? Gise-354x (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles do not make a connection between Neil Wallis and the CRU emails. You are insisting on the connection inter alia with the help of a blog article. How about this - go and take it up with the reliable sources noticeboard.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, i just linked 2 sources which are not blogs, why do you still persist that its just a blog? Gise-354x (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Those article make a connection between NCS and the investigation, which btw is part of the CRU email investigation. Gise-354x (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "hacking" case in those two articles is the illegal interception of voicemails; the investigation into the CRU emails is a different case. You do, I trust, understand the difference between voicemail and email. Could you quote sentences from those two news articles that mention the CRU email hacking case? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? The sentence is right above you "Neil Wallis, was reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case" Gise-354x (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er. That's the NOTW phone hacking investigation. Not the CRU email hacking investigation. They're not the same thing. If you don't grasp that, you've got yourself into a terrible muddle.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I starting to believe you misunderstanding, because the MET was investigating during 2009 the CRU case, it is that hacking case, the NYT is calling. Or tell me what other hacking case the police was investing during 2009? The NYT article is referring to the timespan from 2006 to 2010. Beside this there is the Ben Santer connection, when NC attacked a CRU researcher. We got 2 connections for establishing a connection between both wiki entrys! Gise-354x (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What other hacking case in 2009? How about this: News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_scandal_investigations#Police investigations perhaps? There's also the Guardian's investigations at that time which prompted a Press Complaints Commission investigation, parliamentary committee questions and so on. The thing is, neither of those two news articles you cite make a single mention of the Climate Research Unit or email hacking, and both are, from start to finish, focussed on phone hacking. That really should have been your clue that they're not the same police investigation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude the NYT does not have to mention the case, because it is fact that at the time the police was investigating the CRU hacking case too. Quote from DailyKos: The so-called "Climate-Gate" controversy - in which e-mails about Global Warming were stolen from researchers at Britain's University of East Anglia in November, 2009 - now turns out to bear the stamp of Neil Wallis, one of the key figures in Murdoch's hacking of the phones, voicemails, and other electronic communications of thousands of people. Wallis is unique in this scandal. He had been the Executive Editor of Murdoch's "News Of The World" when hacking was at its peak. Yet in 2009 he wound up being hired by the police as a public relations consultant, while the police investigated the hacking scandal - and he wound up spying for Murdoch's people on what Scotland Yard was investigating. Wallis was, as the New York Times put it:"…reporting back to News International while he was working for the police on the hacking case." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996814/-When-MurdochGate-Met-ClimateGate Gise-354x (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again the source you cite is about an investigation from July of 2009, but Neil Wallis started working at the police 3 month later according to the NYT article, that only leaves the CRU case...Gise-354x (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Further from your link; "The Metropolitan Police hence declined to re-open their hacking inquiry in response to the claims in The Guardian stating that "no additional evidence has come to light" and it "therefore consider[ed] that no further investigation is required"." So that AGAIN only leaves the CRU hack investigation! Gise-354x (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude", the NYT does have to mention the case. That's how wikipedia works. Seriously. We don't do journalism, we don't do original research. I can't see any further point in discussing this with you, as it's just going to go round and round the basic factual confusion you've made between two entirely separate police investigations.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Details of Mr Wallis’s employment by the Met were only released after his arrest on Thursday on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications. Sir Paul will be questioned by MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday over the details of Mr Wallis’s time at Scotland Yard." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8643820/Phone-hacking-Claims-Neil-Wallis-was-reporting-back-to-paper-from-Met.html Next week we know more, at the time there was first the investigation on CRU and later Guardian what i can see, according to your above wiki link. Gise-354x (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC), Ok i see it was last month, so where are the results? Gise-354x (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check: Fact 1: Neil Wallis was working at the MET, the time during the CRU investigations. Fact 2: Back in 1995 the Wall Street Journal published a piece attacking a CRU reasearcher, because NC is owner of the WSj, see Ben Santer, bothamount to the connection to the CRU email hack, a link to the wiki is therefor justified. Gise-354x (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the revert from VsevolodKrolikov, but he for a second time reverted my addition to the wikipedia. He claimed i had no facts, which i provide above. The NYT article is evidence that NEIL WALLIS was working at the MET during the time of the CRU investigation, the only investigation at the particular time frame. Above that i provided another reason to include the link to the CRU email hack, with the Ben Santer controversy, when WSJ aka NC was involved. Therefor VsevolodKrolikov is ignoring the facts. I must assume that he is not acting with faith and has an agenda. Gise-354x (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted again

[edit]

You plainly had not got consensus on the talkpage, so reinserting the link was not a good idea. Your assembly of "facts" is an attempt to do original research, which for the umpteenth time of telling you, is not allowed on wikipedia. (They're not even correct - WSJ wasn't even owned by News corporation in 1995, for pity's sake). If you don't like what I say, then go to WP:RSN and ask them there what they think of your use of sources. You also continue to make various WP:UNCIVIL remarks, which really don't make your editing behaviour look good. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You asked for facts, and i provided 2 links which make the connection. And that providing facts (a link to a news source) is not allowed you saying for the first time. When WSJ was not owned back then, that leaves us with 1 fact. Pardon me but the civil remarks coming from you, starting with asking me to go and blog about it. You might not be aware of it but i find that insulting. I remind you now about the 3RR RULE, so stop reverting the legit link, unless you provide a legit reason not to include the link. Geeesus Gise-354x (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if you found my suggestion that the originally researched material you wanted to insert was more appropriate for a blog insulting. As I explained on my talkpage, and here, and elsewhere, we don't do original research here, even to the point of assembling facts and drawing our own conclusions. You seem very keen to get this information out, and to do your own investigations regarding it. Wikipedia is not the forum for that kind of thing. You may not like my reasons for taking the link out, but you've got to go and convince people that the link should go in. We work by consensus, not by one editor's conviction that he's right. There are various fora here where you can ask for outside input. (Only don't shop around, try one and stick with it.) Until you get other input, please leave the page as it is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you say this, because providing a link to a webpage is everyday business (part of every single wiki page on wikipedia) and has nothing to do what you conflicting call "own investigation". And wikipedia is also not a forum. Then you go on and claim that i need consensus +1 people, but did you looked around you are alone here, and you sir started with reverting my addition to the encyclopedia. YOu are the guy who needs consensus to remove legit attribution. If you find someone else who things too that the single link should be removed, fine. But as long you in the minority we leave it as it is. Because for above reasons. Gise-354x (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD is common practice here. If an insertion is objected to, the person wanting to insert the material should come to the talkpage and try to persuade others of the wisdom of the change. That does not mean getting the feeling that you've won an argument, that means that broadly, other users overtly agree with your edit. And consensus is not the same as a technical majority. Read WP:CONSENSUS, in addition to the other policy pages and essays that have been suggested to you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link is legit, your argument are unfounded and i offered you above a consensus. This is about an addition not an edit of existing content, i think you overlook this little fact too.Gise-354x (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hand on heart, did you actually read WP:Consensus or WP:BRD? You cannot "offer" me a consensus like that. Go and get outside input. I don't see any point continuing this discussion without that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your consideration VsevolodKrolikov, i followed your advice and read the OR rules:"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists", the NYT article i a reliable source. You misinformed me about. Gise-354x (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link to Climategate. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why you removed the legit link Gise-354x (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alex. I was getting frustrated dealing with this alone. I think we'll have to look at WP:WQA soon if this carries on.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Gise, Vsevolod has written above, "Those articles [including the NY Times] do not make a connection between Neil Wallis and the CRU emails. You are insisting on the connection inter alia with the help of a blog article." I don't need to add anything to that because that is all there is to it. He is right. To be sure, I can't access the NY Times article you linked but based on what you quoted, it doesn't support you at all. Neither do any of your other articles. You need to recognise that Vsevolod is no climate change skeptic. Neither good heavens is Kim D. Petersen. If all these people are telling you you are wrong and you will not listen then sooner or later an administrator is going to have to block you. No one likes that outcome so do as Vsevolod said and seek the opinions of others. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is very clear, because they tell us that Neil Wallis was working at the department during the time of the CRU investigation. Further did Kim D. Petersen did not told me that im wrong, in fact he has absolutely nothing to say about this so far. Again i notice a behavior here where claims and misinformation is put out. In the same way as VsevolodKrolikov is doing, how comes? Are you both sockpuppets or working together for News Corp? Stop removing the SINGLE link, which is backed by evidence from the NEY YORK TIMES, which is by no means an unreliable source. Gise-354x (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, i have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:VsevolodKrolikov. Gise-354x (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the removal of the link to the UEA email hacking case. There may or may not be a connection, but even if it exists, we will have to wait until reliable sources mention it. Dailykos is not a reliable source, and each of the reliable sources mentioned by Gise-354x mentions only one of the two topics separately and does not suggest a connection. The only way to think differently is by reading the new articles with a preconceived notion and turning off common sense. Hans Adler 12:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is the FACT that Neil Wallis was working at the MET during the time of the CRU investigation and during the time when the hacking took place. This is the content from above New York Times article, therefor we can make a connection here! Gise-354x (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I question whether this article should exist at all. It seems to be an attempt to paint the practices of UK tabloids as exclusively being a News Corporation problem and/or extending to all News Corporation properties when there is no evidence of it all. The whole thing is a monstrous perversion of what an encyclopaedia article should be. --Brandonfarris (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been covered in far and away enough reliable sources for it to be notable for an article. If the investigations substantively widen to include tabloids in general, we might think of renaming it. It's pretty clear that News Corporation has been at the heart of the scandal thus far.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following the issue closely but Hugh Grant's testimony at the Leveson inquiry (among many other differing things) have made it very clear that phone hacking, blagging and other disgraceful conduct was very common across all London tabloids, including Mirror, Daily Mail etc. Why single out one company and pretend it was isolated to them? --Brandonfarris (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One persons allegations shouldn't be given so much weight. User:VsevolodKrolikov is correct. It isn't Wikipedia that is singling out News Corporation. I don't think the article lacks neutrality rather it suffers from Recentism. For example the sentence "News Corp has yet to issue a statement on the new allegations" is probably now false, 3 months later. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this article is pretty balanced and I am against the addition of a neutrality tag at this point. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to remove the neutrality tag until this discussion is resolved. Please restore it. This article has major neutrality issues, is based on a false premise and indeed suffers from Recentism --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have severely misunderstood what Wikipedia's neutrality policy means. It does not mean giving an artificially enlarged weight to fringe counter-theories.Zythe (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

[edit]

Is there any reason why this article shouldn't be merged with News International phone hacking scandal? --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its likely because it is a duplication, but you have to achieve consensus first. Can you follow the WP:MERGE procedures? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 News Corporation scandals. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_News_Corporation_scandals&oldid=1196595741"