Talk:Arrests and resignations as probe into Britain's phone hacking scandal widens

Completeness

To put this in ful perspective, Arrests over phone-tap of British royal family should be brought into play. There's also been a death, and additonal resignations.

The Murdochs also appear before a parliamentary committee this afternoon UK time. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The death and the appearance before parliament are all ready in the article, unless there is another death? Probably after their parliamentary appearance another article should cover it. This one already tries to cover too much, IMO.

I'll put in something about the royal family. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The newest details should've been up-front. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole parliamentary committee hearing should be in a separate story and should not be part of this one, in my opinion. Mattisse (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article covers too much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to cover everything since the last WN article on the matter until the start of today. Can someone publish ASAP? I'm going to start work on an article on the events today, I hope everyone will help out. wackywace 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything in the sources that says that the phones of 911 victims were hacked into by News of the World? That caption states that as fact, but I know if no sources that states that as fact. Has it been proven? I have only read speculations. Mattisse (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad the death of the person was removed from the article. It was all right at the end, but not in the lede. It's really a red herring that has nothing to do with the major story.

Currently reviewing. It may take a while to look over all the sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That Stephenson hired Wallis is sourced to the Reuters timeline Mattisse (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also to the BBC Mattisse (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"cozy relationship" info [1]. I think the article needs stresses that this involves far more than Murdoch. Much good info was removed, IMO. Just ask me if you want to know the source of something. Mattisse (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1261168 [Passed]

Revision 1261168 of this article has been reviewed by William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1261168 of this article has been reviewed by William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Some corrections

I don't know what the 7/7 terror attacks are. There is no wikipedia article on it. This article [2] says the 9/11 attack victims. Also, what does that picture have to do with 9/11 attacks. What does it have to do with the article. Mattisse (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for the 7/7 terror attack victims phones being hacked? Mattisse (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link is 7 July 2005 London bombings, which I just added to the article. I saw that the information was sourced to one of the articles in the related news. I don't really know about the photo though.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But regarding the current incident 7/7 attacks were not mentioned in the sources, nor were they mentioned the the parliamentary hearing, while the 9/11 attack victims' families specifically were mentioned both in the sources and the hearing. I think the picture should go. What does it illuminate? The 7/7 attacks are not a factor in the current sources and don't deserve a picture just to have a picture, IMO. Why not a pic of Murdoch as the story revolves around him, or Cameron whose government may be badly damaged? Mattisse (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Post-mortem

I'd say this has got a little heavy on content. Yes, there were issues with timeliness on the review, a perennial problem. However, a substantial number of the UK papers led with the death as the latest development, in addition to the new resignation(s).

The death is important because the former NotW journalist was a whistleblower on the phone hacking. He claimed that Coulson was well-aware of what was going on at the paper in 2006. It would be a coincidence of staggering proportions for him to die the night before Murdoch senior and junior were carpetted, and pied, before a UK Parliamentary Select Committee.

Regarding other points raised above: there are allegations that News International journalists in the U.S. may have been hacking the phones or voicemail of 9/11 victims. The FBI have neither confirmed, nor denied, this. It has, however, been asked that they do so by numerous congresscritters.

Another point to consider for a followup is that this has now gone global. Murdoch's holdings in Australia are being looked at to assess if the same criminal methods have been employed.

To try and give some actionable, and constructive advice for any followup, I would stress to lead with the latest developments. This isn't a history - as similar coverage on Wikipedia might be; a timeline may be a useful section within a more in-depth article, but there are dozens of incidents where phone hacking allegations have been settled out of court. Bringing up the 2006 article on the Royal family was intended to highlight the long-running nature of this debacle. Had I the time, I'd really like to pull all the threads of this together, but it'd involve going through six+ years of Private Eye which has always had the most in-depth reportage on The Dirty Digger's misdeeds. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for a person with an illness who is a drug and alcohol abuser to be found dead with no obvious reason. Drug/alcohol tests take weeks to obtain. There was no speculation in any of the sources that his death was related to the current scandal, other than he was a figure in the cast of characters. His importance was not speculated on in any of the sources.

If you look at the sources all the allegations of hacking into 9/11 victims families pertained to British families of victims. No such allegations so far have surfaced that families of other nationalities are involved.

I was under the impression that the audience for wikinews was global, which is why I made an effort to get some none UK sources. Part of the issue involved in the scandal is that UK newspapers tend toward sensationalism. I personally don't think the "slant" toward a news article should be determined by that which the UK newspapers are taking. Please inform me if I am wrong and I will restrict any further articles to the UK "slant".

Pi zero has made it clear to me, over and over, that any article is a "snapshot in time" and does not involve pulling together 6+ years of information. If you don't have time to do it, why would anyone else? Especially someone like me who knows nothing about the case except what the current sources say? Best wishes and thanks for all of your help. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The "snapshot of what was known" refers to not adding information coming to light after the event. I certainly agree many UK papers are sensationalistic - those are the Red Tops, or tabloids. The UK also has numerous respectable papers such as the Independent or The Scotsman. What I'd stress on this story is to avoid News International titles due to their conflict of interest. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it like a wikipedia article to do a review of 6+ years for a news article? Aren't the links to wikipedia and wikinews articles enough? I am confused. Mattisse (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the story. Sometimes readers need a recap. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)