Jump to content

Talk:News of the World

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

Paedophile Campaign

[edit]

Portsmouth not Southampton I thought? Will check before I try and alter it.

The female paediatrician was neither attacked nor driven from her home: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm for the full story ChrisTheDude 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The female paediatrician had "paedo" painted on the door of her surgery/office. She claims to be the victim of ignorance, which makes a lot of sense considering that the "News Of The World" caters to that demographic. The NewsOfWorld protecting children is all about public relations, the parents of children who read the NewsOfWorld and believe they're (and ultimately act) crusaders in morality is worrysome. It was the NWO and various other sunday pornographic tabloids that pioneered Telephone Sex Chat lines to make a few quid. (even stories of parents of children who had to remortgage their houses because their kids were running up huge phone bills didn't deter the porno barons from snubbing lucrative ad-space from fellow seedy smut peddlers)

More recently, Rupert Murdoch (CEO of NewsCorp which owns the Pornographic Tabloid) accepted an award from Nicole Kidman whom Murdoch on accepting the award from her called her a "dear friend". Nicole Kidmans latest movie "Birth" had just recently been released on DVD. The movie created a lot of attention in that a boy aged 9 or 10 who starred in the movie shared scenes in an intimate sexual nature. Where is the line drawn? I guess its "just acting"Shall i sign the Sarah Payne petition before i go and rent a copy of "Birth" or after?

User: Dean1970, April 5th/2006

I have removed the link to the paediatrician story as it has no direct relevance to the News of the World, i.e. there is no proven link between the incident and the paper's campaign. If you want to put the story in the paedophilia or child sex offender pages where it belongs then go ahead. SaintedLegion 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony?

[edit]

"Of course the paper had missed the irony of starting the campaign in the same issue that they published a centre page spread of former Atomic Kitten star Kerry Katona posing topless in a series of pictures taken when she was aged 16."

Where's the irony here? The age of consent in the UK is 16. Therefore, the Katona pictures had nothing to do with paedophilia. It's easy to accuse the NotW of hypocrisy over this, but the fact that she was over the age of consent makes all the difference. --Richardrj 09:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL - It makes no difference at all what the law says. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless of what the age of consent is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.244 (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stupid! It's legal to have sex with (or, before 2004, take photos of) a 16-year old girl/woman. Are you seriously saying that having a sexual relationship with a 16-year old equates to being a paedophile? The law decides such things not some idiot on the internet! -- Snakehands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it is illegal to publish pornographic or semi-pornographic pictures of anybody in the UK under the age of 18, although I maybe mistaken--Edchilvers 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lower age limit for pictures is 16, the same as the age of sexual consent. Which is the point I was making. --Richardrj talk email 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I am right: http://sexualoffencesact2003.quickseek.com/

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended this to deal with the concept of pseudo-photographs. 1.– (1) It is an offence for a person– (a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or (b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or (d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs or intends to do so. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 further amended the 1978 Act so as to increase the age of a child from 16 to 18; consequently, the 2003 Act also added a defence to cover the situation where an "indecent photograph of a child" was created by that child's partner. Because of the Bowden decision, it was also necessary to add a defence where it was necessary to make an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

OK, my mistake. However, this does not change my point since the Act did not become law until 2004. The Katona pictures were published in 2000, at which time the lower age limit was 16 and hence the pictures were legal. The point being made in the article is that the newspaper was being hypocritical in campaigning against paedophilia while at the same time publishing titillating pictures of a teenage girl. My point is that in the eyes of the law the pictures were, at the time they were published, of a consenting adult, and therefore there was no hypocrisy. --Richardrj talk email 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Double FAIL - If the age of consent was zero, does that mean that pedophilia would cease to exist? The hypocrisy is blatant, and no legal mumbo-jumbo can change that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.244 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double fail on your part, actually! Facts and the law are what count, not the opinion of you, the individual. You may well want to label every young lad with a 16-year old girlfriend as a paedophile, but the UK law is all that counts. Stick to facts only, please. Snakehands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakehands (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a story about four years ago in which it was told that a UK tabloid newspaper had printed topless pictures of a woman (sic) celebrating her 16th birthday. The date of her birthday was said by the paper to be the date of publishing, not the date of the shoot itself. If true, it was pointed out that in order to publish semi-pornographic pictures of a person on the ocassion of his/her 16th birthday it was necessary for the pictures to be taken and stored while that person was legally still a child, and even after the passing of the birthday the pictures were still of a child and consequently the paper was involved - technically at least - in producing and circulating child pornography. I cannot recall which paper it was: I believe it may have been The Sun or the NotW and the story may have appeared in Private Eye. Does anyone else have any recollection of this story? If sources can be found then I consider it a possible addition to the relevant newspaper article - especially if the paper in question was edited by Wade at the time. -- Delsource (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Daily Sport - the pictorial was to mark the 16th birthday of the glamour model Linsey Dawn McKenzie. Citations are on her wiki page. --Uncleboaby 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't her or that paper, and it was much later than 1994 (about five years ago at most). Delsource (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that unpleasant 'ironically', which has been buzzing around in my head like a fly for the last week - it's exactly the kind of lazy editorialising that the NoW's detractors frequently atrribute to the paper itself. I've added in an acknowledgement that some people think it hypocritical - if anyone has an example of this online, let's link to it.--Uncleboaby 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability?

[edit]

I'm rather curious. The editors here are probably more familiar with NotW than I am. An editor on an article on a living person has been inserting a negative claim using News of the World as a source. It's precisely the sort of celebrity sex/drugs scandal that this article claims NotW specializes in.

So what is the consensus among editors here as to NotW's credibility and reliability? Note that per WP:LIVING, such negative claims must be reliably sourced. I have so far been reverting to remove the claim on the presumption that NotW is not reliable, but I felt it would also be good to ask for another opinion here. So is NotW reliable, or not? Kasreyn 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NotW is decently reliable. They've certainly had a few libel lawsuits against them, but they've also successfully revealed many, many scandals. I would consider a claim by NotW worth including, but I would write it as "The tabloid News of the World reported that . . . ." It's not broadsheet quality, but it's more reliable than the American tabloid press/glossy magazines. Hope that helps! Vickser 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It's about as reliable as The National Enquirer - once in a blue moon they expose something significant, but the rest is hyperbole at best, completely made up at worst. -98.154.249.46 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of the NotW

[edit]

Ouch: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5176522.stm

NotW is certainly heading to bankruptcy. They will not be able to stand the financial damages stemming from the just collapsed "red mercury bomb" trial. The british police and secret services alone had 10+ million UKP expense investigating this false calse and the now acquitted three muslim defendants will also need millions per capita to settle or they'll go to Strasbourg, where EU law is very harsh against libel and slander. The burden of proof is reversed there compared to anglo-saxon law. 195.70.32.136 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; I always heard that British laws against libel were tougher (as in, tougher on the defendant) than elsewhere. Are you saying the EU's are even tougher on the defendant? Kasreyn 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Truth is NOT absolute defence in continental Europe. Even if you say or publish something true, but embarrassing about X. Y. the court may still determine that such info had no legitimate public interest (utterly wihout redeeming value) and rule that you have to pay damages to X. Y. and apologize to him publicly. Even if X. Y. was a public figure. In Europe the dignity of people takes absolute precedence over freedom of creating scandal. 195.70.32.136 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Five years too early, lol! Digifiend (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I hope you don't mean me. Digifiend (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Scandal

[edit]

I did a poor rush job on this section and encourage someone to clean it up if they have time. Some helpful links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] We should also keep an eye on this possibly developing into its own article. Good luck! Vickser 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this really needs its own article now. 81.152.236.123 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a lot missing

[edit]

Inevitable really considering the history of the paper, but here are a few things I can think of that should be included:-

Exposed Frank Bough for the illegal use of drugs, consorting with prostitutes and for dressing in womens lingerie, an expose that cost him his job with the BBC

Had the first female editor of a UK national newspaper (Wendy Henry)

Was credited by George Orwell, in his essay, The Decline of the English Murder, as being significent in some part in forming and reinforcing cultural views in post war Britain.

But with a paper with such a history there is so much more that should really be recorded here. Smileyc 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

news of the world just broke a news story about british soldiers beating iraqi civilians/youth, this doesnt really jive with its traditional image of being uber-right-wing, whats up?

Kerry Katona was 18 or 19 in the year 2000 (according to Wiki page), so are you sure the photos of her where when she was 16?

Not the first female editor

[edit]

Rachel Beer edited both the Observer and the Sunday Times in the 1890s: a long time before Wendy Henry's stint at the News of the World. NRPanikker (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:News of the World.png

[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phone tapping 2009

[edit]

Surely worth a seperate article? - this is front page news in the UK, with many prominent public figures affected. GiantSnowman 09:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best kept here IMO. Here's another article with more details: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/01/now-phone-hacking-scandal 86.7.19.159 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

The template says "Right-wing conservative", but there's no source and no info in the article. Is that true? I didn't find much evidence by looking at the paper itself. 173.48.109.143 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid?

[edit]

The introductory paragraph says that the News of the World is a tabloid newspaper. However, I am sure that when it was first published it was a broadsheet publication. It did not change until the late 20th Century. Brian426uk (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Notice

[edit]

The NoW is still in publication, it is not as of yet a former newspaper. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

 Agreed, this is meant to be an ecyclopaedia not some psychic portal to the future. (BigTurnip (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Agree, the paper is of right now "IS" not "WAS" Jasonfward (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

Given the whole hoo-hah surrounding NOTW, would it be an idea to protect the article to prevent vandalism both by opponents of NOTW, and News International itself? Sheps999 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you - Andy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.220.63 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Disagreements about whether something that will appear on Sunday for the last time "is" or "was" a newspaper aren't vandalism, nor have I seen anything else that would qualify. I don't think this article is very likely to attract vandalsim, and even if it did, I don't think it's very likely to be harmful in any way. Even semiprotection would be disproportionate. Hans Adler 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the same mind as Hans Adler, there are no or very little edits that have been made since this all blew up that can be considered vandalism. We don't pre-emptively protect articles and I guess there are enough editors watching this page that can deal with it if and when it arises. Woody (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, protection isn't justified at present.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, seems like it's been protected anyway. Sheps999 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political alignment section in infobox/failure to assume good faith by User:PPPBot

[edit]

My edit to the 'Political alignment' section of the infobox has been reverted to 'Conservative Party'. In my view this is incorrect and misleading. Firstly, the Conservative Party is not strictly speaking a poitical alignment per se but a political party, and one which has actually followed a variety of political positions in its history. Secondly, for most of the past 15 years The News of the World did not actually support the Conservative Party at all (although it did continue during that period to be right-wing and populist).

As in the infobox of the sister paper The Sun, in my view the infobox here should state 'Populist, Right-wing'.

I must add that the edit summary of User:PPPBot is highly disappointing, it played the man (i.e. me), not the ball and baldly states that my edit was based on personal bias and agenda rather than neutral editorial judgement. This is not assuming good faith. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: "Left wing pseudo-intellectual, pro environment".?

Watergate and NoW

[edit]

A letter in a newspaper - Watergate was dodgy politicals brought down by journalists; NoW was dodgy journalists brought down by politicians (and, also, withdrawal of advertising support from major commercial and other organisations). 94.195.193.37 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is cute, but I don't think it's encyclopedic. Unless it becomes so widespread as to be the paper's epitaph.

Elsewhere in this department, isn't NoW the only British tabloid mentioned in a Beatles song? (Unless the Daily Mail also counts). Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News of the World was also a 1978 song by The Jam - " ... it's just a comic, not much more" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviate News of the World as NoW?

[edit]

"News of the World" is somewhat verbose. Is it customary in its distribution area to abbreviate it (I'd guess to "NoW")? If so, should we identify the abbreviation in the first section and then use it thereafter? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unnecessary, the title is not especially long and in any case 'NoW' is not a common abbreivation for it. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - It doesn't seem overly verbose, regarding the suggested acronym it is never referred to as 'NoW'. it is sometimes known by the initialism 'NOTW'. (BigTurnip (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, it IS referred to as 'NoW' - by the BBC, no less, in the headline of their article announcing the paper's demise. Digifiend (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I have now seen the paper's name abbreviated to 'NoW', as well as 'NOTW', in quite a few media sources. I still see no need for abbreviation in this article however, it is not a particularly long name.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price

[edit]

The article now states that the three pence of the original edition is equal to £1.04 today. What is the source? BTW as a non-Brit I have to wonder, what is the price now? According to Digital Spy it was 95 pence in 2005. http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=810290 SpeakFree (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current price is £1. Digifiend (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

[edit]

The article has a huge slant towards recent events. They took over almost the entire intro. I've added the relevant template. Please remove only after the article has been brought back into a balance, reflecting the newspaper over more than a century and a half. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STOP PRESS: END OF THE NEWS OF THE WORLD

[edit]

The final edition of the paper and web editions of News of the World were published at around 10pm on 9 July 2011 and the staff have now left Wapping. Was is now the correct form to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.69.67 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political alignment

[edit]

It says in that the political alignment is conservatives. Given that the paper is no longer in print, it should probably be removed since its political alignment changed over the course of its history.--Halma10 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, either removed or changed to 'Populist, Right-wing' per my comments above. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Stating the Tory preference was definitely a case of WP:RECENT. Digifiend (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misquote under History: End of Publication.

[edit]

There is a quote taken from a source that paraphrased a part of it and currently reads : "In the best tradition, we are going to the pub." However, it should read fully "Now, in the best traditions of Fleet Street, we are going to the pub." The source should be changed to #22 from bbc. Efranco4 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest-selling?

[edit]

I've heard a few mentions on the news of NOTW being the UK's biggest-selling paper. But how is this worked out, exactly?

  • number of copies sold?
  • money paid by consumers for the paper?
  • profit made by the publisher?

And, so that weekly and daily papers can be compared, do we use the figure

  • per issue?
  • per week?
  • over all the years the paper has been published?

— Smjg (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This generally refers to the number of sales per week averaged out over a month. Circulation figures are principally prepared by ABC ([6] - N.B. a subscription is needed to access most data on the site) and reported by outlets such as The Guardian - this is a useful page on The Guardian's web site with lots of historic data [[7]]Rangoon11 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubbish"

[edit]

"Rubbish"? The paper still exists, there are copies of this paper still in existance. It is a paper that was published. If something no longer exists, it was, if it does exist, it is. This is something that still physically exists. It can still be found. Therefore, it is. Why is this being reverted? This is wording that takes place on articles that cover subjects that are no longer produced/published.

"The WA2000 is a semi-automatic bullpup sniper rifle that was produced..."
"The Ford Pinto is a subcompact automobile that was produced..."
"8-Bit Theater is a sprite comic created and launched by Brian Clevinger which was published.."
"Hawkworld is a comic book series that was published by..."

I'm not seeing why this is an issue. - SudoGhost™ 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these is correct?
George the Third is a British King, reigning from 1760 to 1820.
George the Third was a British King, reigning from 1760 to 1820.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George the Third no longer exists. Which is exactly the point I made above. George the Third is no longer in existence. This paper still exists. Are you suggesting that the examples above are incorrect as well? - SudoGhost™ 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George the Third also was not produced or published. You cannot find a current, functional "George the Third". You can find a copy of News of the World. - SudoGhost™ 23:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing two different meanings of 'a newspaper'. And yes, strictly speaking, your examples are incorrect too, at least in British English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I've provided examples that reflect and backup my changes. "You're confused" doesn't cut it. - SudoGhost™ 23:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper is very different to a car. A newspaper in the sense of the subject of this article refers not to a physical printed copy but to the institution which creates that physical product.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - for a start, do you think you will be able to find a "current, functional" News of the World next week? I think we'd best take this to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for an outside opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that regard I agree. I was thinking of News of the World as the printed newspaper, not in the sense of a company. - SudoGhost™ 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the company - which could change with a change of ownership or a restructuring - as the institution of the newspaper. To be exact it is the newspaper as an institution that this article concerns, and which is now defunct. That would be the case irrespective of the continuation of the company which had operated the title.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Company was the wrong word. I meant the body that produces the printed medium, as opposed to that medium itself. However, the point is that the above statement at the top of this section does not apply to the newspaper in this regard. - SudoGhost™ 00:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a better point of comparison than guns and cars, look at the articles listed under Defunct newspapers of the United Kingdom. I haven't checked them all, but the ones I have checked all open with "The Daily Foo was a newspaper". This seems to me to be the right tense; "is" sounds absurd because, as stated above, it suggests that the paper is still being published. I'd say that of your four examples above, SudoGhost, both 8-Bit Theater and Hawkworld should also open with "was", for the same reason. Ericoides (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was about the printed medium, not the body that produces it. Therefore your argument is invalid (in this article, "was" is correct, but not for the reason you're suggesting, you seem to be under the same impression I was, about the newspaper being about the printed medium itself). Also, with the 8-Bit Theatre and Hawkworld references, you're simply wrong on both counts. 8-Bit is the comic, not the entity that produces it. Likewise, Hawkworld is a comic, DC Comics is the entity that produces it. Neither one is an entity that no longer exists, both are mediums that still exist, but are no longer in publication. This is opposed to this article, where the article's subject is the entity that produces the newspaper itself. In this case, "was" is correct because that entity no longer exists. - SudoGhost™ 00:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that this article is somehow not about the newspaper itself is absurd. The newspaper still exists, therefore you talk about it using the present tense. We're talking basic English grammar here. nohat (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a sister paper.

[edit]

Someone objects to calling the Times & Sunday Times sister papers of the NoW. I'd agree, a more appropriate term would seem to be "Stablemates", but Infobox Newspaper doesn't allow that possibility. HughesJohn (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Sister paper/publication' is easily cited e.g. [8] and [9]. I don't see why this should be censored.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've found citations for The Times and The Sunday Times being sister papers. Why didn't you add them to the article and remove the [citation needed]? Oh well, I'll do it. HughesJohn (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Times and Sunday Times are sister papers. Guardian and Observer, same. Sun and NotW, same. That doesn't make NotW a sister paper of either of the Times. The term is used to describe the relationship between the daily and Sunday version of relatively similar papers. 75.60.7.172 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited in multiple sources. Unless you can find multiple, reliable, sources which directly state that they are not sister papers then this should remain in the article.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict on attempt to clarify) :::Times and Sunday Times are sister papers. Guardian and Observer, same. Sun and NotW, same. That doesn't make NotW a sister paper of either of the Times. The term is used to describe the relationship between the daily and Sunday version of relatively similar papers. Competitors of News International papers would indeed like to "tar them all with the same brush." That would be called 'spin', and isn't encyclopedic. Better to say they're all owned by NI and leave it at that. Is that clear enough? It's absurd to claim one must prove a negative in order to remove a misleading statement, and that's exactly what this use of 'sister paper' is doing. I'm certain ou can also find statements by competitors describing Murdoch as the devil incarnate. That doesn't mean such statements, even if likely true, should be treated as statements of fact in a Wikipedia article. 75.60.7.172 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

[edit]

One of the controversies section is about "2006 reward for information", but there is no mention of what was controversial in the text. --86.161.77.208 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming along (a year later, no less) to comment on the same thing... what is controversial about this section regarding the reward? This should probably be explained somewhere, because readers (such as myself) with no prior knowledge of the subject likely also have no idea what is meant. Possibly this is just a notable event, and should be moved out of the Controversies section, but without knowing for sure I'm hesitant to do so myself. 98.67.154.198 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Adding some retrospectives would be in order: 75.60.7.172 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking?

[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that the term "phone hacking" is wrong? "phone cracking" would have been more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.210.124 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hacking" isn't an accurate description; I think "voicemail interception" is a more accurate description of what the NotW allegedly did, hence my recent edit. --Allanlewis (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News of the world along with other news media organizations and their agents are alleged to have illegally acquired and trafficked in confidential information by intercepting phone voicemails, hacking into computers, blagging, burglarizing, stealing mobile phones, paying public officials, etc. A number of titles have been floated to encompass this scandalous activity, and "phone hacking" appears to have become the common descriptor, even if it is not always accurate. Perhaps "phone hacking scandal" should continue to be used to help viewers find relevant articles and the articles themselves should use accurate descriptions of specific illegal activities being discussed. Bryantbob (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on News of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on News of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:News_of_the_World&oldid=1194461791"