Talk:Leveson Inquiry

Emoticon Evidence - Hidden Winks
It was apparent today, when the email referring to Hunt was read out to the Inquiry, that the clear 'joke' aspect (viz: the emoticon !>, which was said to denote a 'wink' ) had been lost as evidence. The Quizmaster did not mention it at all when he read out the message, and if Murdoch Jnr. had not pointed its presence out, people could have interpreted this email as evidence of corruption!! Has a specialist in Emoticons even been consulted to decipher the real meaning of these emails? How many of the other emoticons have NOT been read out? Is Leveson at all conversant with emoticons - does he for example, know the difference between LOL and IMAO? Or indeed 8:-) and @@@@:-)  - the entire affair is very  <*)))-{  indeed.  Add in the huge number of typing errors made by NOTW journalists and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is horrendous.  The page should be cross-referenced to an emoticon glossary.  212.139.96.55 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.96.55 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)  The emoticon read out by Murdoch Jnr. i.e.   !)  does not appear to denote a wink at all - see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons. Winks are written as  (^_-)  or (^_-)  or even -☆ , but never !>. Perhaps he was a little (=_=)after 6 hours on the stand? Leveson appeared very (?_?) and just (._.)on the matter, but it could turn out to be a ●～* under the entire contention that corruption is still going on, which would be a (ー_ー)!! after so much hard work. Maybe they've been encrypting messages to each other, and the Met. haven't got the code breakers onto it yet? The wink was probably a mistyped fullstop - the sentence was apparently "although absolutely illegal..>!". the shift key was pressed too early and turned the fullstop into a >. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.236 (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Victims
How about listing them alphabetically? easier to read then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.146 (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do that. I took the list from the Leveson Inquiry's document listing the victims, and that was the order they came in, but you're right, alphabetical might be better. Kaleeyed (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Holy shit - that is a lot of names! I can't believe this.  Someone should go to jail for that.  Any idea how many of those are U.S. citizens or whether or not any of this stuff happened in the U.S.?  If so, perhaps a special notation can be placed by the name.


 * As far as I know all of these people are British citizens, and according to the current evidence most of the illegal activity happened on U.K. soil. The only activity possibly related to the U.S. is that Jude Law's assistant's phone may have been hacked on U.S. soil.  James Desborough was arrested.  Apart from that I can't think of anything else related to the U.S. People have already been arrested and Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman have gone to jail.  I will be very surprised if more don't follow them. Kaleeyed (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, my earlier reply seems to have been lost, but never mind. You can read it if you view the history. A point that must be stressed is that the inquiry is not into phone hacking but press conduct, and the list of 'victims' contains people who have complained about press intrusion. Some appear to have had their phones hacked (though in many cases this is denied and evidence may be circumstantial) but the majority of the witnesses so far have complained of much more than that, and often phone interception was incidental to the published story, by disclosing where a person might be so the photographers could stake them out, or giving leads journalists might follow. Whether the information came out by phone interception or in some other way is not something the inquiry is seeking to determine in every case though the variety of methods used, eg blagging (lying or impersonating someone in order to obtain information), bribery, surveillance etc is important. There are also allegations of many other things such as deliberate fabrication of stories. The most important evidence from the victims will probably be on the impact on them, their family and acquaintances, and why the interests of the commercial media, and the desire of the public to read these stories, should not be the only consideration. If US citizens think that the only relevance to them is whether unlawful behaviour affected US citizens or took place on US soil they are mistaken. --AJHingston (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The inquiry is into culture, practice and ethics of the British press, but in terms of the scandal itself there is very probably direct relevance for the US. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14162545 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#2011_scandal Meerta (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rulings section
A rulings section would be useful I think. There have already been rulings, these are detailed on the Leveson Inquiry website. If anyone would like to step in and do this feel free, or I will contribute something at a later date. Kaleeyed (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

References bookmarks
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/diary/diary-guido-fawkes-evidence-may-backfire-on-leveson-inquiry-6270153.html

Witnesses
The list of witnesses is duplicated, in the lede and a section of its own. I suggest that we drop it from the introduction - in due course the most notable evidence may be referred to there but the list will grow considerably and many of them are not notable and their evidence may be brief (we should not red-link them either unless they are clearly notable). --AJHingston (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems sensible to me. Would it be useful to include some of the more notable witnesses in the lead? I only ask because I think part of this inquiry's notability and public interest is because of the famous names involved.  As you said I don't want to duplicate or put too much detail in the lead. Kaleeyed (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence in question to a brief list of categories but of course it and much of that section will change anyway as things progress. The only difficulties I forsee with picking out notable witnesses as we go are that being famous and being the most significant witnesses are not necessarily the same thing and the judgement will be very subjective, and secondly that it will need keeping up to date. Listing witnesses from the Inquiry website is one thing, deciding whether witness X was more significant than witness Y is another, and we are early in the process. Will it be necessary to explain why a witness was important, which might draw editors into trying to give a running commentary on the proceedings? If somebody wants to take it on fine, but I'm not volunteering! --AJHingston (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the name of the witness should not be accompanied by a link to the video of their evidence?
 * That is already there - there is a reference to the Leveson Inquiry website against the names for each day and going to that and selecting the day in question (or witness name) will give a link to the video, transcript and witness statement. To give individual links to each of these for every witness would provide a quite unnecessarily unwieldy list of references. --AJHingston (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, is listed in her WP biography as a witness, but is not listed among the witnesses. In what module did she testify? As she is a very prominent author, should she not be listed among the witnesses here? American In Brazil (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Picking out selected witnesses was always going to introduce an element of POV. Originally each was listed in date order with a link but it was a long list. Very many of the oral witnesses were notable in Wikipedia terms. A bigger issue may be that the evidence was often relevant to their biographies, especially where it contradicted things claimed in the media and reported in their articles, but it is a major task to read through the evidence of each. JK Rowling's evidence is at http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/?witness=jk-rowling --AJHingston (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Background to inquiry
I just had a thought, that really there should be a Background section, just a brief opening paragraph that summarises what had happened before the Inquiry and why it was felt to be needed, how David Cameron reached the decision to open the Inquiry, etc. This is mentioned in the leader but not so much in the body of the text. Kaleeyed (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the usual problem is who will write it and how. The normal approach to sourcing does not apply, because reporters cannot be expected to adopt a neutral point of view nor are the things said in the press necessarily reliable. There is a very brief but authoritative summary on the Leveson website and the opening speeches to the inquiry, especially that of counsel to the inquiry, are helpful, but as time goes on the immediate circumstances (eg the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone) have less significance, and Operation Motorman and its aftermath, the complexities of the relationship between the media and politicians and repeated House of Commons committee reports, and the consequencies of the enshrinement of the right to privacy in UK law may be seen as more important is establishing an atmosphere in which such an inquiry could even be contemplated. --AJHingston (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

People who were not asked to give evidence?
As the former Assistant Police Commissioner, John Yates, plus former Conservative Press Officer, Andy Coulson were instrumental in the whole scandal, is there any reason why they should not be mentioned this in the article? I'm not suggesting this because they were not asked to provide evidence (yet)? Zylog79 (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Any commentary about judicial proceedings whilst they are underway is fraught with difficulty. Firstly, the inquiry is in its early stages and press relationships with the police and politicians are to be explored in due course. Secondly, it is coterminous with police investigation of allegations which may yet go to trial and the inquiry is therefore inhibited in examining witnesses on these matters. Thirdly, anyone who has been involved in legal proceedings (and I am not a lawyer) knows that there may be all sorts of things that cannot be disclosed at least whilst they are underway - the people who do know the truth are not permitted to say. Speculation about who might give evidence, about what they might say and any reasons why they might or might not give evidence is not really for Wikipedia and is likely to fail for sources. Even if verifiable in a particular instance, it is very unlikely to give a balanced picture because we will not know about other witnesses or what else might be happening behind the scenes. Unless there is a statement in open hearing (for example about which group of witnesses are to be heard next) it is usually best to steer away from this sort of thing. As to whether such people should be mentioned in the introduction, we already have an article on the News International phone hacking scandal which need not not be duplicated here but it is a mistake to suggest that this inquiry is simply about that. It was part of the immediate circumstances in which it was set up but very little of the inquiry's time to date has been spent on it and the final recommendations, when they come out, will be far wider in scope. --AJHingston (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Novelties
Should there be any mention about the novel and circus moments of the inquiry, for example when an intruder managed to burst in and throw a pie at Rupert Murdoch only to be slapped down by Wendi or when an anti-war protester managed to get in the building and disrupt Tony Blair's testimony or all the acrimony in general?68.227.100.26 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But the first was not at the Leveson Inquiry at all, and the second actually had nothing to do with the inquiry, it was an opportunist attack over a different matter which just happened to take place there. I would have thought there were many more significant moments, espcially in relation to evidence presented to the inquiry, but this is an encyclopedia and the purpose is to give a balanced and objective account of the inquiry and its work. --AJHingston (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Removed section about Daily Mail's "dossier" on Sir David Bell from Criticims and Controversy section. Not about a network "within the inquiry", multiple use of verb "revealed" is inappropriate as revealed nothing not already in the public domain. Reference to "scandal" not explained - what scandal? The Mail's 11 pages have been criticised as having little substance beyond the level of some conspiracy theories, and repeating much of their commentary verbatim seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It may be significant in itself that the Mail published this. In any case there is now equal space to the "controversy" and criticism of it. Meerta (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

copyvio
There was major copyvio from the official site, which I've had to remove without having time to write a replacement. Sorry about that. I'd prefer not to, but copyright policy comes first, and having noticed it what is such a prominent page today I could hardly sit on it. I suspect I might not have got it all. Morwen (Talk) 12:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At least some of this was added by User:Kaleeyed, and I've left a note on their talk page. Frankly, though, this should not have been allowed to stand for so long.  Morwen (Talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

today's update
So, I did a lot of work prosifying this, and trying to add a summary of the report (not easy when it's 2,000 pages long and nobody agrees what the important bits are yet). The reactions were a bit easier. I got rid of the full list of victims and schedule of testimonies, because I didn't see it added much; I've left in a summary of various people. I removed the criticism and controversies bit, which I expect might be the subject of some criticism and controversy in itself, so I'll put my case for getting rid of it upfront here. Basically, it doesn't look like any of these are going to be the basis for long-term criticism of the report.

There were five of these things. Firstly, there was the issue regarding Leveson attending Freud's parties. This was the subject of a brief flurry of coverage in the papers, but is a bit WP:BLPy and turned out to be a non-issue.

Unless I am missing something, the Alex Owens thing is entirely irrelevant to Leveson itself, it is merely part of the controversy that Leveson is investigating. I can't see what this was doing here at all, as opposed to our many other articles about the hacking scandal.

Next, there was the Paul Staines/Alistair Campbell thing, which appears to be a routine political dispute, and nothing to do with the inquiry or the report itself: this was just the weapon of choice that week.

Next, Michael Gove's criticism about "chilling effects". This was not of the Inquiry itself, but was hypothetical criticism about what the Inquiry might report. Now that it has reported this is hardly relevant: if Michael Gove has a position different from the Tory front-bench line on it we can certainly put that in, but that's yet to become clear.

Finally, there was the Daily Mail's hatchet job on David Bell. This is quite WP:BLPy material, and I think we'd want another newspaper agreeing with their criticism of him before we cover it. All we have is newspapers rebutting it, I believe.

Remember, we're in the awkward position here where newspapers have to be looked at with extreme skepticism as sources, because they are participants in this debate, and they are not shy about expressing their corporate opinions as editorials and slanting their news pages.

Certainly I wouldn't be opposed to having a criticism section, I'm just not sure that paragraphs summarising random mud thrown at the inquiry during its process is the way to build one. Which of these criticisms actually holds water and people will be bringing up now that it's over, we'll see. Peter Preston just wrote an article criticising the actual content (beyond merely rejecting its findings) that I think we can cite. Morwen (Talk) 02:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy you have thrown out some of the criticisms. You should have seen it before I modified it... Peter Preston is a respected commentator with long experience; at the same time he has been strongly critical of the inquiry from the start. He is one of many commentators.  There are a great many other views.  Your point about newspaper sources being potentially self-interested is most valid.


 * Lord Justice Leveson has analysed masses of evidence from a neutral, judicial standpoint. He has given everyone involved (and everyone else) the opportunity to make their case. Many commentators give the impression of not having even read the summary. It's sky-high with vested interests.Meerta (Talk)  00:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See Liberty, for example, where Liberty have put out a strongly worded statement complaining that their position has been widely misrepresented by the press. I quite agree the removal of the Brett Straub thing, by the way.   Morwen (Talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry conducted by reading Wikipedia
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/05/leveson_wikipedia_prankster/

Now that we know the true nature of Leveson's source, can we insert a note in the lead about it all being a big hoax? Hcobb (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose you could suggest something in the Wikipedia article about not trusting what you read. Those who are genuinely interested can follow the links and read the extensive evidence to the Inquiry. There is a lesson here for us all, of course, which is that if we do want Wikipedia to be a valuable source of information we have to be vigilant against hoaxers and time-wasters.--AJHingston (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Brett Straub
I'm wondering if we should make some mention of this incident in which incorrect text was copy/pasted from The Independent directly into the Leveson report. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think it is WP:UNDUE. The report runs to nearly 2000 pages and formal evidence was taken from over 600 people. Even the executive summary is 64 pages long. The article makes only a token attempt to summarise any of this. The fact that somebody took a short cut on a piece of background that is of no material importance and got it wtrong is of interest to Wikipedians because of the reputational damage to WP, which is probably of much more lasting importance. But inclusion hardly improves the quality of the article as a whole. --AJHingston (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see someone's added this information overnight, although I don't think we need to mention its inclusion on Have I Got News for You. As the article stands now I think you're probably right, although as it's such a basic error it raises the question of whether there are others in the report. I'll trim it down a bit, but leave it to others to decide whether or not to remove it entirely. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we owe it to Britain to read the entire report and note which parts are Wikied, rather than reality? Hcobb (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would probably count as original research, but I've no doubt there are people reading it for that very purpose. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed above. A basic error, probably by an assistant. The Economist quote is inaccurate (as well as misleading and wildly self-interested. Leveson views it as in the nature of a judgement. Wiki doesn't normally talk about minor errors in a judgement because they have been mentioned in quiz comedy programmes. Removing.


 * If we want it back, it needs to include a discussion of what *motivates* the sometimes downright deceptive, or distorting, response to the Leveson report by many *news outlets*. Meerta (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree, should not be removed. The HIGNFY television programme was added very deliberately, as it is the main political satire one in the country, broadcast slap-bang in the middle of prime-time, and in the country where the report is being produced. It forms part of the general commentary about the perceived efficacy of the report, as reported by another part of the media. Jimthing (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion/satire site. If this is the only error in the 2000 page report then it is a very remarkable piece of work, and it is of no material importance because it was a piece of background to which leaving out the names altogether would not have detracted. WP:NPOV trumps trivia. --AJHingston (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's shown at 9pm on a Friday evening on BBC2, the BBC's second station. I doubt anyone working on Have I Got News For You would say the section formed "part of the general commentary about the perceived efficacy of the report", especially considering the nature of the discussion. The inclusion of the untypically negative Spectator quote suggests an axe to grind.  What abuut the Parliamentary debate?  What about the Prime Minister's (claimed) positive response?  What about the reponse of J.K. Rowling and other victims?  Infinitely more significant.  For a report where the man who set up the inquiry is now contradicting his assurances to the inquiry and siding with the industry the inquiry was inquiring into in the first place, you have to be very careful what you choose to include and exclude, and how you balance it.Meerta


 * What planet are you on? All these assertions are entirely wrong! Firstly, HIGNFY. It's not broadcast on "BBC2, the BBC's second station", but on BBC1 (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mkw3). Also, what that has to do with your insinuation that BBC2 is in some way not primetime (when it is known by everyone in the TV industry to be just as primetime as the first station, but just an alternative viewer programme option!). Plus, 9pm on Friday is about as primetime as it gets. The point of it's inclusion is perfectly valid here, on top of what I already said about general comment (on the primary station, at the primetime, on the prime terrestrial network on British television! — and no I don't work there, either), Hislop is mentioned further up in the article, hence it's pretty damn well relevant isn't it, given he also appears on this programme.
 * Your comment on the Spectator is also guessing a motive, so is invalid. If you really want to add other responses (perhaps even "J.K. Rowling and other victims"), then there's nothing stopping you adding them in addition, to what's there already — they are not both mutually exclusive! Jimthing (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, I was evidently wrong about the channel. But the "reaction" to the Leveson report is *immense*. The section here just about skirts over the highest profile discussion that has been had about just one section of it.  The report includes numerous findings the ramifications of which will unfold over some time, including about the relationship between the press and the police and the press and politicians.  As it stands the section isn't great, but adding a bit about this tiny mistake, whatever programme it was discussed on, potentially opens it to ridicule. It makes sense for HIGNFY to discuss a thing like this, in quite amusing terms, but it's hardly one of its moments of high satire.  They has discussed Leveson at a more substantial level many times, including immediately when the report came out. Where is the inclusion of that in the article?


 * It has six million viewers, but Brett Straub doesn't seem to have prevented all the polls commissioned by the newspapers showing that 70-80% of want the report implemented in full, including statutory underpinning. So people are perhaps focused on bigger issues, and this fact also seems a more suitable candidate for the article. (The papers that commissioned them, incidentally, are not reporting their own polls.)


 * (Also I thought my addition about the victims was essential to begin to give a sense of the response from that side, particularly the sense of betrayal. The newspapers have a fair shout in the second paragraph.) Meerta (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, so here's the paragraph concerned:

The Leveson report incorrectly listed a "Brett Straub" as one of the founders of The Independent. The name originated from an erroneous edit by an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia, and its inclusion suggested that part of the report relating to that newspaper had been cut and pasted from the website. The Brett Straub issue was also humorously referenced in broadcasts of BBC entertainment TV programme Have I Got News for You (series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012), and the extended edition Have I Got a Bit More News for You (series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 10 December 2012). The Economist also commented, "The Leveson report... is a mixture of the mediocre, the clever and the dangerous. Parts of it are a scissors-and-paste job culled from Wikipedia".

I did actually remove the Have I Got News for You stuff a couple of days ago, but it seems to be back again. Lots of topics are satirised on that show, and if we add mention of it here does that mean we have to include information on every other subject that is covered by the programme in the relevant Wikipedia article? There is place for a mention of Straub in an expanded version of this, or perhaps even at The Independent article itself, but as the paragraph stands now, WP:UNDUE is a definite issue. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree, and please see my comment above


 * I have had to re-remove the material, and can see this turning into an "edit war"Meerta


 * I kind of knew this would become an issue as soon as the sketch appeared, which is why I decided to mention it. Sadly I can see it becoming one every time the programme is aired. It's on again tonight, and no doubt Dave will show it in the next few months, so we need to be vigilant. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fortunately hardly anyone watches it on Dave.. I just read that Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution mispels the word "its" as "it's".  I wonder if someone wants to go over to the page and start a section on how this undermines the US Constitution. Meerta


 * See my comment above Meerta: false non-factual comments that do not stand-up to scrutiny make your point invalid. And your ""what about the victims" comment is entirely from a one-sided POV; they are not both mutually exclusive! Re-added accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but WP policy is not optional. Please address that, and refrain from abuse. I have reverted your reversion because I am not satisfied that you have understood the issue here. --AJHingston (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This WP policy is not even the issue. I've been an editor for long enough to know when we have a user telling half truths to explain away perfectly acceptable info being wrongly removed, under their own personal preference. (see my additional comment below.) Jimthing (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I object to this, and would ask you to withdraw it. I have admitted I made a mistake about the channel Have I Got News For You goes out on, and corrected it, that's all.


 * To others - I seem to be having to repeat my points a lot so please read my other comments if thinking of replying.. thanks. Meerta (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand how adding a bit of information about this fails WP:UNDUE. It was newsworthy (three different mainstream news outlets have been sourced) and reliable sources are the determining factor under WP:UNDUE, not what the general public (or us, as editors, for that matter) may or may not think about it in relation to other things. That's higher quality reliable sourcing than some entire articles. It doesn't make any sense to me to simply scrub it out. I can understand the reflex in the circumstances (the objective being to maintain the article's quality, naturally) but policy is not a blunt instrument. Rather than fighting a meta battle would it not be more productive to consider the actual content being put in the article and, if it's unacceptable, propose something better?

Also, I'll think you'll find policy is, de jure, optional ;).- Rushyo  Talk  21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see my post above (18:16, 10 December 2012 ). That's seems to be the location of this discussion at this point. If we can add this we can virtually anything, really. It's a matter of proportion. This isn't about the substance of the report, but an error in the report (possibly by an assistant, who knows).  If we quote The Spectator inferring from that that the report if badly put together, we can add numerous counter-quotes about what an excellent achievement it is, and how well put together, by numerous MPs from all parties in the House of Commons; it just might get a bit silly. Meerta (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, this is NOT a WP policy issue — you're simply using your own personal preferences on what you deem to be worthy under a misguided sense of proportionality. What it actually is, is an issue of POV being neutral, with all sides being represented, and not focused on one or the other. In simple terms regarding this article, that means you need both victims reactions AND various media counter reactions, with some of those reactions (from either side) featuring both serious reaction AND lighter reaction (the latter being what the Brett Straub incident is, as commented on by a mainstream media outlet: the BBC in primetime!). If someone wants to add further reactions concerning the victims reactions, then add them, but do NOT remove the other sides reaction in the process, following your own misguided sense of righteousness. Jimthing (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in what I have said that justifies these assumptions. I could suggest that your personal preferences are motivating you to tend towards including tittle-tattle. So what if HIGNFY is a peak time comedy news quiz? Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body.  What about the other editions of HIGNFY where the response was discussed substantially?  As the section stands it's miminal, to say the least, but at least it has something from all sides and comes close-ish to conveying the shape of the situation. Meerta (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have accused me of telling "half-truths", above, and have again reverted the edit. I have followed this story in detail since the middle of 2011, then the whole thing began, have read many articles and watched and read a lot of the evidence, and I can assure you that this inclusion is absurdly disproportionate!


 * We haven't reached consensus. Meerta (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to barge in: Can I put forward a general wiki etiquette tip? Avoid comments that involve the term you, even in the hypothetical (actually: especially in the hypothetical). It has a propensity to imply one is commenting on the contributor rather than the actual content. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just something I find useful myself when arguing a case. - Rushyo  Talk  23:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've got a few posts hanging (three or four) which haven't been replied to yet, but Jimthing has now inserted the Brett Straub section as a sub-section, divorcing it from the "Reaction" section (should be renamed "Reactions and Responses"? I think I'm going to leave it to others now, for various reasons, but just to say I think that the Talk page sections "Novelties" and "today's update" are relevant here. I do think the inquiry is more important than this. (This is an understatement.) Meerta (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, Brett Straub most definitely shouldn't have his own section as that does give undue weight to the issue. I expect any changes will be met with opposition, so I'm going to wait a few days until everyone has hopefully moved onto something else. Then I'll slim this down. I'll retain mention of him, but the stuff about HIGNFY can go. Not sure about the Economist. That could be counted as a reaction, but it may be just their opinion that parts of it are a "scissors-and-paste job culled from Wikipedia". If we can find wider evidence of this then a section on Wikipedia could be started. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "I expect any changes will be met with opposition, so I'm going to wait a few days until everyone has hopefully moved onto something else." After all we wouldn't want annoying roadblocks like consensus getting in the way of winning the revert war. Since I happen to agree with what Jimthing is saying (FWIW), rest assured I've tagged this page all to hell. You'll have to actually resolve it instead of pretending consensus is a thing that happens to other people. Silence does not imply consensus has been reached. - Rushyo  Talk  12:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was posted above by someone that policy is de jure, optional, hence perhaps in the interests of stopping this important article looking absurd Paul MacDermott was exercising some discretion, but underestimated the strength of one or two editors' views on the so-called "Brett Straub" incident. Others have made changes without consensus. I looked again today, thought about what sparked this inquiry, the hundreds of hours I spent reading and watching it, and this is a possible subject for satire in itself. I can understand the thinking behind it, and I wouldn't like to have my work deleted, but it stands out as something egregiously disproportionate - again see the other discussions on similar addditions.


 * Another point - the inquiry was so far-reaching that you can potentially comment or source a comment on almost anything to do with the press, politicians and the police, even if not really relevant to the article, or the article as it stands. Further, any editor should be aware, hopefully, that the subject of the inquiry - the press (sections of which have been severely criticised) - is also one of the main sources for Wiki articles of this nature. I have not attacked anyone, have not engaged in an edit war - if you look carefully, and I'm still waiting for a retraction of a slur above. I am backing off this article because it simply isn't worth the hassle (and to be honest I don't have time to make a big contribution to it anyway).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue is now moot. As the Straub incident has been separated into it's own smaller section with POV removed, hence prominence diminished. Outside of the Reaction section, which is exclusively for multiple POV's directly related to the Report itself. Now everyone can move on to focus on the greater issues relating to the report. Jimthing (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a different question now, but it's still a question. It resolves the relation to Reaction section, but it's very prominent in the article. Meerta (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The resolution to the Reaction section was the crux of the issue, as when it was included in there it made the issue more prominent than warranted in relation to the more important direct reaction to the report results itself. There is no other way of doing it, but to section it at the end of the article in this way, as is commonplace across site for such sundries that are nonetheless points of note—including, because of the previous Hislop connections above—to some if not perhaps all users. Jimthing (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned on Have I Got News for You
Since there are no reliable online sources to support this (and believe me, I've just checked) then I think the Have I Got News for You part of Straub's entry can sensibly go. If we took this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC they would certainly want it referenced or removed, and that's the basis on which I've made this momentous decision. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not again, this has been dealt with and is finished. It's plainly incorrect too; the programme was watched and as of today iPlayer carries it (cited), so it stays in the same way printed newspaper articles quoted stay (for those many papers behind unlinkable paywalls). This is dealt with, so move on. Jimthing (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It won't be on iPlayer for long. I don't know about that, but the relation to the Reaction section was never the crux of it, and the previous Hislop comments have nothing whatsoever to do with Brett Straub. Meerta (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was the crux for everyone else but you, it seems. Honestly there is no pleasing some people. It was removed from the Reaction section for clear reasoning, therefore it is perfectly fine to be in another separate section, as done. Just because you don't like it, for some inexplicable reason, doesn't mean others agree, and in such cases where the info if perfectly factually valid, the info stays. Jimthing (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There has barely been a response to any of my or Paul MacDermott's points, above and below, and some comments haven't been retracted as I politely requested.Meerta (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the desire to include the mention on Have I Got News for You. This whole subject smacks of man bites dog and the kind of tabloidism we should avoid, but as there's resistance to doing anything sensible with it then I can't be bothered to argue. Incidentally, I split the section because it's getting rather slow to load and difficult to edit. Please leave the new header in place. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, the YouTube link is gone per WP:YOUTUBE. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Link reinstated, WP:ELNEVER "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use" = perfectly acceptable. Now stop removing it please. Nothing about this is man bites dog tabloidism, it's a mainstream satirical programme for goodness sake! Jimthing (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am requesting Dispute Resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Leveson_Inquiry.23Brett_Straub Meerta (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read again WP:YOUTUBE, where you'll see that many links from that site have copyvio issues, and you need to check them on a case-by-case instance before deciding to add them to Wikipedia. I'm not convinced you have. Furthermore the arguments for preserving this information and its links in aspic seem somewhat pithy and give it undue weight in an article that is supposed to offer broad coverage of an issue. The question also is whether this information has enduring notability, i.e., whether people will still be discussing that particular episode of the series in years to come. I doubt they will somehow, but perhaps you have a time machine and have travelled forward into the future and know things we don't. Maybe Brett Straub is a future guest presenter. Joking apart, I strongly suggest you read carefully the WP:UNDUE rules, together with the criteria for good and featured articles. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For new readers of this, the whole issue has been resolved, by moving the section to a more appropriate page, and leaving a smaller comment under Reaction. (search "Leveson Inquiry" in the Dispute Resolution archives for resolution history.) Jimthing (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Further info needed?
2nd part of Inquiry: does this need some further info of some kind? While it is under an embargo due to the police investigation and any subsequent court actions, it still seems rather bare. Unrelated to the Report for that 2nd part, one thing that should perhaps be mentioned is the proceedings that have been taken forward against certain individuals (eg. Coulson, Brooks, et al). Thoughts or additions welcomed. Jimthing (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it can't start until all the trials are finished, which may be some time - certainly more than a year. At one point during Part 1 Leveson questioned in a ruling I think whether Part 2 would be necessary, but that seems not to be determined at present and leading politicians are talking as if it will go ahead. Meerta (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but what about the second half of my question; the comment about "proceedings that have (currently) been taken forward against certain individuals (eg. Coulson, Brooks, et al)"? Surely something should be added to mention these things are at the very least taking place, or ongoing, or some other non judgemental purely informational and factual prose. Could one say they are related to the report, given this is the basis for part 2 to come, or would one say these investigations are entirely separate? I'd say they are indirectly related at this stage, so a few words should likely be added. Jimthing (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Operations Weeting, Elvedon etc, under which investigations the charges have been brought, are related directly to the background of the inquiry. I've certainly no objection to something like this. Meerta (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimthing - the comment you made here about the nature of what you raised here and my response completely misdescribes this section, which you started yourself. I mean here, under your Opening Comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Leveson_Inquiry This isn't about all extra coverage that could be given to the report - it's about the "2nd part of Inquiry" and "one thing that should perhaps be mentioned is the proceedings that have been taken forward against certain individuals (eg. Coulson, Brooks, et al)". I and others have already mentioned the lack of detail in the article as a whole.
 * And having given my thoughts, agreeing with you about "the proceedings", you apparently expect me to add them - and anything else that should be added to the article. This seems very strange, and I wonder what you are trying to do, since you can't reasonably have misunderstood your own query. (It's possible you believe adding this information would transform it into a comprehensive article, in which case it makes enough sense.) Meerta (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would come out later anyway, but the argument one or two of us have put forward to the effect that the article would need to be expanded to justify this inclusion is intended from my point of view to show the strict absurdity of it - i.e. the article would need to be massively expanded. Meerta (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To make the general point the level of "seriousness" that should be attributed to the subject of this article, it's gravity is precisely comparable to that of a trial, and in fact was sparked in the first place by revelations concerning a the press's interference with a murder inquiry, though it's scope went far beyond it. Meerta (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, the issue is moot so move on. But just to be clear, despite your continued assertions that serious pages cannot contain less serious points, I'm afraid that plainly does not bare out across the site; thousands of 'serious' WP pages have humorous sections on them. So please cease casting such broad assertions that are in fact pointless. In serious matters there is almost always humour, especially in the UK where sense of humour is regarded as a pre-requesit to be able to deal with such heavy matters, lol! Jimthing (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah I can't keep discussing humour in Wiki articles. It's already been discussed a lot on this page. I've been misrepresented here, but myself I *am* moving on. There's two and a half weeks and a lengthy dispute process between my last comment here and yours. Meerta (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph story
There's a story being reported about a conversation between Downing Street and the Daily Telegraph which may have a bearing on this topic, so I've taken the liberty of preparing a short paragraph on the issue. This doesn't really belong in reaction, but may need to be included depending on how events unfold:

On 12 December 2012 it was reported that during a telephone call to The Daily Telegraph Prime Minister David Cameron's spokesman, Craig Oliver had warned the newspaper against running a critical story on MPs expenses claimed by Culture Secretary Maria Miller because of her role in enacting proposals in the Leveson report. Downing Street denied that any threats were made.

Your thoughts and comments on this are welcome. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the main events over the last week or so have been the Delauney meeting between the editors, Labour putting forward draft legislation, and this. It's a huge story. Maria Miller is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and her office has been caught doing what looks very like threatening a newspaper with a reminder that she has power over the future direction of press legislation, so that she doesn't publish a story. Hacked Off are saying she should recuse herself from the talk. Meerta (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I think as Miller has now been reported to the Parliamentary watchdog we should include this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have now started a section on this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Update required ?
I'm not currently living in the UK, and don't know developments, but reading this article, it looks as if it needs update (at least to the extent of changing present to past tense).Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Leveson Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222204215/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/Inquiries-Act-2005/IA_Written_Oral_evidencevol.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/Inquiries-Act-2005/IA_Written_Oral_evidencevol.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leveson Inquiry. 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/636oQdSGI?url=http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Core-Participants-final-14.09.11.pdf to http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Core-Participants-final-14.09.11.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724071051/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23972388-investigate-james-murdoch-over-smoking-gun-email-urges-mp.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23972388-investigate-james-murdoch-over-smoking-gun-email-urges-mp.do

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)