Talk:News of the World

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Paedophile Campaign

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reliability? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Five years too early, lol! Digifiend (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I hope you don't mean me. Digifiend (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the NotW 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  a lot missing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not the first female editor 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Phone tapping 2009 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tabloid? 

message: The NoW is still in publication, it is not as of yet a former newspaper. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the paper is of right now "IS" not "WAS" Jasonfward (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Agreed, protection isn't justified at present.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh, seems like it's been protected anyway. Sheps999 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Watergate and NoW

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Abbreviate [[News of the World]] as [[News of the World | NoW]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Current price is £1. Digifiend (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price 

message: 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)
thread_title: Recentism

message: 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)
thread_title: STOP PRESS: END OF THE NEWS OF THE WORLD

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misquote under  History: End of Publication. 

message: 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)
replies: text: This generally refers to the number of sales per week averaged out over a month. Circulation figures are principally prepared by ABC ( - 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 []Rangoon11 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest-selling? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 'Sister paper/publication' is easily cited e.g.  and . I don't see why this should be censored.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ?  Oh well, I'll do it. HughesJohn (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: (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)
thread_title:  What is a sister paper. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Adding some retrospectives would be in order: 75.60.7.172 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: * McBride, Kelly. "Haters of U.S. press: Consider the Brits." CNN. July 13, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hacking? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on News of the World. 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/20041216082457/http://lifestyles-america.com:80/bobandsue/ to http://lifestyles-america.com/bobandsue/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708112438/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14077634 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14077634
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616181807/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=99&navcode=92%23 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=99&navcode=92
*Added  tag to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=30072§ioncode=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120141114/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article346268.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article346268.ece
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) 01:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)