Talk:Irish phone tapping scandal

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV tag

I am tagging this NPOV for title as I have never heard it referred to as the Fianna Fail Phone tapping scandal but just as the phone tapping scandal or a variation of those words .Garda40 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed Article

Since there has been no opposition voiced in the last 12 days to the move I went ahead and moved it tonight .Garda40 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

Since we now have a second Irish phone tapping scandal article (2014 Irish phone tapping scandal), it would surely make sense to move this to something like 1982 Irish phone tapping scandal. Alternatively, we could move the other one to Garda phone tapping scandal. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This one covers several years (1982, 1983, + the 1992 Haughey resignation) and the other one covers several decades (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s). Therefore using years in the title probably isn't the best idea. As this one primarily involves journalism and the other one primarily involves the national police force, how about Irish journalism surveillance scandal and Garda Síochána surveillance scandal, with "Irish phone tapping scandal" and "Irish surveillance scandal" as disambiguation pages? That should cover it. --95.45.82.167 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

There is no way this compares in importance in the overall Ireland project as "Top", even mid is pushing it, especially when you look at the topics of the other Top Irish articles here. Top importance criteria states that: High probability that general readers outside Ireland would look this up. Well known outside the country and important in the life and history of Ireland. Members should not give this rating to any article without first getting Project approval from the other members. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for copy/pasting the templates from the other phone tapping article. I hadn't noticed one included an assessment, but would agree with you on its status. For future reference, top assessment should be reserved for topics such as Culture of Ireland, Dáil Éireann, Robert Emmet and Dublin. No doubt the user who assessed 2014 Irish phone tapping scandal did so in good faith, but while the controversy may have an impact in Ireland itself, I'm not sure about the wider world. We had some coverage of it in the UK yesterday, but I don't know if other nations have picked up the story. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Paul! I've been involved in assessing Irish project articles for several years so have a pretty good feel for them and was also involved in developing the criteria. Of the 40,000+ articles only around 60 have a Top-importance rating which gives one a clear idea it is reserved for exceptionally important topics, only about .15% are rated as such. Besides, articles about current topics have not yet matured enough to determine where their importance really lies. I have seen involved editors over rate article they have edited. I'm sure there is a little WP:OWN-creep there. Who can blame them? Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irish phone tapping scandal. 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) 17:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]