Talk:Rebekah Brooks

Usual tabloid hypocrisy #263: paedophilia

A few years ago Wade's paper carried a nude (with breasts in full show) picture of a girl who was 16 on the day of publishing. The text basically commented on how she was celebrating the fact that she could now do such photo shoots as she was now "legal". It took another non-newspaper publication to point out that if she was 16 on the day of publishing, she was 15 at the time of the photo shoot. Therefore under UK law the newspaper and the photographer had engaged in the production and circulation of child pornography. That story never hit the front page......or any page. I'll try and find some references to this story so it can be added to the appropriate Wiki pages.

I think you have this a little wrong. The episode in question referred to The Sport, which is owned by David Sullivan. The paper featured many pictures of partially undressed ladies every day, a feature extended to The Star when that was under Sullivan's control. For several days they ran a daily "clothed" picture of a young lass particularly notable in the pneumatic chest department even in such distinguished company. The running tag was "she's fifteen, but as soon as she is sixteen, and therefore of legal age, we will have a topless picture". The pic was published supposedly on her sixteenth birthday, with the implication as you say, either it was not really her sixteenth birthday or else she was underage (it could have been both). I forget her name of the top of my head, but she did appear quite regularly for a while in top-shelf mags. Nowadays, of course, glamour models have to be eighteen, in print, on video and on the internet.

An interesting adjunct to the article is in Footnote [4][1]. The model Rebekah (Rebekah Parmar) was voted Page 3 Girl for all time (ahead of the likes of Samantha Fox, Linda Lusardi, Jilly Johnson, etc, Jo Guest even) at the height of her career as a hardcore porn model, one has to wonder whether this astonishing result was due to dubious votes on her behalf.

Guy 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Daily or weekday?

I changed the reference to the publication frequency of The Sun newspaper. "Weekday" may be less likely to create confusion, though The Sun publishes on Saturdays, but "daily" is common usage. As seven day newspaper publishing is still rare, it can be assumed readers will not be misled. A.P. Cross (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

How does one go from a British High School straight to a magazine in Paris? Would that not need very good knowledge in French? It should be explained that she had that. Does that not look like being 'slotted' in? It was in 1988, before the Cold War was over. 144.136.176.129 (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How could the Cold War have been relevant? France and the UK were on the same side. Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.152.41.34, 5 July 2011

Change misspelling of email in phone hacking section.

90.152.41.34 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Looks like it was fixed by Comrade jo with this edit. Favonian (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 5 July 2011

Add

Main article: News of the World phone hacking affair

to the Phone hacking enquiry section.

 Done Daicaregos (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Add External links

• Rebekah Brooks collected news and commentary at The Guardian
• Profile: News International chief Rebekah Brook, Edward Stourton, BBC News, 19 April 2011

75.60.16.184 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Added the Guardian link into the article. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please allow editing

Hello! Please permit editing of this article, as there are numerous objective points that need to be made about Rebekah Brook's nature as a^{(BLP violation removed)}. Kind regards 188.29.149.14 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Take out a logon and you will be able to edit the article. However you must bear in mind that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", and articles must be written from a "neutral point of view". Continuing the theme of policy, I am also aware talk pages are also not discussion forums but for the avoidance of doubt, I also think Ms Brooks is a nasty piece of work. 87.115.51.134 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Please read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV before making comments like that again, and definitely do not add any comments of that nature to articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur. After all, Rebekah Brooks extends the same gestures of tact and courtesy to the subjects of her own newspapers, dead or alive. ;-) 188.29.163.230 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

UnAmericanise

Could someone change the word cellphone to mobile phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.214.131 (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hacking the hacker

The Inquirer has NOTW phone hacking protests turn to Wikipedia Rebekah Brooks' Wikipedia page updated in response to her denials, by Madeline Bennett, Wed Jul 06 2011, 13:47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.16.184 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.247 (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete

Some of the sillier edits to this article in the last day or so should probably be WP:REVDELETED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please either delete them yourself or note them here. Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so cannot. No wish to point them out, but they are clearly flagged as BLP violations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done I have revdel'ed the text of six of the "contributions". Favonian (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Brooks as surname

The surname used throughout this article should be Brooks, in accordance with WP:NAMES and the rather odd note about usage at the end of the lead can then be deleted. Exok (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorbonne

The Telegraph says "After taking her A-levels she travelled to Paris, where she found a temporary job on the architecture and art journal L’architecture d’Aujourd’hui. Her Who’s Who entry claims that while in the French capital she attended the Sorbonne. Rather than a full degree, she appears to have enrolled on a six month culture, literature and language course for foreign students." 75.59.205.208 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's unsubstantiated speculation by the Telegraph, and the Who's Who entry, which is the main source for the claim that she studied at the Sorbonne, is by her own hand and cannot be considered a valid source (WP doesn't accept unsupported statements where people are talking of themselves). There is really no place for any extended studies at the Sorbonne in her career at the time. Certainly there are summer and part-time courses that are technically run by the Sorbonne (only one of many Paris universities) but when someone says "I studied at the Sorbonne" they normally mean they took a degree there or studied a subject for several terms. The only way this can be mentioned in the article is by putting the emphasis on that she claims to have studied there but pointing out that she's been unwilling to expand on the topic and that there's no real time to fit it in (as pointed out by the guy quoted in that section at present).Strausszek (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chairman?

"Brooks has been chairman of the organisation Women in Journalism" - Could somebody please change "chairman" to "chair" here? Since a woman chairing a Women's organisation makes her a either chair, chair person or chair woman - but not a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara fall (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to recast the phrase to avoid the perhaps anachronistic "chairman", and the clumsy modern alternatives (the worst being the inanimate object "chair"); perhaps such: "Brooks chairs the organisation Women in Journalism", or if she is not now in the position: "Brooks chaired the organisation Women in Journalism" - either is crisper and more accurate too, avoiding the vague "has been". Acabashi (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I like your suggestions, but I'm not sure which one is more appropriate, so for now I have changed "chairperson" to "chair", clumsy as it is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and it's certainly fine for now - but she is either the chair now or she isn't the chair now - do we know her present position? - the present statement doesn't make it clear, and should do - I shall try to find out and cite it. Many thanks Ed. Acabashi (talk)

Resignation

Mrs Brooks resigned as the Chief Executive of News International this morning; (source: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/james-murdoch-resignation)

As chief executive of the company, I feel a deep sense of responsibility for the people we have hurt and I want to reiterate how sorry I am for what we now know to have taken place. I have believed that the right and responsible action has been to lead us through the heat of the crisis. However my desire to remain on the bridge has made me a focal point of the debate. This is now detracting attention from all our honest endeavours to fix the problems of the past. Therefore I have given Rupert and James Murdoch my resignation. While it has been a subject of discussion, this time my resignation has been accepted. Rupert's wisdom, kindness and incisive advice has guided me throughout my career and James is an inspirational leader who has shown me great loyalty and friendship.

I would like to thank them both for their support.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornsloppy (talk • contribs) 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

*{{Forbestopic|Rebekah_Brooks}}
*{{NYTtopic|people/b/rebekah_brooks}}

75.60.7.172 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done what exactly are you wanting to add from these sources. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Has she just been arrested? 43 year old woman? Sounds like it!

AP have just announced a 43 year old woman has been arrested... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.106.185 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Believed to be Brooks according to The Guardian website's flash feature. Philip Cross (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sky say it's Brooks as well, maybe someone should add this to the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.237 (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC has just confirmed at 13.29 that she was arrested "by appointment at 12.00PM at a police station". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.106.185 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a citation from the Mail website, the best option for the moment. Philip Cross (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has BLP citation issues, see Talk:Philip_Mould#Personal_life.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The citation from the Mail was indeed "the best option for the moment", as it was the main one at the time. "For the moment" acknowledged this, I was merely trying to prevent the notice of Brooks' arrest being the cause of an edit war. Ianmacm, the comments you refer to are now only found in the edit history and apply to only one case, rather than the value of the publication for our purposes. Philip Cross (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Other sources have confirmed this, but Jimbo asked for caution in using the Mail as the only source of BLP information after the Philip Mould incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, missed this at the time. Philip Cross (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebekah Brooks may have broke these laws

The former NotW editor and head of News International was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and on suspicion of corruption allegations on 17th July 2011. Her arrest was by appointment at a London police station. ["Rebekah Brooks arrested by hacking police", BBC News, 17 Juily 2011] Her suspected activities were contrary to Section1 (1) Criminal Law Act 1977 and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. [[2]] 86.29.71.56 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

:-/86.29.71.56 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alumna status

The entry for the London College of Communication (former London College of Printing and now part of the University of the Arts) has her listed as an alumna of that institution but there is no supporting evidence that I can see. Anyone any further info on this? (Cj1340 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

[3] -- did you make the slightest effort to look? Did looking yourself even occur to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Blimey! I read the Grauniad every day, fancy missing that! (Cj1340 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Sorbonne

Can someone remove the smears in the Sorbonne discussion section above?

These are not smears, see [4] which says: "Rebekah Brooks' startlingly brief and opaque Who's Who entry mentions time at the Sorbonne, the prestigious Parisian university, but not whether she took a degree."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Johnstg, 17 July 2011

Warrington urban District in 1931.86.29.71.56 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Warrington is in the county of Cheshire, not Lancashire.

There are two references to Warrington, Lancashire in this item which need to be corrected to Warrington, Cheshire

Cross reference/Confirmation is the Wikipedia page for Warrington.

Johnstg (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done It was in Lancashire when she was born. Wikipedia states historical fact. It is not a fact that she was born in Warrington, Cheshire, because Warrington was not in Cheshire in 1968. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Warrington was in Lancashire prior to 1 April 1974, hence she was born in what was then Lancashire. Jim Michael (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking request as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)}

Sorry if this is wrong (edit: in the wrong place, I mean, for the discussion!), but Warrington town centre & general hospital (place of birth?) was in Lancs. then Cheshire, BUT the county boundary was the Mersey, then the Ship Canal. Daresbury has always been in Cheshire as it is south of them both.

Wikilynch

I'm certainly no fan of Rebekah Brooks, but someone should go back to their senses and read again this article. It's not the biography of a person, is just an accumulation of everything that is nasty about her, written in a way that intends to make it look even uglier. I'm not sure this is what wikipedia is (was) about. Wikipedia was supposed to be an Enclyclopedia, not an collection of angry op-eds... Let alone a Murdoch-like tabloid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.66.215 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep!86.29.71.56 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck! It will be very hard for quite some time to achieve any kind of balanced statements about her career here, seeing that she herself has been very unwilling to discuss her background and the route of her speedy rise to top positions, and former bosses and associates haven't been wiling to talk a lot about that either I reckon, and any effort by people here to formulate some evenhanded statements and describing her career could very easily be challenged on the grounds of WP:NOR, NPOV and WP:SYNTH by others who don't want those particular descriptions.

Someone put it that she is "as much a carnival barker as a journalist". Personally speaking, I think there's a lot of truth to that, but this is also typical of a shift in the way newspapers operate, in their standards and the kind of people they now recruit. She's obviously not a great reporter or a lion of an analyst, but she knows how to project herself in the media and how to dig up nuggets of celeb news that her newspapers could sell.Strausszek (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "It will be very hard for quite some time to achieve any kind of balanced statements...any effort by people here to formulate some evenhanded statements....".

What do you mean precisely by "balanced" and "evenhanded"? Is a "balanced statement" a statement that shows the subjected in as good a light as it shows him in a bad light? Is the Wikipedia article about Hitler "balanced" in this sense? Should it be? I think what we really want is objectivity and verifiable truth. If the subject happens to be overtly and ostentatiously--and publicly--"a nasty piece of work" as someone put it above, then ojective reporting may naturally lead readers to conclude this, and it isn't the fault of the article--although obviously the article should not editorialize. TheScotch (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP Concern

I removed Brooks mother's maiden name with reference to the WP:BLP policy, the removal has been reverted with the comment that mother's maiden name is standard biographical information. I disagree, this information has no relevance to the subject and concerns the privacy of personal information from primary sources. Suggest that my removal be re-instated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, sites like http://www.findmypast.co.uk/ are unsuitable WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:V. Her mother's maiden name is largely irrelevant (we are not doing genealogical research) and the statement that she was born in Warrington still needs a cite.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

www.ancestry.com shows scans of the family registration index entries so is a primary source and confirms her birth in Warrington, Lancashire. The mother's name as Deborah gives a clue as to why the odd spelling Rebekah has been used (which might otherwise suggest a Jewish background). As there are several Rebekah Wades in Britain, it is useful that people can distinguish the current subject from others. More importantly, where is the real evidence she lived in Daresbury - an unusual place for a working class tugboat worker to live? Sebmelmoth (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources saying that she grew up in Daresbury, eg here. Wikipedia BLP articles are not Who Do You Think You Are? and should keep the family background brief and relevant. Use of public records is definitely not allowed, and could cause lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation if people are pointed at documents that could be used for fraud, invasion of privacy etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Early life, first line

Please edit. Warrington is not in Lancashire. It is in Cheshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.8.100 (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done See above Harry the Dog WOOF 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No News International Resignation Filed?

Its been reported in the Telegraph and Guardian that Brooks is still on the payroll of News International. Please could someone update the article with details from the current appointments report included in the blog post below? As far as Companies House are concerned, no resignation as been filed and she remains a current director of News International... Official: Rebekah Brooks has NOT resigned from News International / https://nodpi.org/2011/08/07/official-rebekah-brooks-has-not-resigned-from-news-international/ Fishonabicycle (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Kid apparently on the way

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5idgM3Q4mL-_bvEthYuDjt9-BHEkw?docId=CNG.4a103f4c12c31f010418ccb1595560e0.9b1

So at what point do we mention the baby?©Geni 04:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Significance or relevance of content

From the first paragraph: "In 2008 she was loaned a police horse by Scotland Yard for her Oxfordshire farm." -What is the significance of this sentence? or how is it relevant? Jdevola (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The horse loan isn't relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 10:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Titles

Ed,

I work for a Middle Eastern university and there is usually total bafflement over gender titles.

In translation "CHAIR" is readily understood and acceptable but after this gets untranslatable. The correct and long established titles for Mrs Rebekah Brooks are "EXECUTRIX" and "EDITORESS". Would you please amend the article so that it can be readily understood in translation.AT Kunene (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done To say that English-speaking countries take a different attitude towards gender roles than those shown in the Middle East would be a bit of an understatement! As a native English speaker, I've never encountered "EXECUTRIX" or "EDITORESS" as words before in my life. The suffix -trix in particular is utterly archaic. Executive and Editor are now considered gender-neutral in our culture. The English Wikipedia is written for English speakers, not for it's ease of translation into other languages. Rubiscous (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Trial

Is it a bit early to create an article on R v Brooks and Brooks? PatGallacher (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference in introduction to husband's background.

I added an extremely short reference to Charlie Brooks purely so that those like myself, not particularly interested in him have a little more background.
I felt the introduction was the best palace as it has the link to him though this is less clear cut. This BLP is very contentious but having been given a proper explanation, I hope you agree these 6 words enhance the article rather than adding to the controversy. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is wandering off into a side issue, and could also be construed as an association fallacy. It is not hugely important that Charlie Brooks and David Cameron were at Eton together, and it is not really relevant for the WP:LEAD of this article. It fits in better in the BLP of Charles Patrick Evelyn Brooks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Warrington

Warrington was still in Lancashire when Rebekah Wade was born.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

intro section

I find it a bit disturbing that in the introduction it is necessary to read through several paragraphs about the allegations and court appearances before finally getting to a one-liner to say that she was acquitted. I think that out of respect for a person acquitted by the court on all charges, the acquittal ought to be mentioned far earlier in the description, and that this consideration should outweigh any desire to present things in chronological order.

Also, details about the magistrates' court appearance are in any case too low-level detail for an intro section. Any trial at Crown Court will be preceded by an initial hearing in front of a magistrate in any case, so the exact date and place of that initial hearing are really pretty minor details that can be dealt with lower down. It looks like the intro section has just grown organically as the story progressed, but I think that now is the time to restructure and shorten it, omitting minor details, and (as stated above) giving a respectful prominence to the fact of her acquittal. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have have a tidy up of the lead per due weight, all the information is still in the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rebekah Brooks. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071018101722/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/hi/wales/901723.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rebekah Brooks. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/rebekah-wade-the-feisty-first-lady-of-wapping-514039.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516204345/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Former-News-of-the-World-Editor-Testifies-to-British-Inquiry/10737430600/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Former-News-of-the-World-Editor-Testifies-to-British-Inquiry/10737430600/

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) 22:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rebekah Brooks. 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/20070927203125/http://www.polfed.org/Region6.pdf to http://www.polfed.org/Region6.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719115903/http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2011/07/17/rebekah-brooks-arrested-over-phone-hacking-and-corruption-allegations/ to http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2011/07/17/rebekah-brooks-arrested-over-phone-hacking-and-corruption-allegations/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907130356/http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists/janet_street_porter/article2494228.ece to http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists/janet_street_porter/article2494228.ece

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) 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rebekah Brooks. 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/20070918213510/http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/5762.php to http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/5762.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212131254/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2191552005 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2191552005

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) 10:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Discredited"

The opening sentence describes her as "discredited," but no explanation as to how or why she is discredited is ever given. The only criminal charges mentioned were those for which she was found not guilty, and any infidelity she may have been guilty of might imply she's immoral, but certainly shouldn't affect her professional reputation. 64.246.156.201 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)