Talk:Leveson Inquiry

TL;DR. Very. I am thinking about tossing out a large portion of this. Thoughts? Тy^JFBAA 12:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, it's a very long, complicated subject. There's no point detailing the inquiry without explaining what led up to it, and there's not much point in having a page on the inquiry if it doesn't deal with what the inquiry did whilst it ran. If you think this is long, the Wikipedia entry is spread across at least 5 different pages, many of them longer than this one.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we cut this down just a little bit? We don't have many larger articles than this. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Part 2: To Be Continued?

Do we have any info on what happened with module 2 of the inquiry (i.e. the bit that specifically looks into the phone hacking scandal itself)? Like, is it still going on or is the full report/inquiry already through?--TheTalkingToaster (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly the Tories killed it stone dead in a move hailed by disgraced former Health Secretary Little Hattie Mancock as “a great day for press freedom”. Mr Larrington (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit/rewrite

This article has too much fine detail, such as lists of submissions, terms of inquiry, and witnesses, which don't really belong here. But the topics of press ethics, accuracy, bias, regulation, and state control of the media are central to Rationalwiki's mission. I'd suggest that at minimum this article is trimmed of detail and brought up to date: I added a section on post-Leveson press regulation, but there is more to do to bring the story into the 2020s. Possibly some of the detail could be put on a subpage if people don't want to delete it. Any feeling on what should stay or go? --Annanoon (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We could start by removing the Dramatis Personae section. I don't see why we need that.-Flandres (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)