Talk:Ashley Madison data breach

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ashley Madison data breach article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Josh Duggar[edit]

Resolved

Worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So 60 gigs of info was leaked and Josh Duggar was the only person that publicly got shamed for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:B9C1:A2DA:C05B:2013 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public figures[edit]

Note, there have been some additions and removals in the "public figure" area.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to this - there has to be a compelling public interest in including information that is included in multiple reliable sources.

WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:ATTACK applies. -- Callinus (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that how public figures, particularly parliamentarians, react to their official e-mail addresses being included in the Ashley Madison data breach is matter of compelling public interest, inasmuch as they themselves spoke to the media about the affair. kencf0618 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Jus da fax 00:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about other public people like Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a well known international missionary. These people are widely in the public debate now.

http://www.meforum.org/5458/hamza-tzortzis-ashley-madison http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/23/islamic-lecturer-hamza-tzortzis-explains-why-his-data-was-found-in-the-ashley-madison-hack/ BernardZ (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to lead.[edit]

The site allows anyone to register any name with zero verification (not even the usual conformation email) then charges money to delete accounts.[1] This makes the alleged list of users completely unreliable. I propose that we mention this prominently in the lead paragraph. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The busted users have confirmed they really did use the site. The transactions showing the monthly payment include their home address and you can also see last four of card. There is too much info for them to believably lie. Men had to pay to chat with the "women." —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

I have removed all entries but the Josh Duggar, per WP:BLP until there are corroborations in multiple sources. There is no rush. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Anything originating from breitbart.com should be regarded as treated as dubious. - Mr X 22:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's best the whole section get thrown out. There are other sources than Breitbart for the Hunter Biden example, and if people are going to throw out all the other implicated names except Duggar, it looks quite clearly like a violation of WP:NPOV and covering for Democrats like Biden while sullying the name of Republicans like Duggar. So if we can't do it fairly, especially when we're dealing with living people, we can leave that section out. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research originated from breitbart.com but has been substantiated by gawker.com, who was the primary source for Duggar. Neither appear to be credible news sites, but it should be all or nothing. Also started created a section on Talk:Hunter_Biden 184.180.121.142 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is all or nothing. (and I think we should lean towards nothing). There are a great many people who are reliably sourced, but Biden in particular being excluded smells of WP:NPOV pretty strongly. FWIW Biden is now ABC, CNN, Washington Times, Sun Times, The Hill, People, Gawker, Daily Mail, and several others. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be thrown out at all. If there's coverage of Biden now that's reliable, add it back in and keep the whole section. --Cagepanes (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not political. The Duggar thing is an admission, the rest is speculation at this point and we do not publish WP:GOSSIP in articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are sources reporting on the speculation about Hunter Biden, but it does not meet the threshold for BLP. It is not even mentioned in his bio, and for good reason IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus to omit Duggar, or include Biden, or any of the others, I can live with that. But please let's not make this a political issue. I didn't even know that Duggar was a republican until JMyrleFuller mentioned it here. The criteria for including people in this article should be (a) editorial discretion (does it improve a reader's understanding of the subject), and (b) coverage in multiple high quality sources (not Brietbart; not People Magazine; not the Daily Mail). - Mr X 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason Jeff Ashton isn't included? He held his own press conference to apologize and cried about it, but said he was not resigning. This made national news as well. He doesn't have a profile here but probably should. [2] —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered in several high-quality sources, so it would seem to be DUEWEIGHT. Whether it's an important aspect of this article, I don't know. - Mr X 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit odd to have "notable people" section and only have Josh Duggar. This guy held his own press conference about it. Redlinking his name might inspire someone to create his article, and certainly the major section would be the Casey Anthony trial and not this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason DeZwirek[edit]

Is Kaboose's CEO Jason DeZwirek the same Jason DeZwirek who, according to the Ashley Madison data breach of August 2015, is the majority stakeholder of Avid Life Media, the parent of Ashley Madison? if so, it's interesting that the CEO of a company which publishes a website "which focuses on family activities and parenting" also publishes a website for facilitating extramarital affairs. 68.56.144.234 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do investigations at Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using a public key for signing[edit]

Makes no sense. See [3]. I posted a message on the user that authored that change. --Ysangkok (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed "public" and the source, which is a self-published blog.- Mr X 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]