Talk:Reception of WikiLeaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reception of WikiLeaks. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need for updating.[edit]

Many of the comments here are years old now. Events have moved apace. Assange has been accused of working with Russians on the recent Democratic Party hacks in the USA, which he then leaked. He continues to defy Sweden. How have opinions of him and Wikileaks evolved? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this article should be expanded by it will probably need to be renamed... I'll look at other articles...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Reception of WikiLeaks. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reception of WikiLeaks. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assange's "personal" life excluded?[edit]

Why exclude information about the Swedish allegations and the Ecuadorian embassy? People need to know about this...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People need to know about this. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. This article is about the reception of WikiLeaks. The personal life of its editor is not relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about righting wrongs. If Assange is the director/editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks (which he is) and he was editing WikiLeaks from the embassy (which he was), this is obviously relevant to this article (if this article is to be updated).--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
how so? It’s about the reception of WikiLeaks; it’s not a potted history of where it was being edited from. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikileaks made themselves synonymus with Assange and constantly bring up his case. Smearing poop on the walls belongs on his personal page, but he and Wikileaks tied the rape allegations to their work and posted an affidavit about that to the Wikileaks website, so thats part of the reception of Wikileaks now. Softlemonades (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to a few of the points mentioned above is a great article by Assange's countrywoman Caitlin Johnstone, which lists all the smears levelled at Assange.[1] "Smearing poop on the walls" comes in at number 11 on the list. "He’s a rapist" is right up the top at number 2. "He’s not a journalist" is at the top. Coincidentally, a sentence pointing in that direction was recently added to the Wikileaks article. We include something along those lines in this article as well. Here are the other smears from Johnstone's list that we have squeezed into this article (I may have missed some):
“He only publishes leaks about America.”
“He’s an antisemite.”
“He was a Trump supporter.”
“He’s a CIA agent/limited hangout.”
"He’s never leaked anything on Trump.”
“He recklessly published unredacted documents.”
There is a more comprehensive coverage of the smears in Assange's and Wikileaks' articles. At one point we even manage to say that “He mistreated his cat” (number 25 on the list). Burrobert (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about whether it belongs at all, none of thats relevant and shes not a RS Softlemonades (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we definitely could not use Caitlin's article in Wikipedia. She does provide an interesting commentary on each claim and links to articles to support her own claims. So her article is a good resource for researching the various claims made about Assange and Wikileaks. Burrobert (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so thats part of the reception of Wikileaks now is some mildly interesting but not logical original research. Reception is about how other notable individuals or institutions see wikileaks. Not about what they post on their website in an affidavit. Your claim that they "made themselves synonymus" is not supported by the facts. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the main article, near the top: Before his arrest, WikiLeaks was usually represented in public by Julian Assange, who has been described as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest".
Who said that? Assange. Softlemonades (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason its part of the reception of Wikileaks now is because Assange and Wikileaks said the allegations were related to Wikileaks. There are secondary sources about it so thats not a problem Softlemonades (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Debunking All The Assange Smears". Caitlin Johnstone. 20 April 2019. Retrieved 1 May 2022.

Add context/detail to criticism and support sections[edit]

I updated the criticism section with basiccontent from the main article, but we should expand it more with depth, detail and context that the main page doesnt get into. Importing that text should be a starting point, not an endpoint. Same with support section Softlemonades (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOX News poll[edit]

If theres specific reason to challenge Fox news polls Ill drop it, Im not a fan of theirs in general but there arent many sources to choose from and they have a decent pollster rating on 538. Theres no opinion or analysis or interpretation from them, its just a poll and statement of fact about the poll.

If theres another poll from the same time period thatd work too, but there are big gaps and I think showing what opinion was like especially along politicial lines before the DNC and Podesta releases is worthwhile Softlemonades (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not :) saw your contribution to the RFC. I think you make a fair point about attribution and it's not some radical departure from the others. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Softlemonades: the duplicated content is the material about YouGov-Economist polls. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldve known you were being literal Softlemonades (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting out views on Assange[edit]

First, you were right about the reptition, I didnt think you were being literal and when I looked at the code diff I missed it and thought you were just removing stuff and saying it was repetitive because it was similar to earlier polls. Sorry.

For removing the Assange and staff stuff, I guess Im fine with it but I think it might have more impact than you realize. Examples

Julian Assange received the Sam Adams Award and was named the Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year in 2010

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is Australian and he responded two days later by accusing his prime minister of betraying him as an Australian citizen.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva expressed his "solidarity" with Julian Assange following Assange's 2010 arrest in the United Kingdom. Lula went on to state – in reference to WikiLeaks disclosure of classified US diplomatic cables in November and December 2010 – WikiLeaks had "exposed a diplomacy that had appeared unreachable." He further criticised the arrest of Julian Assange as "an attack on freedom of expression".

In late November 2010, a representative of the government of Ecuador made what was, apparently, an unsolicited public offer to Julian Assange to establish residency in Ecuador. Deputy Foreign Minister Kinto Lucas stated "we are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just on the Internet, but in various public forums." Lucas went on to state his praise for WikiLeaks and Assange calling them "[people] who are constantly investigating and trying to get light out of the dark corners of [state] information." The following day, however, president Rafael Correa distanced his administration from the offer stating that Lucas had been speaking for himself and not on the government's behalf. Correa then criticised Assange for "breaking the laws of the United States and leaking this type of information."

In December 2010, the office of the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev issued a statement calling on non-governmental organisations to consider "nominating [Julian] Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate." The announcement followed commentary by Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin who stated that Julian Assange's earlier arrest on Swedish charges demonstrated that there was "no media freedom" in the west.

In December 2010 United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank LaRue stated he agreed with the idea that Julian Assange was a "martyr for free speech."

and so on Softlemonades (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some very nice things said about Assange and him getting an award. In my view it should be removed. This page should stick to article subject and should focus on exactly the kind of content you added (particularly polling - in my view the public opinion section is too short and your additions are welcome). Additions from individuals or institutions should be covered in secondary reliable mainstream sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to cut it down but left mentions of Assange as a representative of WikiLeaks. Also left the government reactions to Jacob in the US section because its law enforcement and they cant search the bags of an organization. I wont argue with adjustments in either direction Softlemonades (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not criticism[edit]

@Burrobert If you want to put it back in the main article somewhere thats ok with me, I just wanted to point out the list of 140 things was criticized and mocked. That was what the entry started with, I added the others but agree theyre not solid criticism Softlemonades (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 140 things probably would fit somewhere under reception, perhaps under "Responses from media". The other items would be more appropriate in the Wikileaks article. I have already moved the item about legal action against The Guardian for the publication of the decryption key. Interesting event which I was unaware of. Presumably that legal action did not proceed. Burrobert (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some suggestions:
- the first para would be best placed in an article that covers the diplomatic cables release. That could be either Wikileaks in the section "Diplomatic cables release" and/or the separate article about the release.
- similarly the second paragraph would be best suited to an article about the Syria files.
- move the third paragraph to the section "Responses from media" or put somewhere in the "Criticism" section (although it is closer to ridicule).
- not sure about the fourth paragraph. Strangely, neither the Wikileaks article nor the Assange articles mentions Manafort, including the supposed visit to the embassy. I seem to recall that it was in the Assange article at one stage but was removed because it was considered a smear piece without foundation. I think the article included Greenwald's comment about the embassy being the most video'd place on earth. So, if we are to place it in one of those articles we should provide the background, which has been in and out of the articles previously. Burrobert (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency and I found this https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/11/08/inenglish/1573211318_746915.html
"On November 22, 2018, several months after UC Global had stopped providing its services at the embassy, Morales asked his employees whether they had any records of visits by Paul Manafort in 2013, 2015 and 2016. The subject line of this e-mail message said “Query.”  Manafort is a US lawyer who joined Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. He has since been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for various irregularities and for conspiracy as a member of a lobby group in Ukraine. Sources close to the cyberactivist state that Manafort never visited Assange. Manafort himself denies ever having met with the founder of WikiLeaks."
Its less than a week before the Guardian article and so the connection seems like obvious well sourced OR and I dont know what to do with it Softlemonades (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First three all sound ok. Found a source for the fourth that mentions Manafort. https://apnews.com/article/351540007f9ddd1ea23012aaee6ec1d8 because it was considered a smear piece without foundation I think thats what the lawsuit was going to be over Softlemonades (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could also do a section of WikiLeaks threats to sue?
Assange threatens to sue Australia’s PM
WikiLeaks threatens to sue Louise Mensch after she posts wild theory about Snowden and Putin only covered by RT and sputnik
WikiLeaks founder threatens to sue 'The Guardian' for libel
WikiLeaks threatens legal action against Daniel Domscheit-Berg
Assange Threatened To Sue SXSW and Julian Assange threatened legal action over WikiLeaks documentary Softlemonades (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is enough material to justify a section on legal action. It would be more relevant to the Wikileaks article than the Reception article. Regarding Wikileaks, you recently added a sentence about Wikileaks releasing 130,000 unredacted cables. How does this relate to the Leigh/harding saga over the release of the decryption code? The articles say Wikileaks said "The issue relates to a mainstream media partner and a malicious individual", which may perhaps be referring to The Guardian. Not sure who the "malicious individual" is though. One of the sources was the Wikileaks website which has been unavailable for a while. How did you get access and are you able to archive the statement to which you refer? Burrobert (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that itd go on the main article and not here
I think its a relevant part of the release timeline especially since we talk about primary publisher of the unredacted cables, but somewhere I think WikiLeaks talks about loooking at the cables by category and how they were marked and decided those were safe to release, knowing about the decryption code stuff
I think I know who the "malicious individual" would be supposed to be but I dont think its ever said directly so I dont want to guess because of OR and BLP stuff Softlemonades (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

Hi @Cambial Yellowing, you reverted my change in the lede sentece. Why do you think "has been mixed" is not an improvement? It's essentially the same but shorter. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses more or less formal language. The specific and more formal language phrase already in the article is better; brevity is not everything. 17:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is quitting so hard?[edit]

The subsection "Internal conflicts and lack of transparency" contains a lot of resignations. Here is the list:

  • Paragraph 1: In January 2007, John Young quit the advisory board ...
  • Paragraph 2: Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving the organisation ...
  • Paragraph 3: A series of resignations of key members of WikiLeaks, including Domscheit-Berg, Herbert Snorrason, The Architect and Birgitta Jonsdottir began in September 2010 ...
  • Paragraph 4: On 25 September 2010, ... Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, ... . When Domscheit-Berg resigned, the architect of WikiLeaks' submission platform and four other staffers also broke with Assange to start OpenLeaks ...
  • Paragraph 5 and 6: No resignations.
  • Paragraph 7: The Architect left with Domscheit-Berg ... Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old Icelandic university student, resigned ... Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir also left WikiLeaks ... According to the British newspaper, The Independent, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left the website during 2010.

Here is the tally:

Resignation tally
Person # resignations
John Young 1
Domscheit-Berg 4
Snorrason 2
The Architect 3
Jonsdottir 2
Anonymous staffers 4+12 = 16

Burrobert (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western Union[edit]

@Burrobert said Western Union was only in the main article one time. [1] I dont see it here. Seems DUE. Are there more sources? Softlem (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Reuters article, Assange says Western Union was part of the blockade but we don't mention it anywhere else. That's why I thought we should include it as part of the list. Btw I was not aware that eBay and PayPal were connected at the time so there is no need to mention eBay. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about the section above titled "Why is quitting so hard?". Afaict, there has been no change to the number of resignations documented there. Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reception_of_WikiLeaks&oldid=1209568925"