Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

New Section: title?

I want to include a new section, because I was researching something unrelated online and discovered that a outside of the United States and Europe it is a common/mainstream belief that wikileaks is not what it purports to be or an intelligence front of some sort. I don't want to make this into a section discussing whether wikileaks is or not, just citations of different countries with that opinion and some polls about the belief of people within those countries. Any suggestions? As this represents a significant belief in the world, not mainstream within America and Europe, but in other parts, I am not quite sure how to treat it. And I don't want to characterize it EMbargo145 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us a few sources for this? Unless this issue has itself been discussed in the media, it would seem questionable whether we could include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is of course understandable: here are articles that discuss the existence of this theory:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-row-putin-reaction-batman-robin Russia's Putin states that leaks are occurring deliberately

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581189,00.html#ixzz18iUwHz9i Time article from 2007 discusses the existence of this theory

.....That is, of course, as long as you don't accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks.org could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency....Yet the speculation that Wikileaks might a front for an intelligence agency is understandable, considering the recent arrival of "Intellipedia" — an internal wiki system used by 16 U.S. spy agencies.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733060,00.html Iran claims that the United States is deliberately leaking the documents

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100065816/is-wikileaks-a-front-for-the-cia-or-mossad/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574462119793480.html John Young, founder of Cryptome.org and ex-affiliate of Wikileaks, quits ::wikileaks claiming that it pimps out secrets for money, leaks wikileaks' emails online

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wikileaks-cables-deliberately-published-by/730328/ Gallup poll in Pakistan finds majority of people believe US published the documents themselves

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7914003/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-former-Pakistani-general-blames-US-for-war-leak.html ex-chief of the ISI says leaks are being put fourth by the United States.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets a discussion of John Young's of Cryptome.org's accusation against Wikileaks

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/758/wikileaks-a-deliberate-accident/ An article from Pakistan's tribune questions whether the leak is deliberate

Unfortunately, most of the rest of my sources are from international newspaper print articles or TV transcripts - most of the world lacks the internet - but I can access them via LexisNexis and can cite them and make them available online if necessary. I have some from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Kenya, Thailand, and others

"Primary interest"?

The article currently states: WikiLeaks states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations."

Are there any statistics about what percentage of WikiLeaks' posted documents come from particular countries/governments? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Larsen, Kaj. "How WikiLeaks has changed today's media." CNN. June 10, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to 5 movies to be made about Wikileaks and a play is happening at the moment.

Wanted to add this but wasn't exactly sure where to do so. Perhaps we can make a new culture section or in popular culture (or maybe add it in the reception section?) [1] (film ref), [2] (play ref).Calaka (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

'Wikileaks is an international nonprofit organization"

I believe that we must remove the "nonprofit" from the first sentence; being a nonprofit organization requires being registered as a nonprofit organization, which wikileaks is not. The only source for it being a nonprofit is Wikileaks' own statement, which is a primary source. In Britain, Wikileaks Community is classified as a "public limited company" (incorporate in 2006) http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-250k.pdf and Sunshine Press, founded in 2010 by Julian Assage, is listed as a limited private company. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIONS-EHF-FOR-PROFIT-LIMITED-COMPANY-DOCUMENTS. I don't think we should omit whether it is or is not a non-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMbargo145 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find references to this point in WP:RS, concluding through your own investigations that WikiLeaks isn't 'nonprofit' might be WP:OR - there are certainly sources that refer it it as being nonprofit'.

Although apparently bogged down, I think it's an important point. On May 11, NewStatesman published an article (here) giving facts and reasons why WikiLeaks can be seen as a de facto commercial enterprise. Someone tried to involve the outcome of that article with this move, which was immediately reverted. No wonder, while changing 'white' to 'black' in the definition of an organization is at least daring. But the comment with the revert was that the claim was 'unsourced'. Which is also suggestive, while NewStatesman is a source. Of course we're moving into WP:RS here, because the NS article is based on an internal WikiLeaks document of which we cannot determine the originality as we see it in the PDF linked there. But isn't that the problem with publications on documents leaked to WL in the first place? Note that we have assured lines in our article like "This allowed every death in Iraq, and across the border in Iran, to be mapped", which are considered to be reliably sourced. Yes, sure, this is a point. If WL indeed maintains policies like the suggested one, it must have influence on the claim that WL is a nonprofit organization. Apdency (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "international" is being ignored here. I don't believe there is any way of "registering" an "international nonprofit organization", so to demand registration is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's also a good point. Apdency (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting the burden of proof on WP editors to show that WL is NOT a non-profit organisation is wrong, as well as stating that an editor is engaging in OR when they find no RS stating that is ~~non-profit~~ a "for profit" company. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC) ...also, if "international nonprofit organization" is, in fact, essentially a meaningless statement why is it the 5th word in the article? If WL was registered in ANY one country as non-profit, that would give some weight to the fact that it is meeting some legal standard (somewhere) as to purpose. It, AFAIK, is not, and putting "non-profit" in the 1st sentence of the lead is completely weasely. Define WL in the lead by RS, not by their own self-definition. For example:

"WikiLeaks is a whistle-blowing Web site that became the focus of a global debate over its role in the release of thousands of confidential messages about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the conduct of American diplomacy around the world."

is roughly the general opening definition I see in the news media. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Organization, not organisation. Is this the British spelling? I've tried to change this, but the site will not let me. I assume this is because organisation, with an 's' is the correct way to spell in Britian. In America we spell this with a 'z'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.18.178 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This article is written in British English - see the note at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Insurance file passkey.

The key for the insurance file is widely reported as being ACollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay# According to various sources this seems to decrypt the file and decrypted versions have been appearing on various torrent sites all through the day. Is it worth mentioning?--Lead holder (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not until it is referred to by mainstream reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Register is proper enough right? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/01/cablegate_leak_row/ --Lead holder (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also of course anyone who has access to the book mentioned can confirm I'm sure (Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by David Leigh) --Lead holder (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian has itself written on this [3] - though given the circumstances, they seem to be rather too closely involved to be used as WP:RS. The BBC have reported on this too: [4]], and I think this is likely to be preferable. The same story is on the Huffington Post website [5], and on an ABC one [6], so there is probably enough coverage to merit a paragraph about this - but based on the mainstream media, not on blogs (i.e. no password, links to Torrent etc, and most definitely no material supposedly from the decrypted files - we have no way to know if they are genuine, apart from any other issues). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The CSV files that are now downloadable certainly look legit.--Lead holder (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether they 'look legit' is beside the point - they aren't published in WP:RS, and until they are, nothing from them is relevant to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the content of the files that are hanging around online right now. There is no doubt that the key has been leaked and that an encrypted "insurance" file is now decryptable. As your links showed, these facts are as confirmed as they can be. Would you say that deserves a mention in the "Insurance file" section of the article? I think it is unlikely that any serious media outlet will be publishing anything from the so-called unredacted file itself so all we can really expect is what we have: the facts of the leaked key and the ability to decrypt a specific file. It is surely deserving of mention.

https://rapidshare.com/files/2992019334/insurance.aes256-decrypted.7z and http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SHC0593Z appear to be links to the unencrypted file. There are a lot of entries several which match existing releases and although not really encyclopedia material it will be interesting to compare them to the file wikileaks eventually releases when they get round to it. Exciting times maybe.--Lead holder (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was not the Insurance file's password, but a encrypted file that was mistakenly placed on a torrent used for mirroring the wikileaks website around the time of the dos attacks and domain highjacking was going on. ref1, ref2.81.231.140.240 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense given the size of the insurance file. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Indian corruption

Dear Sir/Madam,

the history is back on course when Indian Independence opened gate for the mighty,powerful & influential people to loot assets,money & wealth of billion people.The thought itself is astonishing as Tax payers in the form of Citizen paying through RED Tape ..the money collected through this channel is almost hidden & never disclosed..even after RTI act (Right to Information)..the government & CAG (Comptroller Audit Governing body) failed to come clean in this matter.The growing sentimental among strong Indian Middle class wants to know ..where India stands in collective tax filing ..because for example 1 Liter petrol costs in India is Rs.16 but Government pricing is Rs.70/- inclusive of Central & State Tax. The Auto industry has the same story ..according to legend Adam Smith ..economies of scale. 1.3 billion people including worlds largest strong middle class & largest democracy ..the obvious result is ASTRONOMICALLY HIDDEN from the world????

this is the most important channel which has its myth ? RED TAPE????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.237.255 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Section headed "Bank of America"

[Article quoted:] ...

Late in 2010, Bank of America approached the law firm of Hunton & Williams to put a stop to WikiLeaks. Hunton & Williams assembled a group of security specialists, HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies. They decided upon a campaign that included the use of "false documents, disinformation, and sabotage."

During 5 and 6 February 2011, Anonymous hacked HBGary's web site, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account in revenge. Some of the documents taken by Anonymous show HBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of America to respond to WikiLeaks' planned release of the bank's internal documents. Emails detailed a supposed business proposal by HBGary to assist Bank of America's law firm, Hunton & Williams, and revealed that the companies were willing to break the law to bring down WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

"CEO Aaron Barr thought he'd uncovered the hackers' identities and like rats, they'd scurry for cover. If he could nail them, he could cover up the crimes H&W, HBGary, and BoA planned, bring down WikiLeaks, decapitate Anonymous, and place his opponents in prison while collecting a cool fee. He thought he was 88% right; he was 88% wrong."[241]

[End quote]

The first two of these paragraphs have no citations, so at very least the objectivity can be questioned. (The information stated may be quite accurate, but there is nothing to confirm that.) The quotation that makes up the last paragraph, though providing a citation, is inexplicably tacked on the end with out context.

Wayne aus (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Financing

When credit card companies began blocking payments to WikiLeaks, micropayment site/system Flattr was one way supporters could finance WLs. WLs can be "flattred" on their profile and on leaks. Noting Flattr should be included in the article, but is it useful to list how many times some of the leaks have been flattred? Is there an incentive/points for comparison there?

Also, from my understanding there is no sure way to find out what WLs is using the money for. Should this point be stated? Should one suggest that lack of traceable funds can be seen as a conflict of WLs over-arching concept of transparency for institutions/persons/government with power?

Can "Funding" and "Financing" be consolidated? Is there a reason for separation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

John Young & Cryptome

Under the section "Founding" it begins with "The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified," however Cryptome posted mailing list conversations between John Young and Julian Assange showing Young was an early supporter. http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

According to these conversations Young registered the .org domain. Third conversation in the list is the registration of "wikileaks.org" which shows John Young as the registrant but when one looks up "wikileaks.org" (http://www.whois.net/whois/wikileaks.org) John Shipton (Assange's father) is shown as the registrant. Because of this the reliability of the mailing list conversations is not too strong, but he was someone that Assange was in regular contact with during the formation of WLs.

I think Young has a place in the article but how should he be added? --Nobly untruthful 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs)

The Cryptome website is unlikely to be regarded by Wikipedia as a reliable source, and drawing such conclusions from the source will in any case constitute original research - unless the same conclusion is arrived at in published mainstream sources, it cannot be added to our article. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand now. I will refresh myself on research/sourcing. Thank you for your patient answer. --Nobly untruthful 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs)

Defections

Added the missing parts about the removed then deleted documents after the defection, but there was also software (and hardware?) that was removed in the process. This need to be researched and added so events and claims get properly sourced. Belorn (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The anti-Wikileaks project

Interesting overview:

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/10/the-return-of-aaron-barr-victim-of-embarrassing-hacking-now-cybersecurity-chief-at-large-federal-con.html

Yug (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Spy files

Just a heads up of a new release that came out from WikiLeaks and its associated partners:

[7]*[8]*[9]*[10]
[11]*[12]*[13]*[14]

They had a press conference recently but some of the above links are from a few days earlier. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Note that WSJ had this story a week or so ago but today seems the day when the actual documents are being released? [15] Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A few more: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Calaka (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collaborating for GA?

Interested? Does anyone want to try to get this to GA/FA status? I've done a few GAs and FAs, but not ones related to the Internet or journalism, but I'm willing to give it a go. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

Yeah I think it would be an interesting exercise. The easy aspect about this topic is that there are a lot of articles about it available on the web (maybe too much available!).Calaka (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

True There is a lot of perspective, so it would be difficult for me to get a grip on it... I've never worked on an article about journalism or a website before, so it would be challenging, but I think rewarding. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks' history to be included?

As I remember, at past, wikileaks use wiki to construct its site as shown in http://web.archive.org/web/20071130203851/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks , and in this article, this is not mentioned, would it be better to also include this part as its history? p.s. I can't remember much about wikileaks at that time and unable to search for info of wikileaks at that time... C933103 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Breach of NPOV?

I apologize if I am doing this wrong, but it's my first time trying this. I think the last part of the first paragraph of the Wikileaks article may not be neutral in tone. 24.246.11.219 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "Hrafnsson is also a member of the company Sunshine Press Productions along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason and Gavin MacFadyen"? Belorn (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I was refering to "The Guardian argued that WikiLeaks was to blame since they gave the impression that the decryption key was temporal (something not possible for a file decryption key)", but that too, I suppose. 24.246.11.219 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It says "Der Spiegel reported a more complex story involving errors on both sides" straight afterwards which is a pretty neutral way to report something - we're simply stating that different sources say different things. I'm going to remove the template seeming as it has been ~50 days and no changes. SmartSE (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Graham Nash song

sorry if i upset the ppls of wiki, (thanks to HiLo48 for directing me here) I am unsure why a song about the alleged file leaker of wiki leaks, Bradley Manning, would be seen as unneccessary. but to make my arguement, the song is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD0t4gNGx-8 and if you needed additional confirmation the song exists and is about Manning you can find it at Nash's site http://grahamnash.com/almost-gone hope this clears everything up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.70.190 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The song's significance in the context of WikiLeaks as a whole (as opposed to the context of Mr. Manning) is somewhat questionable. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently Mr Manning is the sole accused in leaking the files. Which I beleive, until the trial is finished, makes him for all intents and purposes the face of WikiLeaks. A song about Manning is synonymous with WikiLeaks until the trial linking him to WikiLeaks absolves, or condemns, him of his alleged crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.70.190 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree to adding it on the Bradley Manning article, but it is a bit of a stretch to add it here too since the song is about the actions of Bradley Manning, not about the publishing website. Belorn (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Belorn. The song is specific to Manning, more so than to WikiLeaks, so it belongs in the Manning article, but not in this one.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

site being active?

It seems like most files on the site, if not all of them, are unavailable form the site. --Namaste@^? 05:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

wiki leaks relation

i think it should be mad more obvious to readers that wiki leaks is in no way associated with wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.121.207 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How? There's already a line at the top of the article that says "WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." What else would you suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding additional information to clarify an ill conceived statement about Journalistic Privilege

I am trying to add information to this wiki based on the insertion under the “Potential criminal prosecution” heading that "The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[65][67]” entry.

I want to include a clarification regarding journalistic privilege. I believe that the entry is slightly misleading and wanted to address it with fact.

The entry I am trying to insert is:

Journalists are afforded no special legal protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution beyond what all citizens enjoy. As of 2011, 49 states have passed laws that provide special protections to journalists who promise to keep the identity of sources confidential. Also known as "Shield Laws", these laws vary between states.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court while deciding Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Justice White, while delivering the opinion of the court said, “Thus, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a [journalist’s] agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it”.

How can I appropriately include this information so that the post is more accurate?Louiscelli (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To assert the 1972 decision has any influence on the Wikileaks case would be WP:OR (or perhaps more like WP:SYNTH) unless you have some reliable secondary sources (legal commantators, reporters or others) that makes this connection to the present case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that there is an implied term to any Westminster system of Parliamentary Democracy and its Constitution where the Press in general may be seen as a fourth arm and check and balance to the others and to Government in general. For this reason alone Courts are reluctant to reign in rights like Freedom of speech and Freedom of assembly. This is the crux of arguments for a common law right to publish otherwise confidential government correspondence in the public interests of trasnparency and review. 122.148.41.172 (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-date information?

As of the moment this message is written, there is a messagebox in the end of the Administration section saying that the article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. What part of the article does this refer to? Just the part regarding the software used by Wikileaks, or the article as a whole? Thanks! Ilias K., Greece 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaniardGR (talk • contribs)

I have found the edit in the article history where the "Out of date" tag was added. User:IRWolfie- added the tag to this revision. I will contact IRWolfie- to see why they added the "Out of date" tag. Matt (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just the part about the software, that's why I put the tag at that section. It is that wikileaks used to use mediawiki for their format but then they changed style. I've changed article to section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the section to clarify that WikiLeaks was implemented on MediaWiki software between 2006 and October 2010. I also removed the "Out of date" tag. I quickly checked for sources regarding Freenet, Tor and PGP and found only a source for Tor. I found discussion (but not reliable sources) implying that WikiLeaks does not use Freenet, so I removed that claim from the article. I have put a "citation needed" tag on PGP, considering that I have found old sources of a WikiLeak policy of not using PGP. [21] Matt (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO

Made this addition a few weeks back, but one editor didn't like it; he said to discuss in talk.

In February 2012, Wikileaks was banned from a UNESCO conference on Wikileaks, Assange charging that the UN agency had "made itself an international human rights joke".

cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2900422.ece |title=Assange protests UNESCO conference 'ban' |author=Hasan Suroor |date=16 February 2012 |newspaper=The Hindu |accessdate=22 February 2012 |quote=Describing it as "an intolerable abuse" of the United Nations organisation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange demanded an immediate investigation and said it was "time to occupy UNESCO".

What is wrong with what I wrote? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem was that your addition asserted as fact that WikiLeaks had been banned, whereas the source you cited made clear that this was disputed. I'd suggest that you might also like to read a report on the issue from The Independent, which says "WikiLeaks claimed it had been banned from the event, organised by the World Press Freedom Committee. Yet key speakers yesterday included Mr Assange's lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, who delivered a passionate defence of the website in a 15-minute speech, while Unesco pointed to emails in which it had encouraged the website to "attend the Conference and take part of the debate". [22] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading the source, I only find minor differences with your text and the source. It might be better to say "Wikileaks speakers was banned from a UNESCO conference about Wikileaks impact on professional journalism". Other than that, the source looks to fully support your edit.

Update: Given the other news article, for article balance the different view points should be added. A second solution could be to rewrite it to a short summery of the event and then use both sources. Belorn (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks' bid for radical transparency failed

SAGE Publications (2012, March 23). Why Wikileaks' bid for radical transparency failed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120323001244.htm

For consideration by active editors of this article. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The actual paper is here. I fixed the link you gave as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query about page view statistics

I am rather puzzled by the page view statistics. When one goes to "history" and then clicks on that, we get told that the figure with which this has been viewed is somewhere between 115, 000 and 116, 000, then we get told that this ranked eighth on wiki.org. However, the article on Wikipedia, which has been viewed over 900, 000 times, we are told ranked 31 - and the article wiki, which has actually been viewed over two million, two hundred thousand times, we are told was ranked nine. Can some explain these anomalities? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't specific to this article, so questions about http://stats.grok.se are probably best asked at Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool. I suspect the answer to the anomaly you have noticed is that the rankings are based on the December 2010 figures shown at http://stats.grok.se/en/top, while the total at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/WikiLeaks is supposedly for the last 30 days. There's a comment about delays in updating the rankings at User talk:Henrik#Pageviews_statistics_tool:_top_viewed_pages, but it looks to me like Henrik is not actively maintaining the stats at the moment. --Cedders^tk 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation

WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.:
Is this really important, we never said that of WikiHow, WikiAnswers or Wikia --TheChampionMan1234 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There was some confusion about this in the media when WikiLeaks got its first stories out, but by now it probably can be removed. --Conti|✉ 08:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. There's a lot of members of the public with limited knowledge of both Wikileaks and Wikipedia, who will inevitably think they're related, unless we tell them otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Any example from media (Any news story will do) of this happening in the last 3 years? Like always, burden of evidence lies with the editors wanting to keep the material. If there is no source of this actually happening in the recent 3 years, the disclaimer do not look to be relevant to the article. Belorn (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the media. The problem was our readers - I suggest you look through the archives for previous discussions (see [23] in particular). This was debated extensively, and the clear consensus was that far too many of our readers didn't understand the (non)relationship - and many of them were making this misunderstanding clear not just on this talk page but elsewhere, and in rather objectionable terms. In particular, the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team were having to field an extraordinary amount of misplaced flak over the issue. I see no reason to put them through it again, as may well happen the next time Wikileaks attracts media attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen a number of such cases arising in various desks as of late, so its probably worth keeping it for now. extra999 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

wikileaks-wiki

Would it be appropriate to add the wikileaks-wiki to the external links of the article?

MattisManzel (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks Credibility Questioned

No credible evidence presented that the opinions of one journalist are of any note - and the OP refuses to raise the matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as repeatedly requested

Hi, I would like to know why the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has been removed, being all the footnotes with the articles been reported in the section. The editor (eddy the grump) wrote "Highly dubious sources". Could you please explain why the sources are dubious if there are published articles (by Atlantic Free Press (Nederland), Diario El Peso(Argentina) American Chronicle (USA) which to be credible just have to report "the question of the credibility"? In addition the articles I cited in the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned have been adopted by the last International Communication Association Conference that was held in Phoenix last May 24. The Conference material is available On-line on the ICA website and on www.academia.edu. Here's the paper presented at the ICA, the article by Gianluca D'Agostino is cited at page 8 and it's the starting point for the paper thesis about Wikileaks credibility:

http://www.academia.edu/1477222/A_Theoretical_Model_for_the_Wikileaks_Phenomenon.

http://www.icavirtual.com/2012/04/22/conference-paper-a-theoretical-model-for-the-wikileaks-phenomenon/

Besides all the articles are by Gianluca D'Agostino who used to be a CNN and Associated Press journalist, so the sources cannot be dubious under any circumstance. Please restore the section or put it under Media Response. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because (a) it seems to be the opinion of a single journalist, (b) it has not been published in a mainstream source, and (c) in that it seems to be claiming that either Bradley Manning does not exist, or that he is behind some sort of conspiracy to present disinformation - and this appears to violate WP:BLP policy. We do not include every opinion of every journalist in this article (or any other) - see WP:WEIGHT. If you have evidence that mainstream credible published third-party sources have discussed D'Agostino's claims, please provide them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Third Party is the International Communication Association which adopted the article in one of its top papers presented at their last conference in Phoenix. The paper content revolves specifically around Wikileaks Credibility and it's even more credible than an average "mainstream" media source being the ICA an Academic and a scientific institution specifically focused on the subject of Communication and the ICA only publishes articles from Scientists and Scholars, so it's way more credible than any media source. Behindthewall (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the article does not claim that Bradley Manning does not exist, it just takes it as an example in an ironic way to question Wikileaks credibility so the journalist does not even try to affirm anything, quiet the contrary, indeed the article is a sort of fact-checking story about Wikileaks by posing the reader a number of questions regarding the credibility source of Wikileaks. I think is a useful instrument for the reader to keep posing question in today's reality.

The important contribution of the article by D'Agostino is the fact-checking analysis. An analysis that hasn't been done by any major media, because the mainstream media just took Wikileaks war-logs for granted without questioning their legitimacy. The article is a major contribution to develop today's reader awareness about the complexity of media and the difficult to recognize what's real and what's not. Behindthewall (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to 'pose questions' for readers, or to encourage them to 'question the legitimacy of the mainstream media' - we aren't here to put the world to rights. Unless and until material is published in mainstream sources which directly discusses D'Agostino's claims in depth, per WP:WEIGHT there seems little reason to include them in the article. That his claims have been discussed at an academic conference is in itself no evidence that they have been taken seriously - and from a quick look at the academic paper you cite, it seems that D'Agostino is merely one of many sources referenced in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what you wrote? "the fact that D'Agostino's assertions have been discussed at an academic conference is no evidence that have been taken seriously" Go read page 8 of the paper, the article by D'Agostino represents the STARTING POINT upon which Nebraska University Researcher Rebecca Pop has based all her article about Wikileaks credibility. You re claiming that the International Communication Association, an Academic body that only publishes Scientific articles only by Scholars and Scientists isn't a reliable source? Please!

Besides the ICA isn't the third party that published D'Agostino's work, it's the fourth party because the article published by Diario El Peso is a re-publishing of D'Agostino's article and Diario El Peso is an Argentinian mainstream newspaper in which D'Agostino has never written a story. Behindthewall (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The piece in Diario El Peso is written by D'Agostino - it is not a third-party source for anything. As for the academic paper, if you wish to suggest that the fact that an academic quotes a brief passage from D'Agostino somehow establishes that the International Communication Association as a whole considers him an authority on Wikileaks, I suggest you raise the matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - though I doubt that you will get much support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, I don't know what's your experience with academic papers but the reference on the paper even just the mention of the article on the bibliography it means the paper considers D'Agostino's article as a scientific reliable source to demonstrate its theory on Wikileaks. I understand you are not very familiar with scientific articles and academic bodies because of this sentence:"the fact that an academic quotes a brief passage from D'Agostino somehow establishes that the International Communication Association as a whole considers him an authority on Wikileaks" If you were familiar with academic matters you would had never wrote such a nonsense sentence as this. Because the answer is yes dear Andythegrump, the moment a paper enters within an official academic discussion, conference, seminar, that same moment becomes part of that Academic body. I am sorry if you had not the chance to attend an University or an Academic institution but that doesn't mean you have to feel resentment towards academic institutions and their products. The section "Wikileaks Credibility Questioned" will be restored, that you want it or not because homo sapiens cannot revert to monkeys just because you are against scientific evolution dear andy the grump.Behindthewall (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As it happens I have a first-class honours degree in a social science from one of Britain's leading universities, which I would think qualifies me well enough to suggest that you are talking utter bollocks. If you want to suggest otherwise, raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where you will no doubt be told the same thing. Otherwise, find a credible third-party source that actually discusses D'Agostino's claims in depth, rather than just quoting him in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyThGrump, being this the case, I wouldn't go around telling the world I have a honours degree in Social Science if you ignore what are the Academic traditional practices. Now this thing about Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has become a matter of pride and maybe you won't be able to step back even if you find out it's not the way you think, but if I were you I would have checked this matter with some official/professor from my University to see if it's true that once a reference gets inside an official academic environment it automatically becomes part of that environment. Good Luck with your Social Science! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you have failed to do as I suggested, and provide the sources necessary to establish that D'Agostino's claims are of any significance, this topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andythegump,

D'Agostino's claims are of no significance, in fact they have not being taken as the main reference and as the starting point upon which the whole project research "A Theoretical Model for the Wikileaks Phenomenon" presented at the International Communication Association Conference held in Phoenix on May 24 2012 was based on. However I report here the link of the Fundacion Gedisos where the article by D'Agostino was presented too as a critical analysis on the credibility of Wikileaks. Here's the link to the Fundacion Gedisos, which is also a scientific institution (but it's not accountable because it's not mainstream) with the introduction to D'Agostino's article that is defined as an "análisis crítico del fenómeno Wikileak centrado en la fundamental cuestión de la credibilidad"

http://www.fundaciongedisos.org/index_mas.php?id=4128

It's a real shame that at the Social Science faculty they don't teach Spanish, or the day they taught it you weren't there. However you can try with Google translations! Good Luck with your career within Wikipedia and as a Wikileaks guardian, Julian Assange says thank you. Hope you are not the exclusive guardian to the development and the completeness of Wikipedia, otherwise if the world had to depend upon Wikipedia's knowledge we were going to revert to monkeys. Luckly for the goodness of Wikipedia's completeness and consequently of humankind, this talk between the reason and the ignorance is a public talk and it's going to be read by everyone including people who have the common sense, the knowledge and the authority to restore the world to right by recovering the Wikipedia Credibility Questioned section that I wrote. Behindthewall (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-open previous section with a suggestion

I just saw the above exchange ("Wikileaks Credibility Questioned") and am re-opening the conversation to suggest perhaps we can step away from the personalizing and just look at this objectively - I wonder if there may be some middle ground here. I agree that the added section was being given much too much weight in this piece, but I note that other journalists' opinions are included in the article, and it seems clear that D'Agostino's work has been quoted in a valid third-party academic paper as well as having been published in several venues. Perhaps this would work if it were boiled down to a sentence at the end of the "Reception" section, something like this:

Italian journalist Gianluca D'Agostino questioned WikiLeaks' ~~credibility~~ validity, claiming that much of the material was Pentagon-leaked information that favored the Pentagon's views~~, and speculating on Manning's veracity~~.^[1]

^ D'Agostino, Gianluca (22 November 2010). "Is Wikileaks the new Pentagon P.R. office?". American Chronicle. Retrieved 16 November 2012.. D'Agostino, Gianluca (2010 December 5). "If Wikileaks Were A Movie Would It Be "Wag The Dog"... Or "Idiocracy"?". Atlantic Free Press. Retrieved 16 November 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). D'Agostino, Gianluca. "¿Es Wikileaks sólo la propaganda norteamericana habitual o se trata de una nueva forma de comunicación? (reprint)". Diario El Peso. Argentina. Retrieved 16 November 2012.. Cited in Pop, Rebecca,Conference Papers: A Theoretical Model for the Wikileaks Phenomenon International Communication Association 2012 Conference Phoenix, Arizona 24-28 May page 8, April 22, 2012. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

What do you think? Tvoz/talk 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking at D'Agostino opinion piece, I must say he seems hopelessly confused and is musing somewhat arbitrary speculations without any serious analysis to back them. If this is essentially the only source, I think the previous editors where correct to remove that from the article.

Aside from imho insufficient sourcing your text suggestion is using the word "credibility" in a potentially confusing or misleading manner. D'Agostino doesn't seems question the authenticity of the published material (which is what wikileaks' credibility is mainly about), but he's just musing who is actually benefiting from them. His notion however the diplomatic cable leak would mainly serve the US interest is a bit outlandish, moreover he seems to assume that journalists and readers would not be aware of the fact that the cables are nothing but assessment through American (government) eyes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the academic paper, the statement that "Rebecca Pop refers to the article by D'Agostino as the starting point to question Wikileaks credibility" is blatantly false - she quotes D'Agostino once in passing. This leaves us with a a couple of minor articles from him - and note that the American Chronicle piece is essentially self-published. The website states (at the bottom of the page) that "This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content". Unless and until it can be shown that D'Agostino's views have been commented on in depth by secondary sources, I see no reason to include this whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I didn't and wouldn't include the statement about "starting point" or any of the details of what D'Agostino said in his pieces - that would raise issues of undue weight and perhaps other issues as well. I just had the Pop paper as a "cited in" reference, which is correct, because a paper presented to a conference run by the preeminent academic organization in the communications field is a valid third-party source that referenced his claims, as you correctly indicated (in the collapsed section) would be desirable as a notability indicator. We included a rather obscure video with Catherine Fitzgerald, but that source doesn't seem to be much of an indicator of the notability of her opinions - she's presented there merely as a writer who "has written about WikiLeaks at her blog 'Wired State.'" and I'm not seeing any reference to secondary sources commenting on her positions in depth as you now seem to think is required. So I'm not sure that a different standard should be applied to this Italian journalist. I think that our inclusion of some work by a journalist who apparently has written for CNN and the AP, and has been cited by a third party, is a valid thing to do - it does not say we think his opinions are correct or well argued, it merely gives another view of the reception that the whole matter received, and I don't see why we wouldn't include it. Let the readers go to the sources and see what they think - all we would be saying is that he is another writer who commented on the matter.

Also, I think that the fact that D'Agostino is not American, and his work was also published in an Argentinian newspaper (reprinting is itself a third-party assessment of value, one could argue), makes it a reasonable addition to our article in our effort to have a less US-centric view in general. Again, we would not be agreeing with his assessment, or giving it more validity than anyone else's, but we would be giving a broader view of the type of reception the Wikileaks matter received. Indeed, I would hope that we could include more commentary from around the world to give a fuller picture.

Let me just say that I don't have any particular reason to push for this, it just struck me when this came up on my watchlist that while the way it was originally added to the article was indeed not supportable, that doesn't mean it should be wiped out completely, if we were to include it in a different manner as I am suggesting. My words were just one possibility - I've tweaked it above as per comments here, and they could certainly be written differently. I just am trying to pull this back from what had devolved into a needlessly personal exchange to a more dispassionate look at ways to improve the article by broadening its scope a bit. If no one agrees, so be it. Tvoz/talk 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There are various ways to judge D'Agostino's piece. In comparison to other sources used in the article, by the reputation of his publisher, by his own reputation as an author, by reception of his publications by (reputable) third parties. In addition to all that WP editors need to consider the content of D'Agostino's piece itself, that is material we assess to questionable or even false should not be included unless it is really notable for some reason (creating a wider reception, being a famous/well known distinguished dissenter). D'Agostino more or less fails on all accounts, the content of his piece is questionable (as i tried to explain above), it was published with a reputable publisher, it hasn't received a particular reception to make it notable and the D'Agostino is not particular distinguished/well known either, hence i see no reason to include his view here.

There is of course nothing wrong with including a broader range of views of Wikileaks, but please from better sources. There are plenty of opinions and analysis, which are published with reputable publishers, by more reputable authors and being less questionable and more thorough with their analysis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok - as I said I was bothered by the nature of the back and forth previously (and an admittedly only quick look at the content of the sources) so I thought it would be best for the article to have a less hot discussion, which this has been. I agree that a broader range of views in this article would be beneficial for our readers, as this topic is nuanced, especially in terms of how critics and supporters assess what Assange has done, and we want to give a full spectrum of opinion, and D'Agostino seemed to help in that regard, but I understand your problem with his. Thanks for the responses. Tvoz/talk 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Regarding [24]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just have to say "List-defined reference" are the worst format we have here. Content editors have constantly voted to eliminate this format altogether. Best to make the article user friendly. None will follow the LDR when updating pages - thus were you find LDR style you will always see the normal format mixed in. Just look at Michael Jackson. All it does is cause work for us as seen here at Avril Lavigne someone will have to come along and fix the new refs to match the LDR format - in the case of Avril Lavigne I have seen editors revert referenced material just because it was the wrong ref format. LDR's is nothing but a problem - noting user friendly about having to edit 2 sections to add one statement. Moxy (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinions/tastes on different citation formats differ greatly. Personally I rather like "List-defined references" and use them in most of my articles. However I have no opinion regarding this particular article, such decisions are best left to the people primarily writing and maintaining the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea that our best editors spend so much time cleaning up LDR's. For example one of the many LDR problems that we had to fix just today can be seen here - note how the edit left errors - we are always having to fix this type of problem when there is a LDR format. Please help us in making Wikipedia more user friendly for non Wikipedia coding experts. Help us with Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting - stop LDR's.

That is essentially a software issue, i.e. unreferenced "leftover" sources can/should be deleted by bots. Or even better if WP ever gets footnotes management software extension, that problem will simply vanish. I very much prefer LDR or shorten citations, then having full references in article text, as this can become extremely messy and irritating (and btw. triggers mistake of editor as well).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We will simply have to disagree - I personally like shortened footnotes the best as its what we used in university decades ago. However I spend so much time cleaning up ref errors that its clear to me that <ref> is the simplest and thus the most commonly used method. LDR,s and shortened footnotes are simply overwhelming for most new editors. This is the leading cause of us losing new editors - because they get bitten over the format they use and errors they may cause. The KISS principle is something us old timers seem to have forgotten.Moxy (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We have to disagree indeed. That this is supposedly the leading cause for editors leaving, is something i'm going to believe when i see some proper survey data on that. In the absence of that you can argue it actually the other way around, a often extremely cluttered text due full citations in the article text is extremely off putting for new users in particular. When they click on edit, they usually expect something having a reasonable resemblance to the displayed text and they get anything but that instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Must keep it simple -- we are losing thousands of editors because of theses complicated formats old editors are implementing all over. - Thousands of editors leaving Wikipedia - quote = "The increasing technical sophistication of adding an entry can also be daunting, he said. "It's a problem to expect someone who is in expert in their field to also know computer programming. You lose an awful lot of people who could be contributing.".Moxy (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You read that as LDR, but I read that as a messy/cluttered source text.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Really - the articles leads you to believe that its about clutter over formatting complications? The complexity of the pages themselves is what the average person I believe would read from statements like "The increasing technical sophistication" and "to also know computer programming". What does jimmy say about thisproblem - lets look Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales admits that the world's fifth most visited website is losing contributors, partly down to the complexity of the site. Cant tell anyone that having to edit multiple sections, naming the refs, placing them in order etc... is more user friendlily then simply adding <ref>the web site</ref> at the end of a statement. Anyways not much more I can say except to repeat myself - user friendlessness should be a primary concern when considering format because of the problems we are having.Moxy (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Clutter in the source text/almost unreadable source text _is_ extremely user unfriendly. There is no disagreement that a more user friendly interface for footnotes is needed, but as long as the WM-Software doesn't provide that, the question is, which of the current suboptimal solutions is (significantly) more user friendly. To you avoiding named references is the priority, but to me a readable source text is more important.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Selfref template at article top

It is considered important by the Wikimedia Foundation to boldly and unambiguously distinguish WikiLeaks from Wikipedia and all WMF assets, as can be seen in the bright-red bordered editnotices at the top of this Talk page and the article, whenever they are opened to edit. Also, the disclaimers guideline is intended to avoid Wikipedia exceeding its scope in offering advice to readers, not to prevent the addition of "not to be confused with" and "this is not a" messages. IMO, this hatnote falls under the category of "not to be confused with" messages. Also IMO, there has been strong community consensus for the inclusion of the hatnote for a very long time. So, I support the inclusion of the Selfref hatnote in the article. Please stop deleting it. --Lexein (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

partners in the news media

To my understanding, Wikileaks first partnered with news media during the publishing of the Afghan War documents leak. However, I can't find explicit source that define when such partnership started, with who, and what if any terms was discussed. Does any of the biography books provide any more details about this? Belorn (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

"France is top industrial espionage offender." France 24. January 4, 2011.
"Snowden saga puts spotlight back on Assange and WikiLeaks." New York Times at South China Morning Post. Sunday June 30, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Danger to individuals

Somehow, I feel as though this has been recommended a million times before. However, it needs to be said: for reasons of neutrality, to avoid pushing the standard line of fear mongers, we should add to this sentence "The incident resulted in widely expressed fears that the information released could endanger innocent lives." (in the top section) something like the following line: "However, there are no known incidents of violence against the mentioned people as a result of the released cables." Because that seems to be the truth. A lot of people—particularly those in positions of power—expressed these fears, but as far as I'm aware they've yet to crystallize. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the Department of Defence has specifically, if begrudgingly, stated that no-one was harmed from the leaks and all available sources factually show there were no names or specifications that put anybody in harms way or threatened their lives...it's safe to say it's a load of shit. There is not only no evidence of anyone being harmed by the leaks but all claims so far have been thoroughly refuted, not just rebuffed. The sentence needs to be removed. 124.169.184.30 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Errata (missing sentence fragment)

It seems like a sentence got truncated by accident.
Section "Founding", second paragraph, first sentence seems jointed with another incomplete sentence, note the "hence its name" totally out of context.

WikiLeaks relies to some degree on volunteers and previously described its founders as a mixture of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa[28] (hence its name), but has progressively adopted a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either user comments or edits.

What I presume was another sentence seems to refer to the "wiki" aspect of the website in its early years "hence its name" and then the rest of the phrase would make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.93.4 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on James Ball of The Guardian on Eric Holder and Wikileaks

Ball, James. "If Eric Holder won't prosecute reporters, why did the FBI target me?." The Guardian. August 12, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Private Eye

What are the reliability issues? They do major investigations regularly, it's the best-selling current affairs magazine in the UK. LudicrousTripe (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You could ask for expert opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. We might instead use this Guardian page (scroll to "The US government may never have found Wikileaks' source") to source a differently worded claim. -84user (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How come leaks of such volumes and qualities of intelligence data are possible to be leaked from the US intelligence organizations ?

This article and the article about Snowden has no parts where the main questions are asked, "How come leaks of such volumes and qualities of intelligence data are possible to be leaked from the US intelligence organizations ?". It is one of the classical main counter espionage issues and the US intelligence services seems to not protect their data? It is so astonishing fact that the question is, if the US intelligence is not a helpful source and the congress majority likes it revealed? Because how come it is possible? Else we would have seen heads rolling in the US intelligence organizations? Somebody should find out? The objective view is that it would be an enormous intelligence scandal in the US authorities, but it isn't? How come?

Probably because it's the USA aka "The ones who think they rule the world and unfortunaely have tricket lots into beliving just that"... 178.174.232.139 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus...

115.241.177.120 posted this comment on 6 July 2012 (view all feedback).

no doubt about info. but just by making slight more attractive to read....

The article's sitting a bit long (over 50 kB) with more sections than is necessary—could use some paring down.

czar ♔ 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks. Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DNS section.

There seems to be a mistake in this section. It starts by talking about EveryDNS and then states that people mistakenly took action against EasyDNS. It then states that 'EasyDNS' gave them a service. Now this could be quite correct, but it seems odd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterM88 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The cited source says that's what happened. Now copyedited for better clarity. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

www.wikileaks-forum.com

Please be aware of 'www.wikileaks-forum.com' website, Removed the external Link website 'www.wikileaks-forum.com' because according to the WikiLeaks website (Supporters page) The "WikiLeaks Forum" is not run or endorsed by WikiLeaks and has no connection to WikiLeaks whatsoever. Also, some concern (although not confirmed) that this forum website exercises spadvertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekemmy (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. --Lexein (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

South Park

Concerning User:AndyTheGrump edit. South Park is the significant image of the popular culture and covers many important topics. As a funny serial is trivial, but talks about important things. I think this section should be restored, maybe in more NPOV shape, if some users consider it trivial. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Find a source that discusses Wikileaks, and suggests that the South Park episode is in any way relevant. If a source can't be found, it is self-evidently of no significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and encourage finding discussion relating the two in an RS. --Lexein (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Snowden and Wikileaks: FP analsysis of Snowden becoming more well known

Leetaru, Kalev. "King Snowden and the Fall of Wikileaks." Foreign Policy. December 30, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Submissions form/chat down. How long? Still publishing?

I was just curious what the submission experience would be like, and noticed that the wikileaks.org site is not accepting submissions. It doesn't say how long this has been the case. I think this would be noteworthy and I am curious myself[25]

NOTE: At the moment WikiLeaks is not accepting new submissions due to re-engineering improvements the site to make it both more secure and more user-friendly. Since we are not currently accepting submissions during the re-engineering, we have also temporarily closed our online chat support for how to make a submission. We anticipate reopening the electronic drop box and live chat support in the near future.

-- What is Wikileaks without a submission process after all?184.63.132.236 (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Is this article supposed to use British or Australian English? The editnotice says British, but the template at the top of this page says Australian. Which is it? jcgoble3 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that, in practical terms as far as this article is concerned, there isn't really much difference (what differences there are between the two are mostly minor variations in spelling) - though WP:ENGVAR would seem to suggest that since Wikileaks originated in Australia, we should use Australian English where there are any differences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. From a Wikipedia perspective, there is almost no difference between British and Australian English. In my experience, the differences are mainly the accent, and the use of slang, which don't transfer to the Wikipedia environment. Wikipedians of all nationalities try to avoid using regional slang in order to be understood, and frankly it seems uncool. I'm Australian, but you wouldn't know that from reading my posts, and I always try to use British spelling (all my ancestors come from the British Isles, and my father was born in Wales). Most Australians tend to use British spelling. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many section headers? Too long? Nah.

About this October 7 edit adding two banner templates without discussion here: 1. Section headers are most easily navigated via the TOC, IMHO. 2. Too long? Just use the TOC to navigate. Since the prose size is 55230 B (8460 words), I consider this article in depth and not too long. See WP:Article size for the very approximate size range considerations. I'd like to just remove these two templates. Discuss? User:Czar?--Lexein (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that it's comprehensive, but it can certainly be pared down for verbosity. It's on the long side, especially for being over 50kB. I think the tags were justified and I haven't read a rule about necessarily discussing before adding them. (Also see #Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus... above.) We definitely have section overkill: lots of little paragraphs, excessive level-3+ subheaders. It's a surmountable, structural concern. I'd offer to rearrange for flow if I had the time. Per BRD, you're welcome to remove the banners if you feel strongly, but I wonder what other people think. czar ♔ 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no rule about discussing before adding tags, but without discussion, it's just a drive-by tag - that was the point I was going for. I'm certainly ok with gradual section by section trimming for tighter prose, and some removal of redundancy across sections. But sections serve a clarifying purpose, so I'd like to see them stay, until a compelling new structure is offered. It's not an essay, or a wall-of-text Britannica article, so I'm sure there's some middle ground. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I tagged acting on reader feedback, as mentioned. (#Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus...) I'll propose a better section structure in the future unless someone beats me to it. czar ♔ 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Czar, I have edited out 3 sub-headings that I thought were unnecessary, and inappropriate. Having done that, I agree with Lexein that the use, and number of headings is suitable for good style. I intend to remove the tag re headings in two weeks, unless you or another editor strenuously object. In general, we need to fix the problems and/or get rid of the tags. This subject is too important to tags sitting there in the long term. It undermines the credibility of the article. Also, please remember that on mobile phones the reader sees "This article has issues" without the issues being explained. This is undesirable. With regard to whether the article is too long, I don't have a strong view either way. Some further action required, my friends. Let me know if you are too busy to do it, and you want me to help. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool. My primary concern is the number of level four and higher headers. Many sections can be combined. The prose in this hyper-sectioned article leads towards headers followed by single paragraph blobs of text. A more flowing prose would be an improvement. Specifically I see this happening under "Leaks", gov't responses (and why is there a "Facebook" section on its own?) On the length, while it's feasible to agree on 54 kB of prose, it can likely use a bit more concision and summary style. Unrelated to these specifically is the financial industry section written in wp:proseline. I don't have time to look at these things right now, but that was my rationale for the tag. czar ♔ 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Czar, I have removed a significant number of sub-headings, and I believe that any more "pruning" of headings will make the article worse, rather than better. I have removed the tag again. Please resolve the remaining issues in a timely manner, because it's already been many, many months, and support from other editors is unfortunately lacking. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I still think the number of subheaders is insane and makes the article's prose really fragmented, but if I'm the only one it bothers enough, I'm fine with removing the tag as I don't have the time to edit it myself czar ♔ 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I mildly disagree with you about the headers, and subheaders; they're pretty reasonable, now. I'm moving more in line with you on the size of the article; it is massive! If the article were significantly smaller, it would have fewer headers, and subheaders. Anyway, like you I don't have enough time to change the size much, and I don't have experience in splitting off sections into new articles. The current tag, unfortunately, will need to stay. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Split to Reception of WikiLeaks

Yes, as the top of page says: article is too long is right. I suggest to split (move) everything from WikiLeaks#Backlash and pressure (except Operational challenges subsection) to Reception of WikiLeaks. This seems to be a good place for it. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No comments? OK, I'll do it, please revert if disagree. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 10:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 14:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexa Rank

I think that the Alexa Rank should be updated from time to time, not only for this article, but all articles. Am I the only one? Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Philipnelson99

Industrial espionage of French companies

In June 2015, WikiLeaks published documents, which showed that NSA spied French companies.

Spiegel.de: Wikileaks-Enthüllung, NSA soll auch französische Wirtschaft bespizelt haben (German), June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuizhg (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikileaks published documents over spionage of many German federal ministries since 1990s

In July 2015, WikiLeaks published documents, which showed that NSA spied many German telefonnumbers of German federal ministries over years.

Handeslblatt.de: Und täglich grüßt die NSA, July 2015 (German)

Tuizhg (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"WikiLeaks has no connection whatsoever to Wikipedia [...]"

Why we mention the connection (or lack of)? are we afraid of being considered co-workers by people?

Does it mean that WikiLeaks is evil and we are exonerating from them?

Even if this is for disambiguation, why there is nothing in the head section of Wikia or articles about other wikis? Leyth (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, it is there because a significant number of our readers think (or thought) that there is a connection. And because, thinking that there was a connection, a significant number of them chose to give the Wikimedia volunteer response team grief over it. See for example this thread from the archives where it was discussed extensively: [26] There have been other discussions since, but no consensus to remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Financial Blockade

"Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America and other U.S. financial institutions began to block donations to WikiLeaks in 2010 after the controversial site began publishing more than 250,000 U.S. State Department cables that the group allegedly received from former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning. The financial services cited violations of their “terms of service” agreements as the reason for blocking the donations."[27]

This seems like something that was really significant--Wikileaks claimed it cut their donations significantly--and should warrant a sizable mention. Is there a reason it's absent? All I see is a single reference to the Valitor case and a brief mention of Paypal freezing their accounts. Visa, Bank of America, PayPal, Amazon (hosting)...there was a lot going on here that we just ignore. [28]

It gets a lot of mention on the Cablegate article, but nothing here.

General Wesc (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Illegal Wikileaks

Why information about leaked private personal data is not published? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&oldid=677494766 Please give legitimate reason or restore content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.114.162 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are citing unverifiable primary-source documents from Wikileaks. And making statements about them that the sources themselves do not directly assert. The article already briefly discusses Stratfor, and we already have an article on the 2012–13 Stratfor email leak, based on secondary sources. If the paragraph on Stratfor merits expansion, it needs to be done in a manner in accord with Wikipedia policy - citing verifiable sources for all statements, making clear the nature of the organisation and the content of the leaked material - which certainly wasn't simply 'credit card information'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I can verify that data was stolen from Stratfor, because those documents contains my name, my address, my correspondence. If some detail is not correct then it must be corrected (correct meaning, correct paragraph etc) and not completely removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.114.162 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 August 2015

Wikipedia content is based on material verifiable in published reliable sources. We do not base content on assertions from contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Okey, then I will go to Swedish or EU authorities, journalist and then my words will be "verifiable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.114.162 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 August 2015

It will be verifiable when it is published in a source meeting Wikipedia reliability criteria. Whether it merits inclusion in the article will be dependent on whether it conforms to other policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

TTP leaked text

Same explanation as in section above - sourced article actually does not verify fact that leaked text is authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Read in sourced article title "according to Wikileaks documents" There is no verification of fact that leaked text is authentic.

I am waiting for response HERE - if it is not received in 30 min, then again unverified information will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Again, everyone read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say, not what editors have vetted as "truth". If other reliable sources give conflicting information, we can talk about those, too. Of course, if a statement is contentious and relies only on one source, we don't need to state it unequivocally. So I've added attribution to the text ("according to Sydney Morning Herald..."). That way we cite a reliable source and defer to them for "truth". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: This "if I don't get an answer in 30 minutes" business is extraordinarily ineffective. By edit warring and threatening us that way you're just working against your own interests (it discredits your position, will get you blocked from editing, etc.). You should know that because of the "pending changes" on this page, nobody but the people you're arguing with are seeing the fruits of your crusade (e.g. someone else has to approve the edit before the public sees it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for meaningful answer.

PS: You said that "This "if I don't get an answer in 30 minutes" business is extraordinarily ineffective" and do not see that I actually got answer in time (from you).

But what actually is extraordinarily ineffective: "it discredits your position, will get you blocked from editing". You understand how it is not possible, when anyone with some technical skills (while remaining anonymous) can change his/her computer's outer IP address like changing glove. You said, "You should know that because of the "pending changes" on this page, nobody but the people you're arguing with are seeing the fruits of your crusade" only because you do not see whole picture, that I am learning (those are my first steps). I have very long experience (mostly very successful) in such learning and crusade have never been my objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In which case I suggest that you start by learning Wikipedia policies regarding article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that article can be protected or semi-protected but it cannot be forever.

Also I can join editors and make changes from within. I have big experience in upsetting status quo and bringing (at least some) changes to stagnating mindset and order. Now I am only learning (firsts steps) - poking "hornets nest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also... if it is crusade, then also protecting article from my changes is crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&type=revision&diff=677496751&oldid=677494766 And you can see that anyone, who is REALLY interested in truth about Wikileaks, can look in article's history and read. (also more changes are coming in future) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a controversial article, and any significant changes will have to be arrived at by consensus. You can work with us, or be ignored - your choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

i need yo talk

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:A00:60D0:C8D9:4177:25E1:1C75 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130624143236/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/offering-snowden-aid-wikileaks-gets-back-in-the-game.html?ref=asia to https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/offering-snowden-aid-wikileaks-gets-back-in-the-game.html?ref=asia

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

no-outing editors policy and WikiLeaks

UGH. So would it violate the WP:HARRASS to say something? Horrified by the DNC Wikileaks and what it says about editing WP. Can I say that? If-so, I'll accept the ban. And I'm on the record here as being pro-no-outing with no exceptions.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the harassment policy, but it might be ok to post non-specific info about it. Perhaps it's best to ask an admin about this. Pinging Bbb23, an admin, for help with this. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Say what? What has Wikileaks to do with editing WP? and what exactly is horrible now? And outing what or who?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, just wondering if linking offsite to info. about editors...I think it is "outing", but if it is not explicitly connected to a real person/and editor, then it probably is OK, but if a Wikileak identified an editor by that editor's name, it would be outing-right?TeeVeeed (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Like this for instance, it exposes someone with intent to manipulate their article, but not an editor named exactly, so this would be OK-right? https://wikileaks.org/hackingteam/emails/emailid/21723 TeeVeeed (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here, but if thinks there is an outing problem with an edit or multiple edits, they should contact the oversight team or an individual oversighter. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

False information in Announcements of Upcoming Leaks

In re. to the following entry...

"In July 2016, shortly after the leaking of almost 20,000 DNC emails, Assange said in an interview with ITV News that he was planning on releasing more emails in relation to Hillary Clinton, and vowed that this new batch of emails would "ensure Hillary's arrest."[232]"

The interview linked in the reference occurred on June 12th, prior to the leak of the DNC emails, *not* after. "ensure Hillary's arrest" is presented as a quote from Assange, but this is a mistake of the reference. The quote never occurs in the interview. The future leak that was announced in the interview was actually the DNC emails. With respect to an indictment of Clinton, Assange was referring to the private server emails WikiLeaks had already made available, not a new leak. This information can be verified by watching the linked interview.

Requesting removal of the entry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.173.179 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.173.179 (talk)

upcoming leaks section?

It seems to me that this section needs a rewrite or maybe even deleted, as it seems to be rather outdated containing only annoucement from the 2009 to 2011.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Are these upcoming leaks leaks that were promised and never delivered, or leaks that were announced and have since been posted? I agree that this section is confusing. If these leaks were promised but never delivered, it seems relevant to include that clarifying information. Sterilizedusername (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be wary of WP:CRYSTALBALL here - but that's just me. GAB^gab 00:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Murder of Seth Rich (Second nomination)

Currently, there is a second nomination for deletion at a discussion - (an AfD) - pertaining to this article, taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way this post is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

2016

I am looking at this edit and do not think it provided a correct summary of something that RS tell, for example here. In fact what she said was criticism of Wall Street, if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

DAK

Does anyone know ? If there has been an update on dead man switch released by Assange? Decryption attempts? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks Shutdown

I made an edit to reflect the shutdown of the site. It was removed for no reason.

What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.164.8 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually Ferret removed your edit for a very good reason and said what that reason was in their edit summary when they removed it. Your edit was unsourced. You did not provide any kind of source for the claim that unknown state elements shut down the website. -- GB fan 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy question?

Is there any information on the accuracy of the Wikileak uploads or of the statements of Assange? Nothing concerning "Yes! Accurate!" or "No! Alterations identified!" is mentioned in the article. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Need more information in segment about Authenticity

Only today has information about DKIM headers been added in. Clearly the section about WikiLeaks authenticity has only been made in light of recent events regarding the Podesta emails/DNC emails and their alleged relation to Russian government ties. I don't see how 'cybersecurity experts' can agree how easy it is to manipulate emails when doing so will actually tarnish the DKIM signature and render it invalid.

A more direct source should be made regarding the statement from the Aspen Homeland Security group as well.

Putting that aside, the only means that Wikileaks would have of tampering with emails would be if they had access to the private signing keys for their DKIM headers. Google, Yahoo, etc have not made any statement about any such security breaches and I'm sure it would be a big issue if it were true.

In this case, it is more appropriate to say that there is yet to be a single email that has shown evidence of tampering because all emails that have been checked correctly have passed verification. Anything else is a flat out lie.

Here's a great read, from the DKIM organization laying out exactly how the technology works/operates as well as the end goal of using such signing methods - http://dkim.org/info/dkim-faq.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchcairns (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Even more information regarding the process of verifying an email - http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchcairns (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Has there been a systematic verification of all the WikiLeaks emails using this method? All the links I've seen just verify a single email using this method. [29] ^Falling_Gravity 21:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please use reliable sources. A blog called "erratasec.com" doesn't meet the requirement. Using DKIM.org here would be original research, which is prohibited. Using reliable sources would help to determine whether to include something or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that the authenticity of the specific article is not verifiable? It's a technical article at best self published, but verifiable and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchcairns (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think he's saying "please use reliable sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

According to PolitiFact: "It's possible to verify the legitimacy of some, but not all, of the emails, cybersecurity experts said. So we can't definitively say none of the thousands of leaked emails, which came from campaign chair John Podesta's account, have been doctored." ^Falling_Gravity 21:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

CNN bias against Wikileaks

There have been reports of favoritism of CNN towards Hillary Clinton, who is particularly damaged by recent leaks. CNN has attempted to discredit and silence Wikileaks by reporting falsehoods and has even gone as far as to say that it is illegal for the public to access the emails directly and that the public should wait for the CNN to read them the mails itself. This is detailed in the provided source. I believe that this should be contrasted to CNN statements about Wikileaks and I think that stating "However, CNN also said x" is fair in that regard. Also, concerning whether it is actually illegal for U.S. citizens to view the leaks: it is legal to view, but it is unclear whether it is legal to download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.124.162.109 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If a particular CNN piece is inaccurate, remove that piece and justify the edit on the talk page. CNN is a reliable source on Wikipedia, as far as I know. Do not add "a talking head at CNN was once wrong on something" after something unrelated, as if it means that everything CNN has ever reported must be false. There are also differences between what is put into print and what's said on air. There are stricter standards for the former. If an RS like CNN reports that US officials believe that the leaks originated from Russia, that's good enough, unless there are reliable sources that show the contrary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not about a single wrong article, it is about systematic bias from a news source. 213.124.162.109 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable source with wide acceptance here. Try a different tactic because you're wasting your efforts with this one. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been demanding and on the verge of making threats, perhaps you need a break from power. Disregarding RunnyAmiga, CNN is owned by TimeWarner, which is a top 10 donor of Hillary Clinton^[1]. CNN has had a very limited coverage of the email leaks ^[2] and has canceled Dr. Drew's show after Clinton critique.^[3] What I can accept is that the Russian Allegations section is not appropriate for discussing the CNN bias. Perhaps we could reach a compromise by removing both CNN mentions? 213.124.162.109 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is why I don't edit Wikipedia often: An underage is powertripping and "threatening" me, "consensus" is only taken to mean consensus between seasoned accounts and effort and sources don't matter. I should go deface my contributions and let you important people to look for expertise. 213.124.162.109 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If the stories by CNN are not biased, there should be other news sources with the same sources. Since there are doubts about CNN's integrity, I think it makes most sense to omit them until a replacement story is found. This article is semi-protected because yesterday I was adding information from respectable sources that was making other parts of the article look like propaganda. If nobody disagrees with removing the possible bias of CNN, can I ask a kind, seasoned editor to remove CNN references from the page? (same guy, different IP) 145.116.174.79 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/bias-alert-wikileaks-exposes-medias-secret-support-clinton.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/cnn-canceled-dr-drews-show-days-after-he-questioned-hillarys-health. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Redacting

It's curious that "Wikileaks" would redact the diplomatic cables on their own. Kortoso (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

This edit request to WikiLeaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can somebody change the reference in the template from |launch date = 4 October 2006; 17 years ago (2006-10-04)^[1] to this reference,^[2] since the other reference is outdated and doesn't work anymore.

173.73.227.128 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference whois was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "WikiLeaks.org WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info - DomainTools". WHOIS. Retrieved 2016-12-07.

Done - DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

Can somebody re-add the access date "|accessdate=08 December 2016" to the said reference I wanted to add? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Source(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=753626842&oldid=753626643

Done Modified to correct format (drop the 0) - |accessdate=8 December 2016 -- Dane ^talk 01:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Russian influence

This subsection, which is currently titled "Allegations of Russian influence", should remain so. Most (if not all) WP:RS that have reported on the issue do not refer to it as a conspiracy theory. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Allegation Russian agents have Infiltrated WikiLeaks is a conspiracy theory by definition.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

No one has yet verified Russia was involved.--Thymefromti (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what an "allegation" is? The sources support these allegations so there is no violation of WP:NOR. If you want to go through each source, aside from the one in German, I'm willing to do that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what a conspiracy theory is? It does not have exclusivity to allegations being made against western governments conspiring against the people. Conspiracy theories can involve Russians conspiring too. When you theorise agents are conspiring you are forming a conspiracy theory.--Thymefromti (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Show me the sources supporting it's a conspiracy theory. Have a look at this article demonstrating what a conspiracy theory looks like. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Straight forward logic does not need a reference. A policy against original research does not imply there is a policy against using an original combination of words. It is straight forward logic that a theory that involves a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. The definition of a conspiracy theory does not require the theory to be labelled--Thymefromti (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. At the moment you don't have consensus so I advise you to leave the current header in place. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion does not trump logic but I am unsure this is even your opinion. Do you actually believe this is not a theory about a conspiracy?--Thymefromti (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If you search you will find Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Russia Today and others have labelled the theory of Russians being behind the DNC leaks a "conspiracy theory". So not only does this theory fit the definition, it is labelled one too.--Thymefromti (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't reach consensus by having the numbers. Wikipedia makes it clear polling is not a substitute for discussion. To reach consensus reasonable arguments must be madeThymefromti (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

@Somedifferentstuff. Yes, sure, agree with all your changes. BTW, one man was already arrested. According to some experts, next stage will be putting virus into voting machines in US. But that is probably indeed a pure speculation right now. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw there was an arrest of a Russian hacker in Czech Republic, but it's in regards to the LinkedIn hacking from 2012 [30] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

More on this [31]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's a conspiracy theory, then it'd be a conspiracy theory that got more gas in its tank from no less than the New York Times. A conspiracy theory holds that if you are clever enough, you can figure out what is really going on. That's not what we have here. There's no great mystery here that gets explained when you connect the all the dots in some insightful way that the establishment/mainstream media refuses to consider. We have straightforward allegations that Wikileaks gets fed material by persons sympathetic to or connected to the Kremlin. Maybe those allegations are true and maybe they aren't, but we do not have a basis to go beyond reporting them to claiming they constitute a conspiracy theory given that you need a conspiracy theorist to generated a conspiracy theory and the sources here are not conspiracy theorists.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

total oppose the header Infiltrated by Russian agents conspiracy theory - apparent anti Russia bias without any reliable reporting as ever. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed a sentence about this in the lead, which said that "many leaks" are provided by Russia to influence US elections. The content was supported by a single CNN article. It was too broad, saying "many" without elaboration, and did not specify which elections are allegedly being influenced. Roches (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't the Guardian since retracted a line in the article they published on December 24 about Julian Assange being in league with Putin? And would it be important to add that the whole article itself has been questioned for fabricating what Julian Assange actually said in the interview that they're quoting him from? VasOling(talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

They have, and hence I have removed that line from the article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.info/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://twitter.com/wikileaks
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wikileaks.org/About.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifla.org/publications/what-is-the-effect-of-wikileaks-for-freedom-of-information
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38606166/ns/us_news-security/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783778,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wlcentral.org/node/1572
Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/27854791764
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8178457/WikiLeaks-website-disconnected-as-US-company-withdraws-support.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/02/eveningnews/main7111845.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/172396949700476928
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wikileaks-insurance-20120222.tar.bz2.aes.torrent
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-blockade/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419221950/https://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman to https://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman
Corrected formatting/usage for http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Serious_nuclear_accident_may_lay_behind_Iranian_nuke_chief%27s_mystery_resignation/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/29/10/1796-memos-us-embassy-manila-wikileaks-cablegate
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.org/tpp/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/2/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/04/winners-of-index-on-censorship-freedom-of-expression-award-announced/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://filmguide.sundance.org/film/13040/we_steal_secrets_the_story_of_wikileaks

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) 10:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement on Podesta's password

I have recently removed a statement by Assange from the "Conspiracy theory" section. For one thing, it's not a "conspiracy theory" as much as it's false or misguided information. For another thing, Assange wasn't making a statement on behalf of WikiLeaks, he was making his own statement. This actually belongs somewhere in the Julian Assange article. ^Falling_Gravity 02:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The section can be re-named 'Criticism of Wikileaks' promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods'. I don't see how the statements by the editor-in-chief and director of Wikileaks about the contents on Wikileaks are irrelevant to this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The way I think of it, if Jimbo Wales made a false statement about Wikipedia, would that statement go in Criticism of Wikipedia as an example of false information spread by Wikipedia? I would try to keep that statement in the autobiographical article because of WP:WEIGHT. That's why I think this should go somewhere in Julian Assange's article. ^Falling_Gravity 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

This edit request to WikiLeaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last two edits scream of gaslighting. Most glaringly, they declare that President Obama mentioned Wikileaks in a speech, with no citation. I checked his farewell address and found no mention of Wikileaks. ColdFury (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Reverted — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qfl2xKr7tE

Video of Obama stating that wikileaks was not substantively linked to Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.138.138 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake News and US election

The US election generated a lot of Fake News articles that were quickly exposed but are now being cited as references.

WikiLeaks did NOT promote conspiracy theories, they simply promoted and contextualized the content of their leaks. For example, it was reasonable to explain to readers what "Spirit Cooking" meant.

It's true that WikiLeaks has been criticized for not criticizing Russia. But go to wikileaks.org and search for e.g. "Putin". There is lots of information there! As Assange explained, WikiLeaks is predominantly an anglo-speaking resource and nobody has given them leaks about Russia. Same goes for Trump's tax returns etc - they cannot leak them if they do not have them!

And the stuff about WikiLeaks exposing people's credit cards etc is also FAKE NEWS. Citing a hundred sources (who were all wrong) does not make it true. A security analyst named Michael Short admitted that he was the person who posted that information.

In any case all the above issues do not belong in the introduction section of the page.

If WikiPedia is going to become a source for Fake News then it is in serious danger of losing credibility.

Please check these frequently distorted facts: https://wikileaks.org/10years/distorted-facts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

gazo65 24 Jan Gazo65 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gazo65: As you are well past 3RR now, please stop reverting and gain consensus for your changes here. I'm open to adjusting the wording for the lede's criticism paragraph, but like others who have reverted you, am opposed to its complete removal. I'm also opposed to your addition of "President Obama admitted in his farewell speech that there was no evidence linking WikiLeaks with Russia" as it is a misleading and NPOV statement that doesn't belong in the lede of this article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gobonobo, I originally moved the "criticism" text down the page to a more appropriate section where such criticism is presented. I think it is fine to discuss such criticism but surely (a) it doesn't belong in the intro (b) text should include WikiLeaks response to criticism and (c) criticism that is just plain wrong is not worth mentioning.

Similarly, if you are going to state that US intelligence were "highly confident" WikiLeaks emails were supplied by Russia then you need to add that (a) WikiLeaks denied this and (b) no proof was ever provided. Then let people make up their own mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important point about Wikipedia. What goes in the article is not capital-T Truth or fairness, but a representation of what the body of reliable sources say about a subject, including all significant viewpoints (not based on what editors say are significant, but what the literature indicates are significant). New York Times is a reliable source, for example, and simply calling it "fake news" does not make it so. Can they be wrong? Sure, but if the majority of mainstream sources take a particular perspective and are wrong about it, Wikipedia will also be wrong. Thankfully, reliable sources are partly defined by checking errors and issuing corrections, so the record tends to be corrected (and more often than not -- which is not to say always -- it's the minority of unreliable or primary sources which have it wrong). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am appalled to hear a Wikipedia editor tell me that this site is not supposed to represent "capital-T Truth". In fact that is what Wikipedia should always be striving for. Of course sometimes there is debate, which is why I have moved the offensive text to the appropriate section and characterized it as debate. Whatever you think of WikiLeaks, there is no way to justify this text in the introduction section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiLeaks revelations in 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I apologize if I am doing this wrong, please include a new section "2017" and this information to article, the front pages of Le Monde, Libération, Mediapart, La Repubblica are all talking about this:

WikiLeaks released the CIA espionage orders for 2012 French presidential election. The United States meddle the 2012 Election Against the French People using CIA's human (HUMINT) and electronic (SIGINT) in the seven months leading up to France's 2012 presidential election. The documents reveal that all major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the spies. The CIA showed particular interest to the presidential candidates positions on the European economic crisis and specifically to the issue of the Greek debt crisis.

Done Rephrased for WP:IMPARTIAL, added wikilinks and minor tweaks, only used the most relevant sources. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

French: Front page news for top papers
Russian: "Nuclear bomb shell"
US: "standard intelligence-gathering" -

That AP newswire by David Satter's son playing it down "the orders seemed to represent standard intelligence-gathering" is audacious! US media becoming national embarrassment.

[[:File:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg|thumb|Images of DSK's perp walk were condemned in France, where it is illegal to publish such photos before the subject is convicted.]]

The operation began seven months before the elections on November 21, 2011 and lasted until three months after the elections. It ended on September 29, 2012 a total duration of ten months. The operation targeted the Union for a Popular Movement, the French Socialist Party and the National Front, along with current leading presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, current President Francois Hollande, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy, Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry and... then Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and leading contender to unseat Sarkozy as president of France Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK)!

But DSK was trapped and humiliated in a bizarr 'oral-sex offender' scandal in a Hotel in Manhattan. He was immediately tracked down, escorted off a plane just before its departure, and arrested. High-ranking detectives, not lowly officers, were dispatched to the crime scene. The DNA evidence was sequenced within hours, not the normal eight or nine days. By the end of the day’s news cycle, New York City police spokespeople had made uncharacteristic and shockingly premature statements supporting the credibility of the victim’s narrative — before an investigation was complete. He was handcuffed and escorted before television cameras — a New York tradition known as a “perp walk.” The suspect was photographed naked, which is also unusual, initially denied bail and held in solitary confinement. The Police Commissioner has boasted to the press that DSK is strip-searched multiple times a day — also unheard-of.

It was thea “killer blow” for the potential Socialist challenger for the 2012 presidential election. He had been left “discredited as a candidate” for the highest office of the state. With that scandal the Washington consensus prevailed. The application of IMF economic medicine had already been applied in several EU countries including Greece and Portugal during DSK’s mandate, he wanted change. But in the course of the following years, it reached new heights. Drastic austerity measures triggered unprecedented levels of unemployment. The entire European social landscape was in crisis. In many regards the DSK scandal was a watershed in the evolution of EU-US relations, with European governments becoming increasingly subservient to Washington’s demands. It was "Regime Change at the IMF". As DSK stood for a strong Europe and a strong Euro, he was not really welcome by many people in the US. The Obama administration had demanded DSK’s replacement by a more compliant individual. In retrospect, the framing of Strauss Kahn and the appointment of Lagarde had an impact not only on EU economic restructuring including the crisis in Greece, but also on the State structures of the French Republic. The “Honey Trap” is a powerful instrument. Had DSK not been framed, Francois Hollande — who largely serves US interests – would no doubt not have been elected president of the French Republic and Christine Lagarde would not have acceded to the positon of Managing Director if the IMF.

There was no firm evidence against Strauss-Kahn. The New York Court ruling which completely exonerated DSK on the basis of lack of evidence. Have a splendid day! --87.159.122.128 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: If you wish to request a modification to the article, please provide the exact contents you wish to add/remove. Concerning your comment, if you want to add any of its contents - mention of bias, mention of front page coverage, mention of DSK story - you need to provide a reliable source for it. It can be in French if you can't find one in English. Per WP:OR we can't add it without it. See also WP:FLAT. The best I can do with what has been provided is add the Libération story - which mentions DSK and doesn't play it down to routine investigation - to the list of references (it is the original and most comprehensive publication after all). I do not speak Italian so I didn't check the Italian sources. It's worth mentioning that the LeMonde link from the original post also mentions it may be seen as routine investigation. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[1] D'Agostino, Gianluca (22 November 2010). "Is Wikileaks the new Pentagon P.R. office?". American Chronicle. Retrieved 16 November 2012.. D'Agostino, Gianluca (2010 December 5). "If Wikileaks Were A Movie Would It Be "Wag The Dog"... Or "Idiocracy"?". Atlantic Free Press. Retrieved 16 November 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). D'Agostino, Gianluca. "¿Es Wikileaks sólo la propaganda norteamericana habitual o se trata de una nueva forma de comunicación? (reprint)". Diario El Peso. Argentina. Retrieved 16 November 2012.. Cited in Pop, Rebecca,Conference Papers: A Theoretical Model for the Wikileaks Phenomenon International Communication Association 2012 Conference Phoenix, Arizona 24-28 May page 8, April 22, 2012. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

[2] ttps://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] ttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/bias-alert-wikileaks-exposes-medias-secret-support-clinton.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] ttps://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/cnn-canceled-dr-drews-show-days-after-he-questioned-hillarys-health. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[whois-5] Cite error: The named reference whois was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[6] "WikiLeaks.org WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info - DomainTools". WHOIS. Retrieved 2016-12-07.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

New Section: title?

"Primary interest"?

Sources

Up to 5 movies to be made about Wikileaks and a play is happening at the moment.

'Wikileaks is an international nonprofit organization"

Spelling

Insurance file passkey.

Indian corruption

Section headed "Bank of America"

Financing

John Young & Cryptome

Defections

The anti-Wikileaks project

The Spy files

Collaborating for GA?

Wikileaks' history to be included?

Possible Breach of NPOV?

Graham Nash song

site being active?

wiki leaks relation

Adding additional information to clarify an ill conceived statement about Journalistic Privilege

Out-of-date information?

UNESCO

Wikileaks' bid for radical transparency failed

Query about page view statistics

Wikimedia foundation

wikileaks-wiki

Wikileaks Credibility Questioned

Re-open previous section with a suggestion

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Selfref template at article top

Further Reading: Leaky geopolitics: the ruptures and transgressions of WikiLeaks

partners in the news media

Sources

Danger to individuals

Errata (missing sentence fragment)

Article on James Ball of The Guardian on Eric Holder and Wikileaks

Private Eye

How come leaks of such volumes and qualities of intelligence data are possible to be leaked from the US intelligence organizations ?

Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus...

Discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks

DNS section.

www.wikileaks-forum.com

South Park

Snowden and Wikileaks: FP analsysis of Snowden becoming more well known

Submissions form/chat down. How long? Still publishing?

WP:ENGVAR

Too many section headers? Too long? Nah.

Split to Reception of WikiLeaks

Alexa Rank

Industrial espionage of French companies

Wikileaks published documents over spionage of many German federal ministries since 1990s

"WikiLeaks has no connection whatsoever to Wikipedia [...]"

Financial Blockade

Illegal Wikileaks

TTP leaked text

i need yo talk

External links modified

External links modified

no-outing editors policy and WikiLeaks

False information in Announcements of Upcoming Leaks

upcoming leaks section?

Articles for deletion - Murder of Seth Rich (Second nomination)

2016

DAK

Wikileaks Shutdown

Accuracy question?

Need more information in segment about Authenticity

CNN bias against Wikileaks

Redacting

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

Allegations of Russian influence

External links modified

Assange's statement on Podesta's password

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Fake News and US election

WikiLeaks revelations in 2017