Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Conspiracies and Falsehoods about Hillary Clinton and John Podesta

This line should be removed from the header for the same exact reason that it was removed from the Julian Assange page. Not only does it violate the policy of NPOV, it is largely undue and the sources need to be verified to determine if they directly support this highly disputed claim against WikiLeaks and Assange. If anything, it should be included in the criticism section and each source should be assigned accordingly instead of stating it as objective fact. VasOling (talk) 05:48 PM, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It was removed from the Julian Assange under the auspices that the falsehoods and conspiracies promoted by the Wikileaks twitter account were not by him. I think the removal of the content from his page was poorly justified, but I don't have the time and patience to get past all the veto players on that page. There's no justification at all for removing the content from the Wikileaks page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I wholly agree with Snooganssnoogans: There's no justification for removing this. The sentence in the lead section is proper because the lead is supposed to reflect and summarize important content from the body. The statements in both the body and the article are sourced and important. A single sentence can hardly be said to be undue weight. And the claim is not "disputed"; it is rather a fact (as reflected in the cited sources, which are mostly news article and not opinion) that WikiLeaks did spread conspiracies and falsehoods during the 2016 campaign. Now, that may be embarrassing to some, but we don't remove properly sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic information merely because it may be unflattering. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If a BLP concern has been raised, consensus is needed to include the material. No such consensus exists. The lede currently amalgamates Wikileaks and Assange, creating a vacuous BLP-smear in the WP:LEAD. I have already proposed a compromise to get around the BLP issue and make the accusation more precise (anything wrong with factual precision?), but this was thoughtlessly reverted. The issue has already been tortured to death on Talk:Julian_Assange#Editors_delete_any_mention_that_Assange_promoted_and_popularized_conspiracy_theories_about_Clinton_and_the_Democratic_Party. In short, the sourcing is not there to label Assange as a conspiracy-theorist and it is a BLP-vio to do so. Pinging those involved: @Volunteer Marek, Ryk72, Thucydides411, Govindaharihari, My very best wishes, and Snooganssnoogans:. TheTimesAreAChanging has also written extensively on the issue of BLP smears against Assange, so mentioning him here as well. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your statement. Your statement applies a label four times in rapid succession (you make an assertion four times that this is a BLP violation) but I'm not seeing any no actual reasoning for why you think this is the case. It would help if you were to quote the particular portion of BLP that you think applies. I can't imagine any, since this text does not identify or deal with an identifiable living person.
If something if well-sourced, relevant, and presented in an encyclopedic way (i.e., with context, not sensationalized), we include it. Even if BLP did apply to the text (and I do not think it does), it would be proper, because the BLP policy directly states: "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." Neutralitytalk 23:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing is insufficient for your version (it may also be undue for lead—news about tweets usually are). I am not going to rehash the arguments. Please see the Assange talk page linked above. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
If this is all there is to it then I support the rewording (the misspelling aside of course). It looks like most of the sources say "Wikileaks" rather than Assange (with one exception being Bloomberg).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with including this in the header is that it implies that WikiLeaks may have edited and tampered with the emails that were published on its website relating to Hillary Clinton and the DNC in order to fit an agenda or lend credence to nutjob conspiracies, which as far as anyone can tell, is not the case. Its misleading at best and dishonest at worst. That it is why it is best to leave it in the criticism section, which is where accusations aimed at the organization should belong.VasOling (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
How in the world does it imply that? That is not a reasonable reading of the text. Neutralitytalk 17:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous. Putting your claims right next to the summary of the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails paints a picture of an untrustworthy organization that does nothing but spew out Alex Jones-like conspiracy theories to try to turn the election against Clinton. You may have not stated it that way specifically, but that's what it implies. All of these "conspiracies" were posted on Twitter, which as one user above had argued, makes it undue since these weren't published on their official website or pushed by Julian Assange or any other authorized spokesman for the organization. Its a deceitful edit, its editorializing, its definititely not neutral, and you know it.
Also, the sources that are making the claim that WikiLeaks is promoting conspiracies should be attributed to meet NPOV and should remain in the criticism section, since they are the opinion and analysis of the author writing for the publication. It seems in this day and age that no one can tell the difference between objective cold hard facts and commentary.VasOling (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged this article on the grounds of neutrality, for the reasons I have listed above.VasOling (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if UserDe didn't remove my contributions to this talk page again.VasOling (talk) 12:47, 07 March 2017

"suggesting that Clinton wore earpieces to debates and interview"

perhaps worth expanding upon that claim. Perhaps not here though, but somewhere. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295116-wikileaks-piles-on-to-clinton-earpiece-conspiracy


Accusations circulated on the internet the Clinton was wearing an earpiece during the debate. Fact-checking sites found these allegations to be untrue, with Politifact giving them a "pants on fire" and Snopes.

Mention of an earpiece in Huma Abedin's email
Clinton at the UN on September 23, 2012 (the date of the leaked email). Notice the UNIS booth behind her and foreign minister seated to her left wearing an earpiece.

Some pointed to an email of Clinton-aide Huma Abedin that was leaked by Wikileaks. However, this email was dated on a day Clinton spent at the United Nations. Since the 1940's, dignitaries at the United Nations have worn earpieces when utilizing the services of the the United Nations Interpretation Service

Clinton had previously faced similar false accusations after NBC's comander-in-chief forum on September 7. Snopes rated those claims as false.

These allegations echoed similar accusations that George W. Bush wore an earpiece during the 2004 presidential debates.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/28/blog-posting/claims-hillary-clinton-wore-earpiece-debate-dont-h/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/08/buzz-about-bud-clinton-camp-denies-claims-wore-earpiece-at-forum.html https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14039 http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715309/Hillary-Clinton-earpiece-cheat-us-presidential-debate-conspiracy-theory-rumour http://www.inquisitr.com/3615188/did-hillary-clinton-have-an-earpiece-feeding-her-lines-during-the-final-presidential-debate-one-viral-youtube-video-claims-she-did/ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/08/hillary-clinton-did-not-wear-an-earpiece-here-are-close-up-pictures-to-prove-it.html http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295116-wikileaks-piles-on-to-clinton-earpiece-conspiracy http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikileaks-helps-fuel-clinton-earpiece-conspiracy-nonsense/ http://www.dailywire.com/news/9001/does-hillary-clinton-use-earpiece-cheat-aaron-bandler http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/emails-show-huma-abedin-charge-hillarys-earpiece/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/08/hillary-clinton-earpiece-speculation-conjures-the-ghost-of-george-w-bushs-back-bulge/ https://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/09/index.htm https://www.armscontrol.org/ClintonCTBTStatement http://www.gettyimages.com/event/gathering-of-world-leaders-at-u-n-general-assembly-continues-91064535?#president-barack-obama-us-ambassador-to-the-un-susan-rice-united-picture-id91114816

SecretName101 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Vault7 leaks

I propose that this be included in the lead, considering the size of the article about it already Vault7, the degree of the damage done to the CIA, and the large amount of coverage it has attained. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There are currently two-three sentences about Vault7 in the article, and they are mostly about Wikileaks' own proclamations of how huge the leaks are. I wouldn't oppose adding a very brief mention of Vault7 in the lede, provided that more text is added to the body article and that this text is derived from descriptions by reliable sources and not just Wikileaks' own proclamations of how massive the leaks are. The lede already features way too much puffery, with extensive descriptions of a number of leaks:
* Early releases included documentation of equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war and a report informing a corruption investigation in Kenya.[11] In April 2010, WikiLeaks published gunsight footage from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were among those killed by an AH-64 Apache helicopter, known as the Collateral Murder video. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available to the public.[12] In October 2010, the group released a set of almost 400,000 documents called the "Iraq War Logs" in coordination with major commercial media organisations. This allowed the mapping of 109,032 deaths in "significant" attacks by insurgents in Iraq that had been reported to Multi-National Force – Iraq, including about 15,000 that had not been previously published.[13][14] In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[15] In November 2010, WikiLeaks collaborated with major global media organisations to release U.S. State Department diplomatic "cables" in redacted format.
The text above should be trimmed to make room for a short sentence about Vault7. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Considering the amount of text reserved for the DNC leaks and the subsequent allegations against wikileaks from the intelligence community, we should trim that as well. Regarding the impact of the leaks:

Pretty important stuff. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 19:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks' actions in the 2016 election and allegations of Russian influence get extensive coverage in the article. SMH is literally quoting Wikileaks' own statement. If this is so important, it should be added to the main body of the article, and then added to the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

There is an editor who would prefer the wording of the lead to include "promoting conspiracy theories" and "absence of criticism of Russia" in the lead. On a review of the talk page, this was previously brought up, with no consensus reached. I am of the opinion that as these claims are made primarily through opinion pieces or through unreliable sources, care should be applied, especially if it relates to Julian Assange (wp:blp addon to wp:reliable). BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 20:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The claims of who was the unknown source for various leaks is by definition a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:8CC1:B2E6:96DD:4A6A (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

TBD

@Snooganssnoogans:, please be more careful when reverting the work of others.

The only thing I personally deleted from the conspiracy theory section was the stuff about droning Assange. Snopes does NOT support the claim that wikileaks or Assange formulated any conspiracy theory about it. Snopes did not say anything of the kind. All wikileaks did was release the emails from Clinton with mention of extra-legal measures against Assange and a sick joke about droning him (like thousands of civilians killed by drones under Obama). Should WL have redacted the email? Assange was quoted in snopes as saying: “I’m a white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it’s not that likely that I’ll be droned, but we have seen things creeping toward that.” Does that sound like a conspiracy theory? The other stuff about alleged child trafficking in Haiti and Clinton's alleged shopping disease was deleted by somebody else. You can restore those two if you want, but neither meet the definition of conspiracy theory and stuff like the Daily Beast is horribly weak sourcing for it. The Daily Beast is a pro-Clinton webzine with no demarcation between opinion and news. It is closer to Fox News and MSNBC than to the NYT and Washington Post. I also removed the conspiracy crap from the lead, because the lead is supposed to summarize the article and the section on conspiracy theories is ridiculously short.

As for the rest, no gutting took place at all AFAIK. In fact it was you who gutted a good number of sources and reinstated a false statement about the Panama papers. Can you please restore specific material without butchering other content as collateral damage? Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh, @Snooganssnoogans: where are u? Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This user, @Snooganssnoogans:, has already been called out for POV pushing on other pages. Its pretty blatant and transparent. I've given up reverting his/her edits since I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring again. VasOling (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
(i) Wikileaks also tweeted a report by the hoax site Gateway Pundit with a highlighted section that alleged that Clinton had called for drone strikes on him, according to Politico and that "No mainstream news outlets have confirmed the claim."[1] . (ii) Both the child trafficking and the health stuff fit under conspiracy theories. (iii) With content restored to the conspiracy section, it's no longer as short as it was. (iv) Feel free to restore the Panama Papers stuff, sorry about that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: You're right about the drone stuff: "Can't we just drone this guy" is an unverifiable quote from True Pundit (not Gateway Pundit). Wikileaks emails only spoke of "legal and nonlegal" strategies, which does not imply assassination, jokingly or otherwise. I'll add the quotes from Assange and Clinton for context. I don't want to be pedantic, but you still need to find quality sources that explicitly label this a conspiracy theory. This is essential of you want this text kept. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My preferred wording has always been to say "Wikileaks has popularised *falsehoods* and conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton", so I'd recommend that wording. As for the drone strikes stuff, if neither Politco or Snopes describes it as explicitly false, I'd be fine with adding the sentence (or some variation of it) "Wikileaks also repeated an unverified claim made by the conservative website True Pundit that Clinton had suggested ordering drone strikes on Assange" to the end of the paragraph to remove it from being about falsehoods and conspiracy theories when it is only an unproven claim AFAIK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"Unproven statements and con theories" will be even more neutral. Not every nasty allegation is a con theory (saying that a politician eats boogers is not a con theory), nor is every unverified statement false (Snopes calls the drone stuff "unproven"). As for the "child trafficking" it's basically true (thought the motives weren't slavery or sex).I'll add this source for context.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
You can not add the "child trafficking" source to this article; it would be a clear violation of WP:OR as it doesn't mention Wikileaks, the DNC, or Hillary Clinton. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Editors organizing offsite and calling for others to change this page

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/59545r/on_wikipedia/

And redditors, in case you think of deleting that, I've taken screenshots.

https://s22.postimg.org/jzpqwlm69/eldflaug19.png

Rei (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Obvious suspect edits, given the time of the reddit post and the fact that they're making the changes called for on the reddit:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Users therein:

128.61.50.112 176.26.198.131 Mitchcairns Thymefromti 145.116.174.79 213.124.162.109

- Rei (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Followup: The edit made by 176.26.198.131 is specifically confessed to by reddit user "stordoff" here (also visible in the screenshot). - Rei (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The edits are completely valid. I'm from that thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchcairns (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. A group of people brought in to achieve a specific goal are known as meat puppets and face sanction if an investigation agrees. - Rei (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There was already enough problems that upped the protection from PC to Semi. New users can't add to it at all now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia states: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. I do not not have a reddit account. Every time I delete this defamatory claim against myself someone undoes my deletion. Doesn't this violate Wikipedia policy? Thymefromti (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thymefromt: No, it's not a personal attack. Notification of improper canvassing is not a personal attack, nor is someone removing your edit a personal attack I suggest you drop this and move on or you're headed for a block for edit warring and inappropriate removal of talk page comments. Sundayclose (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The WLTaskForce account has also been calling for edits from people on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WLTaskForce/status/844365601850167297 Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 12:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests 28/02/2017

  • 1. Change image caption (first image in the article) from: "The logo of WikiLeaks, an hourglass with one globe leaking to the second" to:
    "The logo of WikiLeaks, the world drips from the top to bottom chamber of the hourglass"

Reason: nothing in the image suggests it's seconds, and there being no source supporting it, it is WP:OR.

  • 2. in infobox "| language = English, but the documents are written in various others" to "| language = English, published /* commment: or some other word - like available */ documents are in their original language."

Reason: it's a better description? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Responding to request 1:  Not done The caption is referring to the second globe, not the measure of time. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The "second" is ambiguous. To leak to a second globe, you need to, somewhere, have a first one... As far as I can see, it's not in the sentence... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Done — Train2104 (t • c) 06:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

CrowdStrike's fake quotes and fake information about claimed Russia hack

I suggest to either adjust or balance CrowdStrike's claims in this article sources. Because according to the Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.

Related articles and sources

Related video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be

Francewhoa (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Centre for Research on Globalization is a notorious conspiracy-theory website notorious for spreading fringe claims, so no, we are not going to include it. Additionally, this particular post on their website is apparently by, or republished from, an obscure, anonymously-written crowdsourced blog. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before editing. This is truly basic stuff. Additionally, why are you spamming this same text on five different article talk pages? Neutralitytalk 23:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Neutrality :) Thanks for expressing your concerns about CRG as a source. Are you interested to contribute additional or alternative source(s) about the recent news that CrowdStrike walked back some of their key claims? How about VOA has a source? Voice of America (VOA) is Washington D.C. based and also the largest U.S. international broadcaster. VOA's article at http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html
Francewhoa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case, my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article Fancy Bear, where it is already appropriately cited. The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis. (We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the core premise of the report..."). Citation in almost any other article (except maybe Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), in which the original report isn't even mentioned) would be a violation of a whole bunch of principles, including, variously, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COATRACK. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in that other talk page. This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Francewhoa (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is WikiLeaks a part of Wikipedia(I hope this banned website is a part of Wikipedia)?

Some of my friends jeered at me when I told WikiLeaks is not a part of Wikimedia Foundation.But they did not accept it.So inorder to solve my doubt I have requested a question Abishe (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation. ~ GB fan 12:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits not supported by the source

VasOling: You've editing nothing but this article for the last seven - seven! - months. Your latest edit are just as unacceptable as your older ones.

The sources do not state that "critics have accused WikiLeaks of promotion conspiracy theories." The multiple, high-quality, reliable sources directly state this in their own voice (not "critics").

  • NBC News: "WikiLeaks ... is fueling Internet conspiracy theories "
  • Bloomberg: "routinely promoting anti-Clinton memes and conspiracy theories"
  • Washington Post: describing how WikiLeaks promoted "fake and misleading stories on the Internet" including "a conspiracy theory claiming that John Podesta is a Satanist."

It is nothing short of impermissible original research to attribute this to "Critics" when the sources say nothing of the kind.

-- Neutralitytalk 00:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm tagging Snooganssnoogans since I believe he originally added the material at issue, and may want to comment/monitor this article. I'm also tagging Bbb23, My very best wishes, and Smartse, who have reverted very similar edits from the same user on this article before. Neutralitytalk 01:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Neutrality. We should never say "X accuse Y", when X happen to be multiple high-quality straight-up-news-reporting reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course Snoogansnoogans is going to agree with Neutrality. You guys are buddy-buddies who stick together. Go ahead and get your other like-minded friends to back you up and push your POV. I guess this is how Wikipedia works now. What a waste. VasOling talk 06:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I tried to fix the issue myself but ran into the same wall. Don't have the energy to fight this battle. The propaganda will remain in place. Augurar (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Augurar: If this is what you call fixing POV, then please don't fix any more POV until you actually understand our policies. When multiple reliable sources make a statement of fact, adding attribution to "critics" in the material is both original research and a violation of WP:NPOV.- MrX 12:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV so hard to understand? Augurar (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It's easy to understand; it simply doesn't apply to the content that we're discussing.- MrX 16:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Augurar:Because you are inventing the label "critics" to apply to the sources themselves when you do not have a reliable source which calls NBC News, Bloomberg and the Washington Post "critics" of Wikileaks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Separate from the Wikimedia Foundation

Should there not be a tag at the top of this article stating that Wikileaks is separate from the Wikimedia Foundation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorbee (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Claim in intro not supported by sources

The intro provides the following claim: "During the campaign, WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party." This is attributed to three sources:

  1. Ohlheiser, Abby (4 November 2016). "No, John Podesta didn't drink bodily fluids at a secret Satanist dinner". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
  2. "WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death". NBC News. Retrieved 8 November 2016.
  3. How Julian Assange turned WikiLeaks into Trump's best friend, Max Chafkin & Vernon Silver, 10 October 2016 (Bloomberg website)

Source 1 states that Wikileaks-released materials have "prompted" a Satanist conspiracy theory, but does not state that Wikileaks itself promoted this interpretation. In Source 2, Wikileaks is accused of "fueling" Internet conspiracy theories by offering a reward for information about the death of Seth Rich. In Source 3, Assange (not Wikileaks) is criticized for promoting anti-Clinton conspiracy theories.

None of these sources state that Wikileaks, as an organization, has promoted conspiracy theories. 2601:644:0:DBD0:31A8:5256:9DE0:6D2F (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence should be removed. Other statements in the intro cover the facts in a more balanced way.Weburbia (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This is abundantly sourced in the main body[9]. The three sources in the lede also definitely say that Wikileaks promoted conspiracy theories. One of the titles is literally "Wikileaks fuels conspiracy theories". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think "promote" suggests a more direct and active role in the conspiracy theories than "fuel" does. It might be accurate to say that Wikileaks facilitated conspiracy theories by releasing emails, but it would be better to work this into the preceding sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weburbia (talk • contribs) 11:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There is far more to WikiLeaks' conspiracy-peddling than just "releasing emails". I suggest you actually read the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think "promote" suggests a more direct and active role in the conspiracy theories than "fuel" does. "fuels" is a euphemism, as conspiracy theories don't actually burn anything. "Promotes" is used literally. We are writing an encyclopedia. I think the preference for the more literal term is bound to outweigh any implications one might associate with one term or the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The language in the lead is amply supported: the sources abundantly make clear that WL promoted conspiracy theories. As for "promote" and "fuel": in this context, they are synonymous. Fuel (verb) means "sustain or inflame (a feeling or activity)"; promote means "further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage." Same thing. Neutralitytalk 21:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Two words may denote the same thing but have different connotations. I think that applies here. It is also sometimes the case that such connotations can be different in different regions, especially UK vs US, so perhaps that explains the different interpretations. Apart from the semantics I think the nub of the problem is that the statement is too vague. What were these conspiracy theories exactly, and by what actions did Wikileaks promote them? It might help clarify what is meant by this statement if a little more detail is given. If Wikipedia is going to make serious allegations against Wikileaks it owes it to them to be more clear. That could be too long for the intro so it would fit better in the chronological section lower down.Weburbia (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize the body, giving a broad high-level overview of important elements of the topic while reserving the details for the body. The current language does that effectively. I'm not sure what "different regions" or British vs. American English has to do with anything. The sentence has the same meaning irrespective of dialect. Neutralitytalk 22:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct Chelsea Manning's name in "Purpose" section

Throughout most of this article, Chelsea Manning is referred to correctly as "Chelsea." However, in the "Purpose" section, she is incorrectly referred to as "Bradley." I am requesting a minor edit to use her correct name, Chelsea, throughout the entire article. The first time I posted this request, I received this message:

"Hello. I'd like to inform you that your edit request on Talk:WikiLeaks appeared to be disruptive in regards to the subject of sexology, so I have reverted it for now. You are more than welcome to resubmit the edit request providing the exact reason why you would like the change to be made rather than just saying "Oh, please change the name of this person to that." Please take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn how to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and if you have any questions, I along with other editors here on Wikipedia are here to help you. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)"

So, ridiculously, I will point out that this request is not disruptive and has nothing to do with sexology. It is about referring to public figures by their correct names.

Done Thank you for clarifying that your request was constructive, however because the source refers to the subject by her former name, I have decided to add "(then Bradley Manning)" to the sentence to stay true to the source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you MollyK (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 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:

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) 15:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Servers hosted in Russia.

Type "wikileaks.org" into https://www.iplocation.net/ and it tells you that the servers are hosted in Moscow, Russia. Why isn't this in the article? 69.119.161.108 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't original research. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 69.119.161.108 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

All the sources you listed are atrocious. If you find a reliable sources (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post), go ahead and add it to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"Why isn't this in the article?"
Because it's largely irrelevant? Also: 'dig' says servers have front-end load balancers (not necessarily "servers" per se) geo-located to many regions:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
wikileaks.org.		2532	IN	A	195.35.109.44
wikileaks.org.		2532	IN	A	195.35.109.53
wikileaks.org.		2532	IN	A	95.211.113.131
wikileaks.org.		2532	IN	A	95.211.113.154
wikileaks.org.		2532	IN	A	141.105.65.113
wikileaks.org.		2532	IN	A	141.105.69.239
Not that it really matters; or that particular geo-location is even remotely accurate (have to poke around ASNs for that). -- dsprc [talk] 20:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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) 20:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add sentence under "Finance" section that Assange thanked U.S. Government for inducing him to invest in bitcoin

I believe it is noteworthy.

"My deepest thanks to the US government, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for pushing Visa, MasterCard, Payal, AmEx, Mooneybookers, et al, into erecting an illegal banking blockade against @WikiLeaks starting in 2010. It caused us to invest in Bitcoin -- with > 50000% return."

Sources

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/wikileaks-julian-assange-bitcoin-50000-percent-return-thanks-to-us-government.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4693645/julian-assange-wikileaks-bitcoin-met-police-cost/

104.231.250.148 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)October 16 2017

  • Oppose This is Assange being snarky and does not deserve to be taken seriously. KalHolmann (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Transparently false claim from opinion article

Snooganssnoogans, as you know, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for anything except their author's opinions. Moreover, even with attribution, Wikipedia is not obliged to publish every ill-founded opinion under the sun; WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources. With regard to the assertion that "WikiLeaks strategically released e-mails related to the Clinton campaign whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls," which you reinstated, there are several red flags indicating it is without merit. The first and most obvious is that any random idiot can see it is transparently false; the DNC emails were released immediately prior to the Democratic convention (as you noted), whereas the Podesta emails were released on a daily basis throughout much of October. (Do you seriously propose that Clinton's lead was expanding every day in October?) Moreover, if you take the time to read Baum and Gussin's "Why it’s entirely predictable that Hillary Clinton’s emails are back in the news" you will see that the piece is not actually about WikiLeaks at all, but rather the media's propensity to hype the Clinton email scandal in order to maintain a compelling "horse race" (the authors were operating under the assumption that Trump had no actual path to victory, having failed to consider the impact of the Electoral College):

"The media’s urgency to maintain drama in an election that was increasingly looking like a blowout made this story all but inevitable. ... Media coverage of presidential elections disproportionately emphasizes the horse race. Research by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center, for instance, shows that during the 2016 primary season, 56 percent of news coverage of the campaign focused on the horse race, compared with just 11 percent on substantive policy concerns. What does this have to do with the email story? This story raises the possibility of halting the 'blowout' narrative and replacing it with an unpredictable (hence novel) horse race. This keeps the audience engaged.

We counted the number of stories mentioning the phrase 'Clinton email' between Aug. 1 and Oct. 27—the day before Comey’s latest bombshell—appearing in all news broadcast transcripts (television and radio) available in Lexis-Nexis. We then compared this trend with the polling average on RealClearPolitics (RCP). The two trends are strongly and statistically significantly correlated (.33 where the maximum positive correlation is 1.0). As Clinton's lead in the polls goes up, the number of stories mentioning 'Clinton email' follows suit. As her lead declines, the frequency of such stories declines as well."

WikiLeaks is only mentioned as an aside in a single paragraph, in which Baum and Gussin reject the hypothesis that strategic WikiLeaks document dumps might explain this media phenomenon:

"But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton's lead expands. For instance, the Oct. 7 release of emails belonging to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta followed a week during which Clinton's lead in RCP's polling average expanded from 2.7 to 4.7 points. On the day of the release, stories mentioning 'Clinton email' doubled from the previous day. Yet over the next several days, attention to her emails fell off sharply, suggesting that WikiLeaks failed to drive the media narrative, at least beyond a single day."

When it comes to the media's skewed coverage, Baum and Gussin provide supporting data and a graph; yet they offer absolutely no evidence for the claim that WikiLeaks was paying any attention to polls whatsoever. In fact, the authors seem to take this explosive allegation for granted: One could perhaps torture the data to reach the desired conclusion (especially if Clinton's lead truly was expanding every day in October!), but Baum and Gussin don't even do that, probably because WikiLeaks is not the subject of their editorial. If there is actually compelling evidence that "WikiLeaks strategically released e-mails related to the Clinton campaign whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls," ("whenever"? Really? Every time???) you should be able to find a better source than a single sentence in an opinion piece on a distinct topic. (At the very least an on-point and in-depth opinion piece, if you can't find any reliable sources.) On the other hand, if Baum and Gussin's actual allegation is merely that the DNC emails were designed to create havoc at the Democratic convention and that the Podesta emails were an "October surprise," they—or perhaps their editor—are guilty of gross hyperbole, but Wikipedia already says as much. Exercising a bit of editorial discretion and common sense, Baum and Gussin's commentary might be a valid resource for attributed criticism of the U.S. mainstream media, but not for baseless conspiracy theories (with potential WP:BLP implications for the heads of WikiLeaks) against official enemies of the U.S. state.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea when e-mails were released, though I recall that the leaks occurred at the worst times for the Clinton campaign and the Twitter account hyped up all kinds of crap at the most convenient times for the Trump campaign (and has continued to play defence for Trump post-election). It's not my job to analyze this, that's WP:OR. I cite reliable source and attribute when claims are made. For instance, Wikileaks' stated rationale that they only do leaks when those leaks will get the most attention is the most blatantly false and ludicrous statement there is, as shown by the fact that they purposively timed one of their leaks in an attempt to crowd out coverage of the Trump tapes[17] (the worst possible time for those leaks to get attention but as a desperate attempt to give rightwing media something to focus coverage on). The leaks right before the Democratic convention were also clearly intended to put the convention into disarray rather than create informed discussion about the contents of the leaks. Should I remove Wikileaks' deceptive rationale, as any honest person can see that it's total horseshit, or should we follow Wikipedia policy and attribute the claim to Wikileaks and let it stand? I say the latter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so that's how it works. Reliably sourced and attributed content has just been removed because one Wikipedia editor believes he knows better than a Harvard political scientist (and provides absolutely zero info to back up his claims). The same editor who added what he himself knows is a blatantly false statement from Wikileaks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (EC): It occurs to me that if you parse Baum and Gussin carefully, it's also possible that the sentence beginning with "But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks" is not the authors's own belief, but rather a strawman they set up—and then knock down ("WikiLeaks failed to drive the media narrative, at least beyond a single day"). (You could argue that the second sentence clarifies the meaning of the first, but the example given is correlation, not causation—something the authors, if not their audience, should be expected to understand—and which cannot prove anything absent further study.) Hence why it would be better to have a source—even an opinion article—specifically analyzing WikiLeaks's actions during the election cycle and explicitly supporting the disputed content.
  • While we're admittedly getting a bit far afield here, on the simultaneous release of the first batch of Podesta emails and the Trump–Billy Bush tape, consider Assange's side of the story: "On Clinton's 'timing' conspiracy theory. That we had a pending publication about to launch on the election was everywhere in the media for days. We were meant to launch that morning. It is the Trump tape that was moved forward from Monday to Friday." (Assange cites TMZ, which reported on October 12, 2016: "Many NBC execs have open disdain for Trump and their plan was to roll out the tape 48 hours before the debate so it would dominate the news cycle leading up to the face-off. ... The plan got derailed by Hurricane Matthew. Execs decided the wall-to-wall coverage of the storm would mess up the plan to dominate the news with the Trump tape, so they were going to hold it until Monday. It didn't sit well with some staffers who wanted it out pre-debate, so it was leaked to the Washington Post.") Of course, that doesn't necessarily exonerate Assange, but there is no clear evidence of his guilt, either—nothing beyond conjecture and innuendo. And, for whatever it's worth, WikiLeaks's Twitter account promoted the Trump–Billy Bush tape at the time.
  • "The leaks right before the Democratic convention were also clearly intended to put the convention into disarray." I agree: That's already in the article, as you know. And it's COMPLETELY consistent with WikiLeaks timing its releases for maximum exposure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
An organization that cares so deeply about timing leaks to increase readership releases the leaks an hour after the most media intensive story of the year? Yeah, right, they care so much about it. I have no idea what NBC and WaPo's own thinking regarding timing has anything to do with anything in this context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
To release the leaks on the eve of DNC Convention did not "maximize readership and reader engagement" (Wikileaks' stated rationale), unless those terms take on the meaning of uninformed hysteria with nobody being able to read and analyze the contents of the leaks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In 2010, the Swedish Pirate Party announced something

In 2010, the Swedish Pirate Party announced that it would host Wikileaks servers.[18] Did they eventually do it? If yes, make that clear. If not, then let's delete this trivial announcement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

From the sources it seems clear to me the announcement is not "we'd like to host their stuff", but rather "we're hosting their stuff". If you think it's too trivial by all means remove it, I don't really give a shit. The edit summary on your removal was "not RS" though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think my edit summary for the large-scale removal of content where this text was removed also said that I was removing "outdated" stuff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Extensive text sourced to Wikileaks itself

There's extensive text about Wikileaks sourced to itself.[19] Is this text notable? If yes, find RS who have covered it. If no RS have covered it, it doesn't belong. Is this text accurate? If yes, find RS to substantiate it. This is the same organization that regularly promotes hoaxes and falsehoods, so all claims made by the organization should be viewed skeptically. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that they use TOR, PGP, SSL, and other basic privacy tools or a certain open source technology on their website is an outstanding or otherwise self-promotional claim. It's ok per WP:SELFPUB. The rest is referenced to secondary sources. This is the same organization that regularly promotes hoaxes and falsehoods, so all claims made by the organization should be viewed skeptically. Not more so than Wikipedia's "reliable sources"... Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
My chief concern is that the Wikipedia article is full of boring crap of no interest to anyone. This is a good example. If it's notable, RS coverage should be found. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 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:

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) 14:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian coverage

@Karl.i.biased: You need to use this talk page to discuss the changes you want, why, and how they can best be sourced. At this point you are edit warring, as you've been more than adequately warned about. Follow WP:BRD: Boldly make edits, if reverted, stop to discuss. Please also note WP:EW: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Pinging reverting editors as well, so hopefully a discussion can be fostered: @Snooganssnoogans and Dr.K. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I reverted this user because he is edit-warring through edit-summaries and I find this behaviour to be disruptive. Unfortunately, as my subsequent discussion on his talkpage shows, this user is not very keen on discussing his edits on the article talkpage. As far as the contents of his/her edits, I think that they are blatant synthesis and OR and until this user understands these concepts, the discussion is not going to go far. However, if you disagree with my assessment, please feel free to restore his edits. Dr. K. 20:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: Simply trying to steer things in the right direction so that a block does not become necessary. If Karl can come here and a discussion occurs, an edit might result that everyone is happy with. If not, sufficient warnings have been issued. -- ferret (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand. But I am a minority shareholder in this. My primary objective was to stop the flippant edit-warring by Karl discussing through edit-summaries. Obviously, this attempt failed. I'm not any more optimistic as to the chances of Karl understanding what OR and SYNTH are either. I wouldn't even bet he'll be coming here to discuss any time soon. Dr. K. 21:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation

Should it not be spelt out clearly somewhere in the first three paragraphs that Wikileaks is nothing to do with the WikiMedia Foundation? Vorbee (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

An update is needed to correct a statement in the "Leaks" section, "2011-2015". It refers to Francois Hollande as the current President of France. "...including but not limited to the current President Francois Hollande and his predecessors Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac." it should read "including but not limited to former President Francois Hollande and his predecessors Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac." 96.19.244.13 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, but not as asked As Hollande was, in fact, the President at the time. However, I did change it to say "...including but not limited to then current President Francois Hollande...", so I hope this satisfies your request. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Correspondence between Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr.

Why was the section about the correspondence between Wikileaks & Donald Jr. removed from this article? It was clearly sourced to the Atlantic article and is based on documents turned over by Trump Jr. in the Russian investigation. It is clearly newsworthy and substantiated. It shouldn't be removed simply because it portrays Wikileaks in an unflattering light. The Atlantic is a reliable source and it is incorrect to delete this information which is very challenging to the image of Wikileaks as an impartial source of information. 2601:1C0:6D02:27C0:4DC:F358:5971:B3AE (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The content is a sub-section under the sub-section "Allegations of anti-Clinton and pro-Trump bias". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
On March 12, 2018, I changed the subsection heading to Correspondence between WikiLeaks and Donald Trump Jr. and made an edit to the first sentence that bears further explanation. I removed "Julian Assange" because the cited source does not specify him as having sent these messages, reporting only that the WikiLeaks Twitter account did so. This distinction is important. As Assange explained on his own Twitter account, during the period when the messages were sent he had no Internet access, and the @WikiLeaks account "is run by a rotating staff." It is therefore likely that his staff, not Assange personally, sent these messages. And in any case, our cited source does not claim that he did so. KalHolmann (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Subsection name

I reversed a reversion of a subsection name here (and altered the name further). I don't like how long the name was before; it messed up the TOC, making it wider than it needed to be. Plus the name was redundant with the section name. I further adjusted it to match the naming used in the subsection above it. I agree that section names should be descriptive, but I think this was too descriptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

2010

The 2010 subsection contains numerous factual inaccuracies, as detailed in the sources referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Incident_according_to_the_report I'm not sure how to tag the subsection for review or I would do so. Oathed (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Oathed, Wikipedia:Template messages/Section explains section-specific tags you may add to identify the type of cleanup required. I'd also urge you to list here on Talk the inaccuracies you have found. That would save time for other editors who may be less familiar than you are with this material. KalHolmann (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Update funding/financial

Wikileaks' accepted forms of donations, and the recent decision by Freedom of Press Foundation to withdraw Wikileaks as sponsor'd org on basis that wikiblockade is over, due to Wau Holland etc.. Shushugah (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2018

Change "Sarah Harrison, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Assange" to "Sarah Harrison, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Assange who are currently living".

Add "Gavin MacFayden was acknowledged by Assange as a ″beloved director of WikiLeaks″ shortly after his death in 2016."

[1] Ianspangler (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/business/media/gavin-macfadyen-dies-wikileaks.html
 Done Danski454 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Absence of whistleblowing on Russia"

The last paragraph in the opening section states that "WikiLeaks has drawn criticism for its absence of whistleblowing on or criticism of Russia", citing two articles from 2016 as sources. Should this be amended or removed in light of the 2017 "Spy Files Russia" leak? 179.153.230.248 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A well sourced addition would seem appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

Change 4chan forum (used by far-right American groups) to 4chan forum, to comply with NPOV and reduce bias. 97.121.167.173 (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources after the sentence you are referring to support the information that you are asking be removed. How is this not neutral? ~ GB fan 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done (and also wikilinked 4chan). GB fan, the parenthetical note made it sound like (or could have made it sound like) 4chan's main purpose is use by the far-right, whereas the Guardian article simply said that the Monde article reported that it was "[favored]" by them. I wouldn't automatically object to a more nuanced note here if it can be made in a well-sourced way, but as it stood, it was a blanket statement about 4chan that wasn't appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Why no external website link?

I'm wondering why the article doesn't provide a link to WikiLeak's offical website. The "External links" section is empty. NewWorld101 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Although WikiLeaks.org is written in the side box I don't know why it isn't the usual clickable URL Cannonmc (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the disclaimer?

Apple Records doesn't have a disclaimer that they aren't related to Apple Inc. So why does this article need a disclaimer? This looks like a meta Wikipedia thing. Wiki software predates Wikipedia by many years and WikiLeaks originally was conceived to use Wiki software, but they later rejected it. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone Not Awful, I support retaining the disclaimer. I have often observed people online confusing WikiLeaks with Wikipedia. And your Apple analogy is absurd. In 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service." No U.S. government official has said any such thing about Apple. Whenever possible, Wikipedia would be wise to distance itself from WikiLeaks, which is toxic on a grand scale. KalHolmann (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The hatnote has been extensively discussed, and consensus is that it is a necessary evil. In general, Wikipedia does not use disclaimers in articles. This is a rare exception. Reach Out to the Truth 00:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has numerous partner projects and organizations, from WikiMedia, WikiCommons etc.. and fact Wikileaks started out with MediaWiki software muddles the two. In general, I would support adding a disclaimer to WikiHow as well, but that's a discussion on their page. Shushugah (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The disclaimer is there to hide the obvious connection between the Wimipedia and WikiLeaks. Assange is obviously a sock puppet of Jimbo Wales. Sayyed al afghani (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It's been discussed - the hatnote's needed, and a rare exception to the guidelines of "no disclaimers". Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Seth Rich BS

The editor Aviartm has edit-warred out long-standing content on Assange's fueling of Seth Rich conspiracy theories (even going as far as violating 3RR). The editor keeps removing RS language that notes that Assange (1) suggested/implied that Seth Rich was the leaker[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and (2) that Assange's BS fuelled conspiracy theories on the subject.[27][28] The editor instead keeps adding obfuscating WP:OR nonsense that claims Assange "stated no confirmation or refutation that Seth Rich" was the source, when RS clearly say Assange "suggested"/"implied" this[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] or "carefully nurtured" the conspiracy theory[36]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You just copied and pasted your info here from your talk page inquiry on Julian Assange. And to correct the balance as I said previously at Julian Assange's talk page, I added the material to WikiLeaks here. Now, both POVs are balanced. Aviartm (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I've removed this. First, Aviartm, I have no idea what you mean by "both POVs." What "POVs" would those be? The sources reflect that the implication that Seth Rich might be connected to WikiLeaks is an evidence-free conspiracy theory. Second, moreover, you removed the cited statement "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks" (that's WP:PROFRINGE) and inserted lengthy Assange quotes cited to YouTube clips to Assange interviews. That's WP:PROFRINGE. Third, you lack consensus for this material and need to stop inserting it, over the objections of other editors. Neutralitytalk 20:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality Firstly, only 1 editor has objected, that is Snooganssnoogans. By "both POVs", I am referring to the insinuation by Assange in an interview with Nieuwsuur and the straightforward comment by Assange in an interview with Fox News. Secondly, "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks", yes, and like Assange too has mentioned, Seth Rich is not either. The insinuation/suggestion/implication of Assange by Assange with Nieuwsuur is already in there. Continued, I removed the sentence because I found the two citations to be inadequate and not relating to the sentence. The Slate citations debunks a conspiracy about the FBI killing Rich; the citation furthers discusses Assange's interview with Nieuwsuur, which is already cited numerous times. The second citation for the sentence, NBC, mentions WikiLeaks' reward for information and other deaths "related" to Rich's. That is it. Neither mention deliberately that "there is no evidence", etc. That is why it was removed. It can be added, just add a corresponding and appropriate citation for it instead of off topic citations. Further, how is it Wikipedia:PROFRINGE if there are citations with the quotations? From the page: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources." The quotations have several citations so I think it is not Wikipedia:PROFRINGE. Lastly, neither does Snooganssnoogans have consensus. Aviartm (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
First, those are just statements of a single individual, so it's super weird to refer to two statements of the same guy as 'both POVs." Second, Snoogans plus myself is two editors. Third, as your second point ("there's no evidence that Rich wasn't the source of the leaks"), that's an argument from ignorance. Fourth, the sources clearly support the statement that there is no evidence behind the conspiracy theory; the Slate article says there is "absolutely zero evidence for" the claim. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality Let's try and not play semantics please, just "both POVs" as in "both comments". Secondly, because prior to you commenting, there has only been Snooganssnoogans on this talk page. Thirdly, how is that bad per se? There is a void here; no one knows for sure. U.S. Intelligence says Russia, Assange says no; doesn't confirm or deny who the source is, etc. It is not our place to speculate the conclusion; per Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL. As previously mentioned, "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks" can be added, just add right citations. The Slate does mention that but about the FBI conspiracy, not the "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks." These are widely 2 different things. Lastly, you did not comment how on using quotations from reliable sources is Wikipedia:PROFRINGE. I would like feedback because you said it, so it is best that you come up with a response please.
Finally, I think it is best that we do include "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks." with appropriate citations; include quotations from Assange's interviews from Nieuwsuur and Fox News as prior to my edits becoming controversial, these interviews were already cited, just not in text form in the page. Both comments of Assange should be in there. The current state of the page is misleading and the "fueling conspiracies" part is extremely violating Correlation does not imply causation. Snooganssnoogans since the start has not been cooperative and been Wikipedia:STONEWALLING heavily. All I wanted to do was add Assange's comments on the matter (with reliable sources of course) to expand contexts and his thoughts on the matter. To eschew Assange's comments on a controversial matter is unethical editing in my opinion. Aviartm (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The "fueling conspiracies" part is taken directly from the source. E.g., NBC News: "WikiLeaks ... is fueling Internet conspiracy theories." I have no idea what you mean by repeating "extremely violating correlation does not imply causation," but that's not a policy. And there is no policy that we have to replicate long quotations from anyone, let alone fringe figures. WP:PROFRINGE says we are "nor a soapbox for self-promotion" of fringe theories, nor should we give "the proclamations of its adherents" excessive prominent. Rely on the mainstream sources and their interpretations. Neutralitytalk 23:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality I know that there is no policy of "Correlation does not imply causation" (either though it should be a policy), but it is certainly an intellectual principle of reasoning. D.C. Police offered a $25,000 reward for information yet the Wikipedia page does not entertain that idea of the "D.C. Police fueling conspiracy theories!" I wouldn't say Assange is "fringe"; continued, so we should just eschew from using quotations now on Wikipedia from individuals in any matter? "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." My edits adhered to this 100%. Frankly, so far, there has been no good causes to be against my edits besides conducting Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:STONEWALLING... Both comments by Assange, the straight-forward one and the insinuation one were on the page, cited using reliable sources, and structured in a Wikipedia:NPOV manner. Now, the page is not Wikipedia:NPOV and there are factual errors.
Gimmicks used to object my edits: 1. No clear consensus, 2. WP:PROFRINGE despite edits being neutral and heavily cited by "the mainstream sources and their interpretations" (Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F; plus new citations from convos such as G. Despite Citations 260, 262, and 263 mentioning the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview. 3 out of 4 currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview.; all I did was add quotations of this interview and Fox News' interview with Assange.; 3. Wikipedia:STONEWALLING, and 4. Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. This is the most baseless and bogus opposition in contesting any edits of mine I have ever encountered. Not once did any editor spruce up or change the material of my edits at the time. They were always reverted despite lack of argument. And since Snooganssnoogans is not participating and possibly forcing a WP:DEADHORSE card, and you Neutrality, not showing much error or contestation in my edits, I can only try again with my edits. In short, the editor that expands contexts gets contested for no good reason. Aviartm (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Analogies of Julian Assange to the D.C. police are totally irrelevant. I've made my position, based on Wikipedia policy, very clear, as has Snooganssnoogans. You haven't fully responded to those points, but have chosen instead to get personal ("bogus opposition," etc.). I'm not going to repeat myself. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality Which points have I not addressed? You and I have both responded thoroughly to our comments and questions. And your most 2nd most recent response to my concerns were primarily for comment than anything else which I responded to them in full. About Snooganssnoogans, Snooganssnoogans has not responded to this Talk Page at all. I have addressed all of your inquires, why not continue the reciprocity? There are clearly more dilemmas and violations in opposing my edits than my edits being published. Lastly, if you and Snooganssnoogans wish not to correspond, I will make my edits again. There is a reason why Talk Pages are a thing. Aviartm (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality "Analogies of Julian Assange to the D.C. police are totally irrelevant." <-- Why? Asserting something does not make it true. That's a non-argument. 84percent (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into games with you. This is an encyclopedia and not an Internet forum or debating society. If you want to take this to RfC with a version A/version B, take it to RfC (which would be better than filibustering). But if you "make your edits" again, without consensus, as you have threatened to do, you would violate Wikipedia policy. So I want to make that very clear and explicit to you. Neutralitytalk 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality You are an administrator, you should be willing to solve disputes yet you have shown you are apathetic to doing so. And which policy will I be violating? Because in this case, if no consensus is reached, now what? Is Murder Of Seth Rich never to be edited again because "no consensus was reached?" And this situation is just moronic. Snooganssnoogans makes a Talk Page inquiry to solve an Wikipedia:Edit dispute of the lowest-quality imaginable; later doesn't participate whatsoever; somehow I am in the wrong for alleged Wikipedia:PROFRINGE but that gets disproven and no consensus is reached with the original creator of this Talk page inquiry, or anyone so far in this discussion. Editors should not Wikipedia:Cherrypick, Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, Wikipedia:STONEWALL and should not make a Talk Page inquiry if they are not going to participate. Aviartm (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Neutrality: You specifically made a post on a noticeboard calling for more input to this debate. If you are uninterested in discussion, then why would you create that post calling for more eyeballs? 84percent (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I am interested in getting more views from experienced editors. I'm not interested in listening to the same editor filibuster. Please comment on the content, not on me, and please stop pinging me. Neutralitytalk 04:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
My edit experience is irrelevant and shouldn't be brought up here (see: WP:DNB and WP:APR). I have been and am commenting on the content; I simply asked you to explain or elaborate on your argument, however you responded with remarks about me personally, which seemingly includes a threat of admin action. My original question to you regarding the analogy of Julian Assange and the D.C. police has not been answered. 84percent (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It is very important to present a WP:NPOV. The text is currently clearly biased and misleading. In particular, replace

WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

With the more accurate and undoubtedly neutral:

Julian Assange did not confirm or deny the source behind the DNC emails. Assange elaborated by saying; "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." WikiLeaks offered a reward of $20,000 for information regarding Rich's death.

84percent (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The existing text accurately reflects the reliable cited sources. There is zero basis to call it "misleading" or less "accurate." Neutralitytalk 03:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You asked for more eyeballs here; do you want my input or not? In my opinion, and others, there is a clear bias and the way the text is worded does not present a WP:NPOV. 84percent (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Aviartm above. 84percent (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you 84percent. If you read what I have said of the past couple of hours, or the entire discussion, thanks for reading. Neutrality has yet to respond to my comments, again. I am still flustered that editors would contest more context on citations that are already within the page. It makes no sense to me. Aviartm (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
How can it be that adding additional factual context and including the original quote is somehow less neutral? Thank you for you efforts in keeping the page honest. 84percent (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
84percent I have no idea, zero idea. Thank you for the compliment. The pathetic thing about this, which I'm sure you read, is that "3 out of 4 currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview," and all I do is add context and its gets STONEWALLED. Aviartm (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you believe there is community-wide support for your obfuscatory fringe version, then start a RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I support the version in which we cite Assange directly. Especially as this concerns accusations against a BLP, it's better to stick closely to what they actually said, rather than how their critics characterize what they said. If the quote were inordinately long, then I would be in favor of paraphrasing it, but it's only a bit longer than the third-party paraphrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you propose we put the two versions to vote? I honestly haven't seen any persuading argument from the other side; as I said above, adding additional context and including the original quote is clearly the neutral approach. How should we proceed from here? 84percent (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thucydides411 I agree 100%. Especially for controversial contents per WP:BLPSTYLE. Aviartm (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

War Crimes

Since the arrest of Julian Assange "it" is often wrote/said WikiLeaks revealed war crimes.

For instance, this week Ecuador’s former president said that "although Julian Assange denounced war crimes, he’s only the person supplying the information." Ref.: The Latest: Quito arrest part of Assange probe, AP News, April 12, 2019

With the assistance of newspapers including the New York Times, Der Spiegel, the Guardian and Le Monde, the "Iraq: The War Logs" were disclosed and revealed the Pentagon had falsely denied knowledge of various crimes. The lead for the Guardian’s introduction to "Iraq: The War Logs" said that the WikiLeaks documents detail "torture, summary executions and war crimes."

Without going further back, have Wikileaks’ leaked documents exposed war crimes? If so, shouldn't we mention it in the introductory section. --93.211.209.233 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This statement should be made, with attribution. I've seen enough sources stating that WikiLeaks revealed war crimes that it certainly is a notable view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Strong US-centric bias and recentism in lede

The lede is strongly focused on American politics. In particular, about a third of the lede is about the ongoing political scandal over 2016 election ("Russiagate"). The lede makes almost no mention of Wikileaks' leaks regarding other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and Russia. Russiagate doesn't need as much space in the lede, and the other leaks need at least some mention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That simply reflects the coverage in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks -- I agree. I've removed some of the RussiaGate from the lead, but I haven't touched the body. Specifically, whether Julian Assange has a US political preference is not relevant; we do not write the same about editor-in-chiefs or CEOs in the leads of, for example, The New York Times, Forbes, or other popular outlets. 84percent (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, leave it alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Marek, but your revert was inappropriate. Despite your being a famous character from a novel, your vote only counts as 1. This leaves your "side" outnumbered 4 to 2. Concerning the quality of arguments I'm not sure about the quality of your "argument by force" above (yeah, leave it alone). I've checked fr.wp, de.wp, nl.wp, es.wp, pl.wp, pt.wp, sv.wp and none of them have more than 2 sentences about 2016 in the lead of their article on Wikileaks. Thucydides411 has provided good arguments below since your revert: for example, they mentioned that it was hypocritical to include a long quote from an online forum in the lead while simultaneously refusing to include a quote from a much-talked about interview from Dutch public television. I completely agree. Such a double standard is transparently biased. Please seek consensus with arguments rather than by giving orders. Thanks. SashiRolls t · c 13:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
When RS cover the biases of "news" organizations, we absolutely do cover that in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope, the lede should summarize the body and a large part of the body covers how this "journalistic" outlet pushes feverish conspiracy theories and hoaxes related to US politics, and all coincidentally about Democrats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is actually a good example of how one-sided the article has become. WikiLeaks has released plenty of information on Republicans. Its leaks in 2010 mostly concerned the actions of the Republican administration of GW Bush. It published Sarah Palin's emails during the 2008 election campaign. But in 2016, it released emails about Clinton and the DNC, which the article now obsessively focuses on. There are also very important leaks about other countries that receive only scant mention - the Syrian government leaks, the leaks of draft sections of TTIP, and the leaks about the Turkish government, just to give three major examples. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and this article has to keep a global perspective, rather than focusing narrowly on recent American politics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think it's ludicrous to suggest WikiLeaks has covered only Democrats. I can only think of the DNC Leaks & Podesta's inbox that are related to the U.S. Democrats. Are we forgetting about the Arab Spring, Collateral murder, Gitmo detainees and torture methods, the Trans Pacific Partnership, Scientology, CIA hacking, Sarah Palin, Australia's potential internet censorship blacklist, etc? WikiLeaks sparked the Arab Spring -- this is widely cited -- surely that belongs in the lead, no? 84percent (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to add RS content to the body, go ahead and do so. No one is stopping you. WikiLeaks's actions in the 2016 election are extremely notable, as reflected by RS coverage, and arguably shaped the outcome of the election. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that a "journalistic" outlet like WikiLeaks pushes hoaxes, falsehoods and feverish conspiracy theories. It is entirely standard to cover such content both in the body and lede of Wikipedia articles for organizations that purport to do news. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You are also violating WP:BRD and Wikipedia's dispute resolution rules by edit-warring out long-standing content without consensus. Why is it so difficult for you to obtain consensus for your edits, either through talk page discussions or by seeking community-wide input through a RfC? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Thucydides411 and 84percent, there is too much focus on American politics. Some people want to use WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a scapegoat, they love to play the blame game. Hillary Clinton herself blamed almost everyone for her election loss. – BBC: The long list of who Hillary Clinton blames. --Tobby72 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@84percent: I agree, all those things belong in the lede. The article as a whole, as well, is unbalanced. The obsession with Russiagate has spilled over into many articles, including this one, with people inserting every possible detail about this particular American domestic political scandal into tangentially related articles. Reading this page, one could be forgiven for thinking that all WikiLeaks had ever released were the DNC emails. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Funny, no mention of State Department folks laughing about rigging elections in Haiti. (§) Nothing about Haiti at all in the article. Nothing about Petrocaribe either. (§) That's just crazy. On whose "authority" is this entry written? When an entry is judged to be embarrassingly bad should the primary authors be allowed to continue to edit war to keep it as it is? SashiRolls t · c 00:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I also find it "crazy" that "Arab Spring" has zero mentions in the article. And I am not surprised by the link you posted. Thank you for revealing that. 84percent (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added mention of some of WikiLeaks' most important publications to the lede. The lede is still unduly dominated by the Russiagate scandal. It really is overkill to devote so much space in the lede to WikiLeaks' US-election-related leaks from 2016, including the lengthy quote from Assange and discussion of his correspondence with the Trump campaign. Two sentences or so on this topic should be sufficient in the lede, given how little space is given to all the other leaks. The direct quote from Assange in the lede is especially glaring, given how vehemently many editors are arguing against quoting Assange directly elsewhere on this talk page. The coverage of WikiLeaks' various publications still need to be brought into proportion, both in the lede and in the article as a whole. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's backwards. The Russian interference and Wikileaks role in it is a major publication they've had, in top three. The other stuff you added is more minor, not covered widely in sources, and probably undue for the lede. Trying to drown out the publication of the stolen DNC documents from Russian intelligence with minor information also violates WP:POV and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)::And if you want to put other stuff in the lede/article, how about the leaks that put hundreds of Turkish women in danger by doxxing them for no reason, doxxing rape victims, or gay individuals in Saudi Arabia? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The Turkish government leaks do deserve mention in the lede. I had forgotten about them, but have now added in a sentence mentioning them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Every publication I added to the lede has been widely covered. If the DNC and Podesta emails are in the top three publications WikiLeaks has ever had (debatable, given the impact of the US diplomatic cables, the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary, but I'll accept your assertion for the sake of argument), then it certainly deserves just as much mention in the lede as the other top publications. You'll notice that no other publication gets more than one sentence. All the US diplomatic cables - almost certainly WikiLeaks' most important leak to date - are worthy of exactly one sentence in the lede. Yet somehow, the 2016 election gets an entire paragraph in the lede, nearly as much as all the other leaks combined, replete with a direct quotation from Assange (repeated again in the body of the article, of course) explaining his views on the Democrats and Republicans and a description of another conversation he had. Yet somehow, you're worried about this material being "drown[ed] out" by short mention of WikiLeaks' other major publications. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Drone Strike "joke"

The idea that Clinton mused about a drone strike on Assange is currently included in the section on "Promotion of conspiracy theories." There is only a single reference to back up that inclusion, to Snopes ([37]), which merely labels the idea "unproven." Snopes notes that Clinton does not deny making the statement, but rather says she does not remember it and that she says it would have been a joke. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" strongly implies that it is wrong, when claim is (a) based on anonymous sources within the State Department (a level of sourcing that seems to generally pass for truth around here nowadays) and (b) is not actually denied by the person who reportedly said it. This claim should be removed from the section on "Promotion of conspiracy theories," perhaps to the "Reception" section, with appropriate couching about it being reported by anonymous sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"based on anonymous sources within the State Department (a level of sourcing that seems to generally pass for truth around here nowadays)" - Based on anonymous sources from the far-right conspiracy website True Pundit. You think that's equivalent to when RS use anonymous sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes ("far-right conspiracy website True Pundit" is your characterization, but I don't know if that's accurate). The person who reportedly made the statement has also suggested that it might have been made as a joke, and Snopes does not call the claim "false." Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is unnecessarily derogatory and strongly suggests it to be false, when all that we know is that it's unconfirmed, that Clinton and her campaign manager refrained from denying it (the latter according to The Hill: [38]), and that Clinton did discuss ways to counter WikiLeaks on that day (according to her leaked emails, which Snopes and The Hill discuss). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is being argued here. That WL did not 'promote' the theory by linking to it, or that the theory is not a 'conspiracy theory', since it may have some truth to it - albeit a very tenuous claim to partial truth, since the initial remarks (if said), almost certainly would have been rhetorical! Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We have more than the Snopes source about this in this article:

  • "WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to share a claim by Assange that Hillary Clinton had wanted to attack him with drones.[1] "

That makes this more than a "joke", but makes it part of Assange's war against Hillary Clinton. We should keep it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Hillary Clinton is the one suggesting it was a joke, not Julian Assange. Anonymous sources within the State Department claim that she made a comment about drone-striking Assange. Clinton does not deny making the comment, but says she can't remember it, and if she did say it, it was a joke. A leaked email sent by one of her colleagues confirms that on the day she supposedly made the joke, she did discuss "legal and nonlegal" ways to combat WikiLeaks. In other words, the idea that she made this comment isn't wild. Even she isn't denying it. Calling it a "conspiracy theory," something that I don't see in the sources, strongly implies that the claim is incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I was primarily addressing your comment above: "There is only a single reference to back up that inclusion, to Snopes." There is the other source, which shows that Assange weaponized it as part of his war against Clinton, as was his selective leaking of material that would hurt Hillary, but not releasing material harmful to Trump or Russians. A current situation has some parallels regarding selectively taking a statement out of context. All in a day's work in politics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pincrete: The argument is over whether or not this claim is a "conspiracy theory." It's something that has been reported, based on anonymous sources within the State Department, which is partially supported by leaked emails, and which Hillary Clinton does not deny. Calling the report a "conspiracy theory" strongly suggests it to be incorrect. If anything, Hillary Clinton's reported comment about drone-striking Assange should be moved to the "Reception" section, with a clarification that Clinton says she cannot remember the statement, and holds that it would have been a joke. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read up on the sourcing on this. Am I understanding correctly that when Hillary Clinton joked about ordering a drone strike on Assange, that it was Assange's and/or WikiLeak's position that it was not a joke and that Clinton was serious? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A far-right conspiracy website "reported" based on what the far-right conspiracy website describes as "anonymous sources" that Clinton stated “Can’t we just drone this guy?” during a State Department meeting and that the "statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner". No RS were able to report the same (i.e. they could not confirm from anonymous sources that she ever stated this or that any of this ever occurred). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@AzureCitizen: The "far-right conspiracy website" is a label that Snooganssnoogans has taken upon themselves to apply to the website the published the article. Here's the original article: [39]. It looks fairly level-headed to me. They quote what sources say Clinton said. They show the email that resulted from the meeting. After publication, they added a video at the end showing Clinton's response to the report - that she can't remember it, but that it would have been a joke. The idea was at least taken seriously enough by the press corps that both Clinton and her campaign manager were asked by journalists on different occasions about whether or not the account was true, and neither of them denied it.
WikiLeaks tweeted about it. I don't see how that's pushing a "conspiracy theory." It's newsworthy if the Secretary of State jokes about drone-striking a journalist, especially at a meeting where they're discussing "legal and nonlegal" means to counter that journalist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
True Pundit has been described by Politico as a "super-dubious" website that "routinely run[s] debunkable stories".[40], by BuzzFeed News as a "Notorious Pro-Trump Misinformation Site [...] Run By An Ex-Journalist With A Grudge Against The FBI" that is "filled with false reports and conspiracies."[41], and by Wired as a "right-wing disinformation site".[42] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The Politico piece you cite is an opinion piece, and even it acknowledges that the story may turn out to be true. This is a story that Clinton declined to refute, and she has basically admitted she might have said the statement, which is pretty significant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm only commenting on the reliability of True Pundit. It's important to see Politico's statements in context:

...making little effort to arrest the chunky stream of likely hokum flowing like an open sewer through her show. Now, all three of these tales may be eventually confirmed. The smart journalist never says never. But until there’s more to go on than hearsay, it’s bad practice to repeat somebody else’s tips as if they’re news. Other choice bits of disinformation inserted into the news stream this season include....

Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: firstly, "non-legal" (the term used in the email) is not a synonym of "illegal". "Non-legal" covers all actions available to a state, apart from judicial, so the email corroborates nothing. Secondly, it requires a very vivid imagination to believe that any US politician would seriously countenance an act of war against a European country (JA was in Europe) - and probably a fellow NATO member, which is what use of a drone anywhere in Europe would be. Those are both WP:OR observations on my part of course, but the possibility that Clinton was being serious about 'droning' Assange is just about the most extraordinary claim I have encountered on WP. Since we ouselves sometimes use the English language metaphorically or rhetorically, perhaps we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that others may also do so! Having said all that, I agree with Thucydides411 to the extent that whilst I personally think that the idea that Clinton was making a serious proposal, is an obvious "conspiracy theory" and evidence of WL's paranoid fantasies - we need to better source how RS describe this claim, or to remove or rephrase it. Pincrete (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

At the time, if you recall, there were a lot of American politicians openly making comments about killing Julian Assange or calling him a terrorist. The idea that Clinton would have at least said this as a joke is not far-fetched, as even she admits she might have said this. I'm not really going to judge whether an organization that the US government is having meetings about countering using "non-legal" means, and for which the intelligence agencies are publishing internal memos about means to undermine it, is "paranoid" when it Tweets about a reported statement by the Secretary of State suggesting a drone strike against their leader. She's reported to have said this. She's declined the opportunity to deny it, and suggested an explanation for why she might have said it. A lot of people don't like the source of the original report. That's the state of the matter. If we want to give some context to this, then that would be fine. However, calling this a "conspiracy theory" is not accurate, and is highly non-neutral. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Just to add: the email confirms that the conversation being described - about ways to counter WikiLeaks - was had. It doesn't confirm Clinton's reported statement, although, as I've said, she herself doesn't deny making the statement, but rather says she can't remember if she made it, and that it would have been a joke. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
So all we know is that there was a meeting where Hillary explored what actions could be taken to minimize damage from WikiLeaks, and Hillary doesn't deny joking about drone-striking Assange? The conspiracy theory is that Hillary actually proposed drone-striking Assange. She denies that, and there is no evidence besides an article in a "misinformation site" "filled with false reports and conspiracies." The possibility of the joke isn't a conspiracy theory; the possibility of the proposal is. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"Hillary denies that": She doesn't deny it, actually, despite having had the chance to do so. She says it would have been a joke, but doesn't deny saying it.
"misinformation site": According to BuzzFeed and Politico, which are themselves political websites that don't cleanly separate news and opinion, and which were supportive of Clinton. All I see is that WikiLeaks tweeted a link to the article, which reports that Clinton made the statement, points towards the email that confirms the discussion and includes the phrase "non-legal means," and was even updated to carry Clinton's non-denial afterwards.
If you want to expand the description on this event to explain it more fully, then that's acceptable. But without context, it's just a biased and selective presentation of facts, meant again to put the subject of the article in the worst possible light. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hillary denies proposing to drone-strike Assange. She doesn't deny "saying it" as a joke. Buzzfeed News calls True Pundit a "misinformation site". The Washington Post concurs, repeating that "True Pundit is a notorious pro-Trump site known for peddling misinformation (and helping spread the rise of Pizzagate)". Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Have WikiLeaks or Assange ever claimed that she meant it seriously? All I've seen is that WikiLeaks tweeted a link to the original article, and that Assange said in an interview that he doesn't think he himself is likely to get targeted by a drone strike. From WikiLeaks' point of view, it would obviously be a serious issue if the U.S. Secretary of State were joking about killing their leader, but that's neither here nor there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The True Pundit story that they promoted certainly suggested she meant it seriously. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Did WikiLeaks say it or not? The True Pundit article doesn't conclusively state that she meant it seriously, as far as I can tell. By the way, who says that WikiLeaks promoted a "conspiracy theory"? A random Wikipedia editor, or a reliable source? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, WikiLeaks clearly insinuated that she meant it seriously. Their tweet: "Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, 'it would have been a joke.'". In my opinion, this tweet and the tweet linking to the True Pundit article constitutes promoting the conspiracy theory. I don't know if RS have clearly stated this, we'll have to review the RS to find precise language. BTW, if the concern is about WikiLeaks being portrayed in an unfairly bad light, I feel like we could add more about what RS say their intentions may be. What is their endgame? If their ends are understood their means can be put into perspective. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If this is just your opinion, then it doesn't belong in the "conspiracy theory" section. As far as I know, WikiLeaks doesn't have an "endgame." They're a platform for people to leak information whose publication would be in the public interest. In this case, I don't see how them calling attention to the former Secretary of State saying she might have joked about killing their leader is the same as pushing a "conspiracy theory." -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not "just" my opinion. I am just being honest with you about what I think the facts are. Like I said we'll have to review the RS to find how it is actually reported. It's very clear that WikiLeaks doesn't simply leak information that is in the public interest. The Seth Rich conspiracy wasn't about leaking information for the public interest. I have repeated that they were not simply calling attention to Hillary "saying she might have joked" about drone-striking Assange. They have strongly implied she was serious. If you do not acknowledge that I don't think we can have a good faith discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, WikiLeaks has never leaked anything related to Seth Rich, but I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether WikiLeaks' actions are in the public interest. That's irrelevant to editing the article. WikiLeaks pointed towards the original report, and pointed towards Clinton's non-denial, both of which they probably found important. The sources don't talk about them pushing a "conspiracy theory," which makes this description WP:OR. I'm going to temporarily remove the content. If someone finds sources supporting it's inclusion in the "conspiracy theory" section, or if anyone thinks this is notable enough to include in the "Reception" section, they can add it back in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not talking about whether WikiLeaks leaked information about Seth Rich; I am talking about their goals beyond leaking information. I will repeat: it's worth discussing WikiLeaks' goals in order to put their behavior into perspective. You still have not acknowledged that WikiLeaks strongly implied that Hillary was serious about proposing to drone-strike Assange.
  1. WikiLeaks tweeted links to the True Pundit article about "the made-up claim that Clinton once asked 'Can’t we just drone this guy?' about Julian Assange of WikiLeaks[...]The story was soon amplified by WikiLeaks itself".[43]
  2. WikiLeaks strongly implied Hillary was serious about proposing to drone-strike Assange, which there is no evidence for.[44]
  3. WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to push the True Pundit article.[45][46]
  4. Snopes categorizes Hillary's supposed drone-strike proposal under "Fact Check:Conspiracy Theories".[47]
RS report that WikiLeaks pushed the story. The only question is whether the "made-up claim", "entirely unsubstantiated allegation"[48] can be categorized as a "conspiracy theory". Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
"I am talking about their goals beyond leaking information. I will repeat: it's worth discussing WikiLeaks' goals in order to put their behavior into perspective." WP:NOTFORUM.
Unless there are reliable sources that say that WikiLeaks pushed the "conspiracy theory" that Clinton made a comment about drone striking Assange, then this material will have to be removed from the section on conspiracy theories. All I see are reports that WikiLeaks tweeted about the original report and about Clinton's refusal to rule out that she said it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I will repeat: it's worth [adding discussion to the article of] WikiLeaks' goals in order to put their behavhior into perspective. WikiLeaks promoted the "made-up claim" in a tweet that "went viral". WikiLeaks privately messaged Trump jr. on twitter to push the "made-up claim".

...one of the anti-Clinton rumors that WikiLeaks had urged Trump Jr. to “push” in an October 3, 2016 message was a tweet linking to that unsubstantiated allegation ["that Clinton had once suggested killing Assange in a drone strike"] in an unsigned blog post citing anonymous sources. The blog post includes no documentation of the allegation, but the WikiLeaks tweet linking to it, which Trump Jr. told Assange he did share, included an excerpt from the blog post in which the type was styled to look like a leaked document [...] there was no reason to believe that anonymous blogger had any source at all for the claim [...] Earlier in the campaign, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed had also shared video from 2010 of a Fox News pundit, Bob Beckel, calling for Assange’s assassination, with a caption that incorrectly identified him as a “Hillary Clinton strategist.”[...]WHILE WIKILEAKS HAS undoubtedly facilitated the release of information that is both true and important, it is Assange’s Trump-like willingness to traffic in such unsubstantiated rumors, conspiracy theories, and innuendo not supported by evidence that undermines his claim to be a disinterested publisher, not a political operative.[49]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely worth including. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :45 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive_6&oldid=956146212"