Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Are these necessary?

Here are a few sentences in the article which should be examined:

• "The Guardian wrote that this was at odds with WikiLeaks' statement at the time that Snowden became stranded in Russia after his US passport was revoked". Yes this statement is in the Guardian article. However, a little thought shows that the two facts are not contradictory or at odds with each other. It is quite possible that Snowden did not take the advice that Assange provided about his safest location.
• "'Wired, a technology magazine, observed that the vulnerability made public in the Vault 7 leaks operated by compromising the user's end-point device, not the app's encryption, and that Wikileaks had clarified the disctinction". What is the point of this? It is in a section called "Exaggerated and misleading descriptions of the contents of leaks". The source says "WikiLeaks itself contributed to with a carelessly worded tweet" but then clarified what was meant. It either needs more context or to be removed. There is also some misspelling and an odd use of italics in the section.
• "Most experts and commentators agree that Phineas Fisher was behind the AKP email leak. Fisher said WikiLeaks had told her that the emails were "all spam and crap" but published them anyway despite being asked not to". This sentence does not seem to relate to the subject of the section in which it is located - "Exaggerated and misleading descriptions of the contents of leaks".

Burrobert (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Were going with what the RS wrote about it, so I think its good to keep but if theres a better way to word it go for it

2. I think that was added in the last few days, Im ok with it being deleted. Source was originally there for citation about Wikileaks being criticized and then text added about specifics

3. That fits. Thats the source of the files saying they werent what Wikileaks told the public they were and that Wikileaks knew it. Maybe needs to be rewritten but it fits in that section Softlemonades (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

For 3, AP says the same WikiLeaks was criticized last month after it released what it described as “AKP emails,” a reference to Turkey’s governing Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish acronym AKP. But dissidents’ excitement turned to scorn when they realized the 300,000 documents were little more than a vast collection of junk mail and petitions. https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-technology-wikileaks-africa-b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html to

Erin Cunningham from Washington Post according to vice https://www.vice.com/en/article/aek4np/turkey-erdogan-blocks-wikileaks-after-dump-of-government-akp-emails Softlemonades (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Re Snowden's stranding in Russia: We are not obliged to include everything reliable sources print. We are allowed to use our own judgement and exclude things that don't make sense. The Guardian have published some terrible articles on the topic of Wikileaks and Assange.

Re the AKP emails. We say that Wikileaks published these emails but, afaict, we don't say what Wikileaks said about them. What did Wikileaks say they were and how was its description exaggerated or misleading? Burrobert (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Snowden We can use our judgment and I respect yours. I understand with the guardian, this is by "Damien Gayle and agencies" Ill let you decide what to do or if you want a third opinion first. I wont self revert but I wont re add it if you remove the part you quoted

Your right, Ill look for RS Softlemonades (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Let's see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

1 & 3 are OK to keep. 2 seems already deleted? By the way why are we calling Phineas Fisher a she?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Its what Phineas Fisher does Softlemonades (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see femininity mentioned in that article, but anyway...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Fisher claimed that Ciutat Morta, a Catalan documentary investigating the 4F case inspired her to commit the attack.

Fisher has issued communiques which reference Anarchism and anarchist related content such as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation as well as labeling herself an 'anarchist-revolutionary'. Softlemonades (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I missed that.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Organization or website?

The infobox is a website infobox but the first line says WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organisation and we call them an organisation in the article, they should probably be the same so one should change

And if it is an oranisation what is an an international non-profit? Wikipedia says a non-profit is a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit. International how what? Early reports said stuff like WikiLeaks says it is a nonprofit organization and slowly WikiLeaks says disappeared but there was no information about it

What countrys or jurisdiction are they "a legal entity" in and can we explain what that means? I think Sunshine Press Productions ehf was in Iceland but thats all I can find in reports and search. What other countrys? International where? https://www.info-clipper.com/en/company/iceland/sunshine-press-productions-ehf.isd8a5igc.html http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/sunshine-press-productions-incorporated-in-iceland/trademarks/1404160/

Or are they a website funded by nonprofit Wau Holland and people sending bitcoin?

I think its an organisation, nonprofit needs wp:verification, infobox needs to be organisations not website, and article needs to talk about Sunshine Press because thats what WikiLeaks is Edit: Reply has more sources and thought

but needs discuss and consensus Softlemonades (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WikiLeaks is an organisation. But it is a secretive organisation; it is difficult to get up-to-date information about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If we say whats old info its better than nothing and if it cant be verified it probably doesnt belong. CIA has secrets to and were supposed to verify them. If WikiLeaks cant say ok but we dont assume more than they can say and show us right? Softlemonades (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Better search found more sources

Sunshine Press Productions ehf

My name is Julian Assange and I am a Director of Sunshine Press Productions ehf https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Witness_Statement_Leveson_-_Julian_Assange_-_23_February_2012.pdf

Sunshine Press Productions, ehf. ("Sunshine Press"), a media organization which operates the controversial website WikiLeaks https://casetext.com/case/ehf-v-visa-inc

Sunshine Press er íslenskt rekstrarfélag Wikileaks Sunshine Press is Icelandic management company Wikileaks https://www.dv.is/eyjan/2019/07/11/deilur-um-skiptingu-bota-til-wikileaks-sveinn-andri-faer-tugi-milljona/

It is run by The Sunshine Press https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/06/pass-notes-wikileaks

It is operated by an organisation known as the Sunshine Press https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10757263

Run by Sunshine Press, Wikileaks has received awards https://www.wired.com/2010/03/wikileaks-army/

Official incorporation page with documents? https://www.skatturinn.is/fyrirtaekjaskra/leit/kennitala/6110100280

https://avalonlibrary.net/Julian_Assange_and_Wikileaks/AssangeLeaks/000000-Sunshine-Press-Productions-Financials.pdf

https://www.scribd.com/document/341479410/Sunshine-Press-Productions-Ehf-private-limited-company-aka-Wikileaks

List_of_legal_entity_types_by_country#Iceland says

ehf. einkahlutafélag is an Ltd

sfs. sjálfseignarstofnun would be non-profit organization

WIKILEAK ICT INC

"Sunshine Press Productions ehf" in iceland and "WIKILEAKS ICT INC" for bank transfer on https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwelt/article7214769/Wikileaks-will-sein-eigenes-Geheimnis-lueften.html says wikiLeaks ict was nonprofit in australia but its not in the australian search https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities

WikiLeaks says different things on the same page

WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation and WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press both on https://wikileaks.org/About.html

RS have it both ways, but documents and official registry only show Sunshine Press Productions ehf, and legal documents say Sunshine Press Productions, ehf. ("Sunshine Press"), a media organization which operates the controversial website WikiLeaks and theyre probably the most accurate language. Think the infobox should change Sunshine Press to Sunshine Press Productions ehf and first sentence should add citations and change the beginning a little to

WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) is a website operated by Sunshine Press Productions ehf that published news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources.

Softlemonades (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinions on the suggested edit? Softlemonades (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"published" or "publishes"?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Article says "published" now, I think changed after Talk:WikiLeaks#site_status_in_lead? the Gizmodo source said the last new thing was in 2019

Since, the site slowed down on posting new leaks, and seems to have shared its last collection of previously inaccessible documents in 2019 (its 2021 “Intolerance Network” post was a compilation of already publicly available documents). Softlemonades (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Only thing my suggested edit changes is the first part of the sentence where it says an international non-profit organisation Softlemonades (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Since its been two weeks and the only question was about text thats already there and not the change, Ill make it and add other info about Sunshine Press in Administration and History Softlemonades (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Good.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes made. Please like!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding NGO was good decision, thanks Softlemonades (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Big change to the description of Wikileaks

A recent edit has changed the first sentence from

is an international non-profit organisation

to

WikiLeaks is a website operated by Sunshine Press Productions.

Given the significance of the change, I think it should be discussed here first. Burrobert (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Check the section of the Talk page I linked in the edit summary, Talk:WikiLeaks#Organization_or_website?. I borought it up almost a month ago and got the last input two weeks ago. A few hours before I made the change I replied saying I was gonna Softlemonades (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Didn't notice it at the time. I'll have a look through the discussion and provide comments. Burrobert (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

My first comment is about the decision to use the word "published" (past tense). This indicates that Wikileaks no longer operates. This is not the case:

• The website is still available
• Wikileaks published the Intolerance Network in August 2021
• Wikileaks twitter account still operates and posted today
• Kristinn Hrafnsson still holds the position of editor in chief of Wikileaks.

Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Like I said please look at the discussion above where this came up, thats not a change that was just made. It also had its own section at Talk:WikiLeaks#site_status_in_lead? more than a month ago.

Can we continue discussion from the old ones instead of splitting it? that just makes it more confusing and harder to follow.

This indicates that Wikileaks no longer operates No just that they no longer publish

The website is still available Not all of it, there are sources about that and they were added to the article already. And thats being an archive or library not publishing

Wikileaks published the Intolerance Network in August 2021 Like sources already cited and Wikileaks said, it wasnt a new publication. Their last new leak was 2019 but Intolerance Network was still more than a year and a half ago. Gizmodo quote, WikiLeaks seems to have shared its last collection of previously inaccessible documents in 2019 (its 2021 “Intolerance Network” post was a compilation of already publicly available documents).

Wikileaks twitter account still operates and posted today That has nothing to do with this but we can say that if you want

Kristinn Hrafnsson still holds the position of editor in chief of Wikileaks. Probably but so?

Softlemonades (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Both sides make good points, which I have been hammering for yrs. Let's bring this home. 1. WikiLinks is nebulous and hard to pin down. It is NOT corporation, but Sunshine IS, apparently. People object to this line of argument as OR and anti-Assange. 2. WikiLeaks, though Kristinn is nominally at the helm is no longer publishing major leaks like it used to, i.e., before the 2019 jailing. 3. Petty point-scoring and Template warring has advanced neither the pro or anti camps. Let's vow to let things through, and this yr do better!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

In its heyday WikiLeaks was said to "employ" people, including Sarah Harrison, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Gavin MacFadyen, Israel Shamir, Kristinn, and Assange himself. Assange is no longer editor-in-chief. I once went for a hunt for up-to-date info about WikiLeaks. I could find no current board of directors or advisors. Yet they are soliciting donations. The WikiLeaks website seems to exist to campaign for Assange. There once was a WikiLeaks Party but that folded long time ago. To quote Gorbachev, is this a company or a clown in trousers???--Jack Upland (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have continued the discussion about the choice of the word "published" in the section "site_status_in_lead". Regarding the deletion of the description of Wikileaks as "a non-profit organisation", I will make comments when I have some in the "Organization or website?" section. Burrobert (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-profit organization is a legal category in various jurisdictions and the status should be checked and verified as to whether that's the case. There are many nominal non-profit organizations that pay their personnel oversized and otherwise unsupportable compensation, and on the other hand there are public benefit corporations that do not register for that status. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. We need commentary from an expert in Icelandic law. Over to you, Njal. Or see [1]--Jack Upland (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes made as per source. WikiLeaks is an NGO. Please like!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

site status in lead?

Do we update the lead about the websites status or there most recent activity? Its been at least a month and most of the library is still gone, which is verifiable. Theres secondary and international coverage

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-website-assange-hacked-documents/

https://gizmodo.com/wikileaks-julian-assange-1849813101

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-iphone-privacy-analytics-security-roundup/

https://www.hdblog.it/internet/articoli/n563620/wikileaks-problemi-funzionamento-sito-offline/ Softlemonades (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

yes, of course. WP:BOLD. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the section "Big change to the description of Wikileaks". From that brief discussion the following has been agreed:

• Wikileaks last publication was in August 2021. Gizmodo describes it as a compilation of already publicly available documents. However one wants to paint it, it is activity.
• Wikileaks has a current editor-in-chief and an active Twitter account.

In addition,

• Wikileaks runs a merchandise shop where you can support Julian by buying a "political prisoner" t-shirt or one of the many books written about his ordeal. The shop was operating up to Christmas 2022 but is currently on a break.
• As Jack pointed out, Wikileaks is still accepting donations.

So there is evidence that the Wikileaks organisation is still operating. And afaict, there is no evidence that it is no longer operating.

Regarding the use of the past tense "published" rather than the present tense "publishes", what source are we using to justify the choice? Burrobert (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikileaks last publication was in August 2021 That was making old documents searchable. You cant search them now.

Wikileaks has a current editor-in-chief and an active Twitter account. What does that have to do with whether they still publish leaks?

Wikileaks runs a merchandise shop The shop was operating up to Christmas 2022 but is currently on a break. What does that have to do with whether they still publish leaks?

So there is evidence that the Wikileaks organisation is still operating Project, and evidence from years ago and that the change doesnt say otherwise.

Wikileaks is still accepting donations. They have a page where they list bitcoin addresses, What does that have to do with whether they still publish leaks?

what source are we using to justify the choice? Skyblue and Gizmodo quote, WikiLeaks seems to have shared its last collection of previously inaccessible documents in 2019 (its 2021 “Intolerance Network” post was a compilation of already publicly available documents).

We should say the things theyre still doing but we shouldnt say they still do things they havent done in four years Softlemonades (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So, afaict, we have no source which says Wikileaks no longer publishes. We have a source which states its last publication of "inaccessible documents" was in 2019. The source also mentions that it made another publication in August. Why don't we say that?

We have sources which state that the Wikileaks organisation is still operating. Why don't we say that?

Burrobert (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The source also mentions that it made another publication in August. Why don't we say that? That wasnt publishing a news leak that was making old documents searchable. And not the most recent August

We have sources which state that the Wikileaks organisation is still operating. Why don't we say that? Id ask what sources but the text doesnt say different and no one is saying it should so I dont know what this argues against Softlemonades (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt publishing a news leak So we have a source which says it does things other than publish leaks and has done those other things as recently as August 2021. Why not say that? Other things that the Wikileaks organisation has done include creating a portal which could be used anonymously by whistleblowers to pass documents to Wikileaks. It also decrypted the Collateral damage video and made Clinton's emails searchable in early 2016. It has also spent considerable time defending Julian from legal persecution.

I dont know what this argues against Why not say, as we previously did, that Wikileaks is an organisation that ... "? Burrobert (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion which combines the beset of both worlds. What about using the present perfect tense. If we are talking about the Wikileaks organisation we are using the present tense since it still exists. Regarding the Wikileaks website, we could say something like

WikiLeaks is an NGO owned by Icelandic company Sunshine Press Productions ehf that runs a website that has published news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources.

The present perfect tense describes actions that have happened in the past and which may happen again in the future. Burrobert (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Done Softlemonades (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

James Ball deletion

Burrobert, the source said Assange can, and does, routinely tell obvious lies: WikiLeaks has deep and involved procedures; WikiLeaks was founded by a group of 12 activists, primarily from China

At most it needed clarification Softlemonades (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that you can measure Ball's claim against the statement that is in the article, namely "Its founders and early volunteers were once described as a mixture of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa". Ball's statement does not imply that the statement in the article is untrue. Burrobert (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ball's statement does not imply that the statement in the article is untrue That confuses me Softlemonades (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ball statement is that WikiLeaks was NOT founded by a group of 12 activists, primarily from China. If this were true, the composition of Wikileaks when it was founded could still consist of "a mixture of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa". Burrobert (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Youre right, sorry Softlemonades (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is quitting so hard?

I initially posted this on the Reception of WikiLeaks talk page, but see that similar content is also in the Wikileaks article.

The subsection "2010 internal dissent" contains a lot of resignations. Here is the list:

• Paragraph 1: Domscheit-Berg, Herbert Snorrason, The Architect and Birgitta Jonsdottir resigned.
• Paragraph 2: Daniel Domscheit-Berg, ... told Der Spiegel that he was resigning ... the architect of WikiLeaks' submission platform and four other staffers also broke with Assange
• Paragraph 3 and 4: No resignations.
• Paragraph 5: The Architect left with Domscheit-Berg ... Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old Icelandic university student, resigned ... Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir also left WikiLeaks ... According to the British newspaper, The Independent, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left the website during 2010.

Here is the tally:

Resignation tally

Person	# resignations
Domscheit-Berg	3
Snorrason	2
The Architect	3
Jonsdottir	2
Anonymous staffers	4+12 = 16

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

Talk page headers

I've just done a slight tweak to the bot auto-archiving period, which is now 20 days, and fixed the order of the talk page headers per WP:TALKORDER. However, do we really need quite so many talk headers on this page? Banner blindness is a thing, and there are a lot of banners on this page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Why generally

Burrobert, you asked Why "generally"?

I think it was because its founder and it was founded by implies he was the only one, but things like Its founders and early volunteers were once described as a mixture of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa say there are others Softlemonades (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we know of anyone else who has been described as one of the founders of Wikileaks? Assange's page says he "founded WikiLeaks in 2006". Burrobert (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

John Young maybe? And I guess anyone else who was on the mailing list like Daniel Ellsberg? But Assange is the main founder

I just saw saw the question and thought Id try to throw my two pennies in Softlemonades (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"Reception"

The massive "Reception" section here contains a huge amount of factual description about the subject of the article, along with accounts of its reception. For example, "Collaboration with Trump campaign" factually describes that collaboration and includes almost nothing that would count as "reception". "Buying and selling leaks" is mostly factual description, with brief mentions of criticisms arising. Shouldn't most of this material just be part of the history? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The Architect

@Burrobert Im not sure what youre looking for. I dont know if RS say staff member, ill check again Softlemonades (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We introduce this character called The Architect without providing any background. We don't even mention why he is called The Architect. Readers should be informed of this person's connection to WikiLeaks when they first meet him. Burrobert (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

How can it do that better? The paragraph talks about how he joined and what he did Softlemonades (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

He was a Wikileaks programmer who was known to Wikileaks insiders as The Architect according to the sources we use. Burrobert (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverted to version of page prior to the major changes

A number of major changes to the page were made recently involving deletion and moving of text. Some of the content that was removed was long-standing. I disagreed with some of the changes and replaced the delated text. Unfortunately, the editor who made the changes restored their version of the page. I have returned the page to the state it was in prior to the major changes. Let's talk about the proposed changes here on talk prior to making them. Burrobert (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I brought it up over a week ago. I cited it many of the changes and linked to it Softlemonades (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's go through them one by one. Where do you want to start? Burrobert (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I gave examples. Maybe start with them in the original discussion instead of starting something new that makes it seem like I didnt talk about the proposed changes here on talk prior to making them because I did Softlemonades (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Backlash

@Burrobert I think Backlash is better because it includes more and lets us include political pressure that made them change hosts and deal with banking issues. The details belong in Administration but we should mention it in History. Its also more neutral and description because low-level attempts to smear WikiLeaks arent the same as campaigns to discredit

Its also not a accurate title because the Team Themis "campaign" never happened Softlemonades (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Backlash" does not capture the nature of the programme against WikiLeaks. "Campaigns to discredit WikiLeaks" is closer to the intent of the actions. Happy to discuss alternatives that cover the various actions by Bank of America, Palantir, HB Gary etc. remembering that BoA were acting in advance of some assumed WikiLeaks actions. Can replace "Campaign" with an alternative such as "Plans". for example.

I have undone my edit about things that didn't happen and added a link for readers to get more info. Burrobert (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Actions against WikiLeaks? That captures the nature of the programme and includes the Banking Blockade

I have two problems with the discredit WikiLeaks part for the heading

1 The Themis plan was more than that

2 People see the heading out of context and make assumptions but dont read it Softlemonades (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to consider alternative titles that describe the actions being described. "Backlash" does not fit.

People see the heading out of context and make assumptions but dont read it What inaccurate assumptions would people draw from the current heading? What inaccurate assumptions would people draw from the "Backlash" heading? Burrobert (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to consider alternative titles that describe the actions being described. "Backlash" does not fit. What about Actions against WikiLeaks like I said it fits everything and lets us include mention of other things. "Campaigns to discredit wikileaks" doesnt work as a title in History when the campaigns didnt happen.

People will assume a lot of things are "campaigns to discredit wikileaks" that arent without reading the section. Anything bad or negative becomes a "campaign to discredit wikileaks". Softlemonades (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

For now Im going to change the subsection heading to Actions against WikiLeaks and split it into Campaigns to discredit wikileaks and Other.

That will let us keep other things like bring up hosting and banking problems or anything else, and the heading you think is important but people dont see it without going to the section where the information is so theyre less likely to assume things without information Softlemonades (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Information review task force

Im going to revert the recent addition because RSes contradict Cockburn about the Information review task force https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=prev&oldid=1146701784

The Pentagon set up a 120-person Information Review Task Force originally to look at Afghanistan war documents released by WikiLeaks, and to identify people who were named in the intelligence reports. and A defense official said the task force was identifying Iraqis who are named in the documents, and who might need protection or assistance if their names are released. Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304741404575564613428879600 Softlemonades (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Trim and re organise

Like in Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_things I think we should trim it some especially Publications and List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks. And move what we can from Publications into History and from Reception into the narrative

Self reverted example

I want to take things like In an August 2010 open letter, the non-governmental organisation Reporters Without Borders praised WikiLeaks' past usefulness in exposing "serious violations of human rights and civil liberties" but criticised the organisation over a perceived absence of editorial control, stating "Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that WikiLeaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing." back into the narrative, expand what we have in Administration about editorial.

Things like When asked to join their initial advisory board, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists declined and told TIME that "they have a very idealistic view of the nature of leaking and its impact. They seem to think that most leakers are crusading do-gooders who are single-handedly battling one evil empire or another." and In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden (who is responsible for the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures) in leaving Hong Kong. Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks activist, accompanied Snowden on the flight. Scott Shane of The New York Times stated that the WikiLeaks involvement "shows that despite its shoestring staff, limited fund-raising from a boycott by major financial firms, and defections prompted by Mr. Assange's personal troubles and abrasive style, it remains a force to be reckoned with on the global stage." are just in the wrong place

Some have long quotes that can be rephrased and the full quotes go in Reception of WikiLeaks

OK if i try? Softlemonades (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Im going to try since theres weak consensus Softlemonades (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert Can you say what some of the problems were?

Things like Weir were trimmed because he also criticised the release Most of what is contained in the 34 base documents from Peter-Service, a private St. Petersburg digital company that provides “solutions” for Russian telecom giants and state agencies, has long been known and appears to be within the framework of Russia’s fairly draconian national security legislation., so the praise wasnt a fair representation, and the rest of the paragraph still works even if it needs ce.

Or why a statement from Assange about the Yemen War, not the documents, needs to be restored to the publication section?

Or why you restored stuff about the FBi investigation into Clintons emails without responding to the reason I gave for removing it in the edit history? Softlemonades (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It's probably better if you explain what you want to change. The examples you mentioned are a long way short of the changes you made. I count 18 separate edits that you made after mentioning you wanted to make changes. Start with your initial change here [2]. It is very difficult to follow what you are doing because you are moving and adding in the same edit as well as creating new sub-sections. Burrobert (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I couldve gone into more detail if anyone responded and asked but no one did, and no one ever lists every change they might make on Talk before doing it. But you did also revert things that had reasons given and you didnt give a reason why, like in the questions I asked above. If you could answer, thatd be good

1 Finance is a part of the administration of wikileaks

2. Move text to section about advisory board, harrison has a less gross denial, rigged text is in used twice, Post quote isnt needed, dont need exact Panama Papers tweet text, summarise long quote on privacy violation, cohen sony quote is speculation, sunlight foundation quote can be shortened and still understood, most of whats trimmed is in other pages

3. Summarise NSA spying publication, less names but same meaning

4. Move things that arent publications to the history section and legal section, move authenticity to publications because thats what its about, removed a tweet from publications, removed speculation about Russia from Macron emails because its better in context on the main page, changed lists of operating systems and phones to general descriptions in Vault 7, most of whats trimmed is in other pages

5. Blockade should just be part of the main finance narrative so it doesnt just sound like the fundraising stuff is random

ill look at the other edits but those are the first 5 Softlemonades (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

6. clarify when wikileaks decided to publish

7. remove things published before wikileaks, that fail 10YT, or arent relevant like facts about stuxnet, put in time line order

8. move vault 7 reaction from publications to legal case and change the source to the original and attribute the statements 9. Move description of the document wikileaks published to publications

10. remove text unsupported by source and not relevant to wikileaks publications, edit summary wikileaks tweeted a leak to search results doesnt support text, article doesnt mention wikileaks, no sign wikileaks was the cause for fbi stuff

11. "which they claim to be the first batch" makes no sense, no accusations it was a state party and we identify who experts agree the source was, cyber attack doesnt pass 10YT, Weir quote isnt needed and he was also negative so its not a fair represntation, and the other russia spy files quote isnt needed either Softlemonades (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

12. accidentally removed "The document contained a plan to attack Wikileaks' trustworthiness", remove Manning Lamo chat logs theyre not part of WikiLeaks publications, remove Assange statement about thats about Yemen war and not about publication,

12. note
restore The document contained a plan to attack Wikileaks' trustworthiness buy identifying and exposing their sources to "deter others from using WikiLeaks". right before In April, a classified video

13. trimmed criticism and info from cultural references that belongs on their main pages

14. added former prosecutors view of insurance 2010 files and Assange because it might be relevant to the case, ce to clarify

15. replaced filing complaint with the end of the case

16. add who registered the domain, move text on founders and early volunteers to section for staff and founders, move text on wiki submissions to section for submissions, remove internet cut off from staff section, remove unsupported mention of additional charges as reason for thordarson dismissal

17. add aaron swartz to later years in history Softlemonades (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It is still hard to follow what you want to do from your summaries. Let's start with your first point about finance. I don't object to moving finance to Administration. I assume you are straight copying without deleting or adding anything? The second point is more complex. What text do you want to delete? Are you adding anything? I will be off-line for a while so will catch up with your answers when I return later today. Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Reasons for moving things: Theyre in the wrong section or will work better if put in one place for context, especially criticism.

We say things like WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest" (and excluded "material that is already publicly available"). This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records" but leave all the examples for other places. Reception has a lot that could be WP:Criticism#Integrated throughout the article that lets the reader see what else has happened and if its changed.

diff by edit type, hope i got it all right

Ignoring minor ce

Move without deleting or adding anything: Finance to administration as subsection, merge financial blockade into finance because the time line doesnt make sense without it, move "founders and early volunteers" to staff section, move Aftergood advisory board comment from reception to staff section with rest of advisory board, move wiki submissions sentence to submissions section, helping Snowden and internet cut off from publications to later years history because theyre not publications, merge purpose to administration and editorial because they overlap, put early publications in timeline order, Twitter order and CIA response from publications to legal section, authenticity to publications because thats what its about, "harm-minimization policy" and Reporters Without Borders comment from reception to editorial section

Trim things that either dont belong or are extra details covered on other pages: Assange internet cut off from staff section but it can be summarised if something is needed but its covered in other places, early publications that wikileaks didnt publish first like climategate emails or that didnt pass 10YT like SEnator Coleman contributors, rephrase Espionnage Élysée rest of NSA spying series to be shorter its the example i gave to start, clinton email text unsupported by source and not relevant to wikileaks publications source said wikileaks tweeted a leak to search results and doesnt mention wikileaks and theres no sign wikileaks was the cause for fbi stuff, remove something wikileaks tweeted from publications, an Assange statement about the Yemen war and not the publication isnt relevant the publications section and if it is we need to make it clear, mentions of Russia in Macron emails, unbalanced quote in Russia Spy Files and uneeded quote in Russia Spy Files, gross Assange 2016 quote because Harrison is enough, extra mention of Trump message, Washington Post mention of bad timing for Clinton and speculation about Podesta timing, exact text of tweet already described, repeat description of

US position, Sony Cohen quote on privacy violations, criticism and info from cultural references that belongs on their main pages

Add: John Young to register domain, Aaron Swartz to later years history, added former prosecutors view of insurance 2010 files and Assange because it might be relevant to the case

Summarise: lists of phones, operating systems, names of leaders, list of privacy violations,

Need to fix: Note 12 Softlemonades (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start with the moves since they are the least contentious. I don't think I changed any of your decisions to move text around. The only move that I made myself was to move the "Insurance Files#2011" subsection into the "Unredacted cable release" subsection since it was not about Insurance files. Are you able to move the text around to your satisfaction first without adding or deleting anything? Once you have done that, we should find it easier to discuss what you want to add, delete or rewrite. Burrobert (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The only move that I made myself was to move the "Insurance Files#2011" subsection into the "Unredacted cable release" subsection since it was not about Insurance files It was used as an insurance and back up file Wikileaks supporters disseminated the encrypted files to mirror sites in December 2010 after Wikileaks experienced cyber-attacks

Are you able to move the text around to your satisfaction first without adding or deleting anything? Ok I will look for time Softlemonades (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)yo

The 2011 subsection appears to be about the events that led up to WikiLeaks' publication of the unredacted Diplomatic cables. A lot of the material is relevant to that section. The dissemination of the cables to mirror sites could, I suppose, count as an insurance file, in the sense of a back up. Comments from the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald and mention of Crytome's version of the files don't seem to relate to insurance files, and would be better placed in the Unredacted subsection. Anyway, it's something that can be discussed somewhere down the track. Burrobert (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

that should be done

ok, i left the 2011 insurance and cable stuff until later Softlemonades (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I restored your edits until i find a source that call it insurance Softlemonades (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

and i restored some other edits you made to things i added before like aaron swartz because i agree with the changes you made to them so i think we agree for now Softlemonades (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Like Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive_9#Why_is_quitting_so_hard? says repeat mentions in 2010 internal dissent should be trimmed too Softlemonades (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to look at next Softlemonades (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am happy with things as they are but you were interested in changing some of the content. What did you want to add/delete/reword? Burrobert (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying from before

Trim things that either dont belong or are extra details covered on other pages: Assange internet cut off from staff section but it can be summarised if something is needed but its covered in other places, early publications that wikileaks didnt publish first like climategate emails or that didnt pass 10YT like SEnator Coleman contributors, rephrase Espionnage Élysée rest of NSA spying series to be shorter its the example i gave to start, clinton email text unsupported by source and not relevant to wikileaks publications source said wikileaks tweeted a leak to search results and doesnt mention wikileaks and theres no sign wikileaks was the cause for fbi stuff, remove something wikileaks tweeted from publications, an Assange statement about the Yemen war and not the publication isnt relevant the publications section and if it is we need to make it clear, mentions of Russia in Macron emails, unbalanced quote in Russia Spy Files and uneeded quote in Russia Spy Files, gross Assange 2016 quote because Harrison is enough, extra mention of Trump message, Washington Post mention of bad timing for Clinton and speculation about Podesta timing, exact text of tweet already described, repeat description of US position, Sony Cohen quote on privacy violations, criticism and info from cultural references that belongs on their main pages

Add: John Young to register domain, Aaron Swartz to later years history, added former prosecutors view of insurance 2010 files and Assange because it might be relevant to the case

Summarise: lists of phones, operating systems, names of leaders, list of privacy violations Softlemonades (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

going to do this now because it wasnt part of the original and i dont want to forget and itll make it easier to read Softlemonades (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a wall. Let's go through the changes one by one. What text do you want to remove related to "Assange internet cut off ..."? Burrobert (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The text about Assanges internet being cut off thats in the staff section, like it said. His access to the internet was cut off by Ecuador in March 2018 after he tweeted that Britain was about to conduct a propaganda war against Russia relating to the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Ecuador said he had broken a commitment "not to issue messages that might interfere with other states" and Assange said he was "exercising his right to free speech". Softlemonades (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did you want to remove it? Burrobert (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Its off topic to the staff section and dont need the long quotes for what is on topic Softlemonades (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree it does not relate to Staffing. Given that the info is about Assange rather than Wikileaks and the information is contained in Assange's bio, it is reasonable to remove it from the Wikileaks article. Burrobert (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Next, which text (and why) do you want to delete related to "early publications that wikileaks didnt publish first like climategate emails or that didnt pass 10YT like SEnator Coleman contributors"? I can't see where the source says Wikileaks was not the first to publish the emails of climate scientists. What does "didnt pass 10YT" mean? Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Timeline_of_the_initial_incident makes it clear they werent the first the publish it, another example is the first BNP release. And they pass WP:10YT for List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks but not the main entry for wikileaks. Softlemonades (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

i tried to give specifics for the rest to make it easier to reply to them i hope it helps

rephrase Espionnage Élysée rest of NSA spying series to be shorter its the self reverted example i gave to start

clinton email text unsupported by source and not relevant to wikileaks publications source said wikileaks tweeted a leak to search results and doesnt mention wikileaks and theres no sign wikileaks was the cause for fbi stuff The emails were selected in terms of their relevance to the Iraq War and were apparently timed to precede the release of the UK government's Iraq Inquiry report. The emails were a major point of discussion during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, requiring an FBI investigation which decided that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed against her.

remove something wikileaks tweeted from publications WikiLeaks had also tweeted a link to a database which contained sensitive information, such as the Turkish Identification Number, of approximately 50 million Turkish citizens, including nearly every female voter in Turkey. The information first appeared online in April of the same year and was not in the files uploaded by WikiLeaks, but in files described by WikiLeaks as "the full data for the Turkey AKP emails and more" which was archived by Emma Best, who then removed it when the personal data was discovered.

an Assange statement about the Yemen war and not the publication isnt relevant to the publication other than when he said it In a statement accompanying the release of the "Yemen Files", Assange said about the US involvement in the Yemen war: "The war in Yemen has produced 3.15 million internally displaced persons. Although the United States government has provided most of the bombs and is deeply involved in the conduct of the war itself reportage on the war in English is conspicuously rare".

mentions of Russia in Macron emails, it explains on the main page and basically says nothing Cybersecurity experts initially believed that groups linked to Russia were involved in this attack. The Kremlin denied any involvement. The head of the French cyber-security agency, ANSSI, later said that they did not have evidence connecting the hack with Russia, saying that the attack was so simple, that "we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country."

unbalanced quote in Russia Spy Files and uneeded quote in Russia Spy Files According to Moscow-based journalist Fred Weir, "experts say it casts a timely spotlight on the vast surveillance operations mounted by Russian security services." and James Andrew Lewis, a vice-president at Center for Strategic and International Studies, said they were "tricks that the Russians were willing to give up."

gross Assange 2016 quote because Harrison is enough In a 2017 interview by Amy Goodman, Julian Assange said that choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea. "Personally, I would prefer neither." If we need Assange there are less gross quotes

extra mention of Trump Jr message in Reception, theres a sub section for it so its not needed

Washington Post mention of bad timing for Clinton and speculation about Podesta timing The Washington Post noted that the leaks came at an important sensitive moment in the Clinton campaign, as she was preparing to announce her vice-presidential pick and unite the party behind her. and WikiLeaks explained its actions in a 2017 statement to Foreign Policy: "WikiLeaks schedules publications to maximize readership and reader engagement. During distracting media events such as the Olympics or a high profile election, unrelated publications are sometimes delayed until the distraction passes but never are rejected for this reason." On 7 October 2016, an hour after the media had begun to dedicate wall-to-wall coverage of the revelation that Trump had bragged on video about sexually harassing women, WikiLeaks began to release emails hacked from the personal account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Podesta suggested that the emails were timed to deflect attention from the Trump tapes.

exact text of tweet already described The WikiLeaks Twitter account tweeted, "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and [George] Soros"

repeat description of US position The US intelligence agencies said that the hacks were consistent with the methods of Russian-directed efforts, and that people high up within the Kremlin were likely involved

Sony Cohen quote on privacy violations He noted that the willingness of WikiLeaks to publish information of this type encourages hacking and cyber theft: "With ready and willing amplifiers, what's to deter the next cyberthief from stealing a company's database of information and threatening to send it to Wikileaks if a list of demands aren't met?"

criticism and info from cultural references that belongs on their main pages It was released for free online to counter The Fifth Estate[further explanation needed] which was released at the same time WikiLeaks released a complete, annotated transcript of the film prior to its release. WikiLeaks criticised the film for containing dozens of factual errors and instances of "sleight of hand". It also criticised the film's depiction of Chelsea Manning's decision to leak US military and diplomatic documents as "a failure of character, rather than a triumph of conscience". WikiLeaks leaked the full script of the film prior to its release and criticised both books on which the film was based as "inaccurate and libellous". WikiLeaks said that the film was "careful to avoid most criticism of US foreign policy actually revealed by WikiLeaks" and covered "almost none of the evidence WikiLeaks published that year of serious abuses within the US military and the State Department". It said the film contained fabrications which had the effect of obscuring the benefits of WikiLeaks' releases and demonising Assange. Softlemonades (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This may take a while. I will continue going in order. This will be my last comment for the moment.

Both the Climate and Coleman publications are mentioned at List of material published by WikiLeaks so we could remove them. Not sure about the BNP list. It apparently only briefly appeared elsewhere so presumably Wikileaks was the main publisher.

At the top of the Publications section, we need to link to List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks and it would be useful to tell the reader that this is not a complete list of Wikileaks publications.

Next, what was the suggested change related to the phrase "rephrase Espionnage Élysée rest of NSA spying series to be shorter" and why did you want to shorten the text? I could not locate the example you mentioned. Burrobert (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This was the self reverted diff I linked to about the NSA spying series https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=prev&oldid=1142870665

At the top of the Publications section, we need to link to List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks and it would be useful to tell the reader that this is not a complete list of Wikileaks publications. It links now with redirect, and agreed. The only templates I can find tell people to expand the list on this page and no way to tell them to go to the main page so I dont know how to do it Softlemonades (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, presumably the term "Espionnage Élysée" only relates to espionage against the French government. If so, we should separate out the other countries into another sentence. Secondly, if we reduce the text in the way you suggest we should link to the part of the List article where readers can find more info: E.g. "... which showed that NSA spied on the French, ...".

Yes, it seems we have linked to the List article using an alias. Don't know how to add free text at the top of an article but surely there is a way.

I will leave you with this comment: regarding the Clinton emails, what part is not supported by a source? I think that WikiLeaks' creation of a searchable database of the emails is significant. If it is not mentioned here, it needs to be added to the List article. The comment regarding the FBI investigation (like the comment about a "pro-Assad conspiracy" at the List article) is not related to WikiLeaks and can be removed. Burrobert (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

we should link to the part of the List article where readers can find more info good idea

Im not arguing for the mention of search to be removed. But The emails were selected in terms of their relevance to the Iraq War and were apparently timed to precede the release of the UK government's Iraq Inquiry report. isnt supported. The article it cites talks about a tweet that linked to search results about the Iraq War. That doesnt match the statement, and we already say they were made searchable During the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton from her personal mail server while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016. WikiLeaks also created a search engine to allow the public to search through Clinton's emails. and I agree that stays Softlemonades (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Clinton's emails, it appears there are two separate events being described. It seems WikiLeaks published a searchable database in April 2016 and then in July published a selection of these emails related to the Iraq War. Wikileaks said it was releasing them ahead of the Chilcott report and The Hill mentioned that it followed an earlier statement by Assange that Clinton should be indicted by the FBI but wouldn't be indicted while Loretta Lynch was head of the DoJ. We have covered the initial release of the searchable database. The question is whether we should mention the separate publication of Clinton's Iraq War emails and the related comments by WikiLeaks and Assange.

Going back to the NSA spying, which we have not yet finalised, the choices are to summarise with a wikilink to the expanded content, or to leave as is. If we leave as is, I suggest removing the redundant phrase "but not limited to". Burrobert (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems WikiLeaks published a searchable database in April 2016 and then in July published a selection of these emails related to the Iraq War. Wikileaks updated the emails a lot of times I think like https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/ is listed

Im fine with summary and link Softlemonades (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• So summary and link for the NSA spying.
• Regarding the Iraq War subset of Clinton's emails, we could rewrite it to fit in with the source and transfer the text to the List article. The searchable data base of Clinton's emails and the Iraq War subset are not currently mentioned in the List article. We could again include a link here to the List article. If other updates by WikiLeaks of the Clinton emails have been covered by reliable sources, we could also include those within the List article.
• Next, the tweet by WikiLeaks about some Turkish data can be removed. Burrobert (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Done

  Let me think. For later

  Done Softlemonades (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Yemen comment by Assange, I think we should keep it. The relevance to the article is that it gives Wikileaks' motivation for the publication. It also provides Assange's comparison betweeen WikiLeaks and other media organisations in relation to the Yemen War.Burrobert (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the second sentence of the quote? And I think List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks#Yemen_files should have more details than the main page Softlemonades (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I suggest keeping the second sentence here and transferring the full text to the List article, which currently only mentions the publication. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Macron emails, the situation seems to be similar to the Wikileaks tweet about the Turkish documents. WikiLeaks tweeted a link to some documents which were hosted by someone else. Should we remove the text completely? Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Macron emails, the situation seems to be similar to the Wikileaks tweet about the Turkish documents. WikiLeaks tweeted a link to some documents which were hosted by someone else. Should we remove the text completely? No because they also made them searchable which needs to be added https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics-wikileaks-idUSKBN1AG1TZ

For Russia Spy Files, Weir is critical too so his quote isnt balanced for his article and the second quote repeats the sentence it Softlemonades (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

they also made them searchable which needs to be added That has not previously been mentioned in the WikiLeaks article. If Wikileaks published something that was originally published elsewhere, doesn't that make the situation similar to the Climate and Coleman publications, which we have consigned to the List article?

Weir is critical too ... Weir's article is generally positive towards the publication, but, if there is an aspect not covered in the current quote, suggest an addition that would fill the void.

What does "the second quote repeats the sentence it" mean? Burrobert (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Macron, they made it searchable and said they verified them so its like the Clinton emails, should we remove that?

Weir, ok

Sorry should have said the sentence before it. They use the same source so its just a repeat in other words Some suggested that Spy Files Russia was an approved release by the Russian government meant to shield them from criticism of collusion with WikiLeaks after the 2016 US presidential election. James Andrew Lewis, a vice-president at Center for Strategic and International Studies, said they were "tricks that the Russians were willing to give up." Softlemonades (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove the Clinton emails although we still need to rewrite the sentence "The emails were selected in terms of their relevance to the Iraq War and were apparently timed to precede the release of the UK government's Iraq Inquiry report". If you think the Macron emails are similar to the Clinton emails then give both a similar treatment. This would mean removing a lot of the text which either does not relate to WikiLeaks, or which has no informational value: e.g. "The documents were first relayed on the 4chan forum and by pro-Trump Twitter accounts" and "Some experts have said that the WikiLeaks Twitter account played a key role in publicising the leaks through the hashtag #MacronLeaks just some three-and-a-half hours after the first tweet with the hashtag appeared. The campaign stated that false documents were mixed in with real ones, and that "the ambition of the authors of this leak is obviously to harm the movement En Marche! in the final hours before the second round of the French presidential election." France's Electoral Commission described the action as a "massive and coordinated piracy action." ". It would also mean rewriting the text to say that WikiLeaks published a searchable archive of emails and verified the email addresses.

Are you suggesting removing one of the two sentences that you quoted? Burrobert (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The macron sentences I quoted should go. The campaign stated that false documents were mixed in with real ones is relevant to wikileaks verifying some of the emails and not others and the ambition of the authors of this leak is obviously to harm the movement En Marche! in the final hours before the second round of the French presidential election." France's Electoral Commission described the action as a "massive and coordinated piracy action." is about the motive for leak like Assanges Yemen quote

Cut James Andrew Lewis, a vice-president at Center for Strategic and International Studies, said they were "tricks that the Russians were willing to give up." and move Weir to List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks#Spy_Files_Russia Softlemonades (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removal of the Macron sentences "Cybersecurity experts initially believed ... They could be in any country" since they aren't providing any useful information.

Why is the phrase "The documents were first relayed on the 4chan forum and by pro-Trump Twitter accounts" relevant to this article?

Assange's comments about the Yemen release relate to why WikiLeak's publication was significant and is a comparison between WikiLeaks and the corporate media. The comment beginning "the ambition of the authors of this leak ... " relate to the the purported motives of someone unrelated to WikiLeaks.

Why do you want to remove Weir's assessment of the Spy Files Russia? Burrobert (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I made some edits before I saw this. will edit again.

Weir, I think adding everything would be too much for this article so put it on the list Softlemonades (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think adding Weir pushes the article beyond its limits. We could remove all opinion about the release and say "In September 2017, WikiLeaks released "Spy Files Russia," revealing "how a St. Petersburg-based technology company called Peter-Service helped state entities gather detailed data on Russian cellphone users, part of a national system of online surveillance called System for Operative Investigative Activities (SORM)". Burrobert (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We could remove all opinion about the release Thats probably better Softlemonades (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. I think the next item is the quote from Assange about Trump and Clinton which you described as gross. I think we need to indicate that Assange did not like Trump, since we say later that "Assange expressed a preference for a Republican victory". If you can find a more acceptable quote which does that then I would be happy to replace the current one with the new one. Burrobert (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What if In a 2017 interview by Amy Goodman, Julian Assange said about choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, "personally, I would prefer neither." ? Softlemonades (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. It does the same job. Burrobert (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok next is mention of the Trump Jr messages before the section about them and the speculation about Podesta timing Softlemonades (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is some duplication about rejecting the results of the 2016 presidential election which can be removed. I don't have any objection to the removal of the sentences you highlighted about the "Washington Post mention of bad timing for Clinton and speculation about Podesta timing". Burrobert (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think next is removing the Cohen quote about Sony and summarising the long An analysis by the Associated Press found that WikiLeaks had in one of its mass-disclosures published "the personal information of hundreds of people – including sick children, rape victims and mental health patients". WikiLeaks has named teenage rape victims, and outed an individual arrested for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia. Some of WikiLeaks' cables "described patients with psychiatric conditions, seriously ill children or refugees". An analysis of WikiLeaks' Saudi cables "turned up more than 500 passport, identity, academic or employment files ... three dozen records pertaining to family issues in the cables – including messages about marriages, divorces, missing children, elopements and custody battles. Many are very personal, like the marital certificates that proclaims whether the bride was a virgin. Others deal with Saudis who are deeply in debt, including one man who says his wife stole his money. One divorce document details a male partner's infertility. Others identify the partners of women suffering from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and Hepatitis C." section, its full of quotes we dont need we can descibe it generally Softlemonades (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The mention of the Sony hack may take readers by surprise since we don't mention it in the list of Wikileaks publications on this page and don't link to the wikipage which describes the hack. WikiLeaks publication of the searchable database of the Sony documents is similar to the creation of a searchable database for the Clinton emails. The documents were not initially published by WikiLeaks. So we need to explain this firstly, then perhaps give a brief synopsis of Cohen's opinion. Returning to the Clinton emails for a moment, we still need to fix the sentence "The emails were selected in terms of their relevance to the Iraq War and were apparently timed to precede the release of the UK government's Iraq Inquiry report". I mentioned above that this sentence relates to a selection of material published after the initial database was released. I suggested that we should make this clear. I will make the necessary adjustment unless you have an objection. Burrobert (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

mentioned above that this sentence relates to a selection of material published after the initial database was released. I suggested that we should make this clear. They did several releases of it in batches or whatever

I will make the necessary adjustment unless you have an objection. Go ahead, I might adjust

The mention of the Sony hack may take readers by surprise since we don't mention it in the list of Wikileaks publications on this page and don't link to the wikipage which describes the hack. WikiLeaks publication of the searchable database of the Sony documents is similar to the creation of a searchable database for the Clinton emails. I think Cohen can just be cut moved to the other WikiLeaks pages

So we need to explain this firstly, then perhaps give a brief synopsis of Cohen's opinion. I think we can explain with a few words and the right wiki link, if youre okay with trying that I can edit it Softlemonades (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, whats next? Softlemonades (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Did we miss "exact text of tweet already described" and "repeat description of US position"? The WikiLeaks tweet does contain information not mentioned in the previous sentence. The sentence beginning "The US intelligence agencies said that the hacks ... " does provide the same info as the prior sentence and comes from the same source so is unnecessary. Burrobert (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok to trim? Softlemonades (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. I'll let you know if there is an issue. Burrobert (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

ok done Softlemonades (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Next are the cultural references. I will go through them one by one starting with Mediastan. You placed a "further explanation needed" tag against this entry. Does that mean you intend to expand the text? The content already exists on the Mediastan page however you placed a "primary source" tag against the reference used there. Can I suggest you replace the reference on that page with the non-primary reference used on the WikiLeaks page? Burrobert (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Mediastan gives an incomplete explanation on the Wikileaks page, and didnt know what other tag to put there. But I think it should be cut and we leave the controverseies about the films on their pages.

Ok Ill look at the source Softlemonades (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps just go ahead and make the redactions that you have indicated above for the Cultural references section. I'll let you know if there is an issue. Can you make sure that anything you remove is in the article for the film/book/musical etc. that it relates to before you remove it. If it isn't, can you copy it across please? Burrobert (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. The exact text isnt in those articles but they cover it in more detail. Ill make sure nothing goes lost Softlemonades (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok thats done and I checked to make sure the quotes, sources and info trimmed was in the main articles. The only text that should be gone are just small wording differences Softlemonades (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Afaict we are at the end of the list that you proposed. There are a few issues that were put to one side. Burrobert (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think those things are stuff like insurance and the cables release. We should probably start new topics for those. but im not rushing. We made a lot of good changes but its a lot and even with the Talk and step by step we should probably make sure its WP:STABLE Softlemonades (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Yes, create a new section for each of the items that were postponed whenever you are ready. Burrobert (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

References

European Commission complaint

@Burrobert I remembered one thing we forgot about, replacing In July 2011, WikiLeaks filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard with the European Commission. with In November 2012, the European Union's European Commission said they wouldn't open a formal investigation into Mastercard and Visa and blocking donations for WikiLeaks because it was unlikely to have violated EU anti-trust rules. because its more updated.

But with fixed citation, it broke when I copied it Softlemonades (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Softlemonades (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. The sources differ on who lodged the complaint. Reuters says WikiLeaks and the Guardian says DataCell. Burrobert (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Legal status?

I think this heading should be changed to "Legal issues" or something. The section is about the criminality of Julian Assange and others, not the legal status of the NGO as such. Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, "Legal status" is confusing and sounds like it should be under Administration, which it doesnt. I wanted to change it but couldnt think of what would be good. "Legal issues" sounds perfect Softlemonades (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed it for now because your suggestion is clearer

Use of leaked documents might need to move, Im not sure Softlemonades (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikia

Im going to remove Despite some public confusion, related to the fact both sites use the "wiki" name and website design template, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia are not affiliated. Wikia, a for-profit corporation affiliated loosely with the Wikimedia Foundation, purchased several WikiLeaks-related domain names as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.

1 public confusion was early days

2 both sites use the "wiki" name and website design template Wikileaks doesnt use the wiki template

3 The domains were given to Wikileaks WP:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia#Domain name registration history

If it gets rewritten and added back to History thats ok, but it doesnt belong in Administration and not like it is now Softlemonades (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Moneybookers

@Burrobert If you want to clarify thats fine we shouldnt say its a true accusation but the vague money laundering statement is important and relevant, and when the blacklist was challenged at the end of the article they said Asked how this could be reconciled with the references in the correspondence to a blacklist, it said: "We stick with our original statement." Softlemonades (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Include both if they like: first give the text of the initial letter and then mention that, after contact by Assange, Moneybrokers said the accounts were closed because ... " Burrobert (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So we dont make the article even more bigger, we should keep the letter in the Financial blockade and just say accusations and blacklists watchlists without saying money laundering in the Legal issues, so the legal issue is mentioned but not out of context accusation of crime Softlemonades (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing to leave the text as it is or do you have an alternative wording in mind? Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I wasnt clear.

Legal issues I think is good. Maybe move from Legal issues in Australia to just Legal issues since it talks about US too

I think give both like you said first give the text of the initial letter and then mention that, after contact by Assange, Moneybrokers said the accounts were closed because ... " but just in Financial blockade, not Legal issues. So we dont put the letter in two times Softlemonades (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ownership structure in lead

In seeking to summarise the most important points in the article in fluid language, there is little utility in including the nature of the ownership structure of Wikileaks in the first sentence. Sunshine Press Productions does not have a page of its own, so ought not to be wikilinked, especially in the lead (see MOS:LEADLINK). It was created and exists entirely to operate Wikileaks. It was created when Wikileaks had already been operating for more than three years (see e.g. ABC Australia). It's essentially a construct created for that purpose, and mention of this structure is unnecessary clutter in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If the wikilink doesnt belong because it only goes to later in the article, ok. But the mention belongs and is normal. Example BBC News first sentence BBC News is an operational business division of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) responsible for the gathering and broadcasting of news and current affairs in the UK and around the world. Softlemonades (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that analogy is that the BBC is independently notable, has its own article, and many other articles related to it. Sunshine Productions is of no consequence whatsoever; it has no article and the only mention of it online is as a creation of Assange and Hrafnsson as part of operating Wikileaks. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Sunshine press might not be of importance outside of this article, but youve said its important to Wikileaks, and thats whats most important

It was created and exists entirely to operate Wikileaks and is a construct created for that purpose

Its the legal entity for Wikileaks and that matters. If you want to add to the article that It was created when Wikileaks had already been operating for more than three years and Wikileaks didnt have a legal entity until then thats probably DUE Softlemonades (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t said that. In fact my brief comments imply that Wikileaks is important to Sunshine Press (being the only reason Sunshine Press exists), not vice versa. Sunshine Press is rarely mentioned when discussing them, and has had little or no discernible impact on their operations. None has been described in RS. What makes you think it’s important, given its creation has had no impact on their operations that is reported in reliable sources? It looks like unimportant clutter making the lead less clear and easy-to-read. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

i quoted exactly what you said, which is that it exists to operate Wikileaks. How can you say that they operate Wikileaks and arent important to it?

What makes you think it’s important Wikileaks ABOUTSELF, which theyve said since they were created. And unlike international non-profit we know what this means.

has had little or no discernible impact on their operations. None has been described in RS that can go in Administration, its not part of the lead even if it had a big impact

But Wikileaks has said since the beginning they were a project of Sunshine Press, and still do. That was just sunshinepress.org until they created Sunshine Press Productions entirely to operate Wikileaks to use your words Softlemonades (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think Sunshine Press is something other than Assange and Hrafnsson and (perhaps) other Wikileaks staff? If not, it’s just a nameplate, not holding any significance.

even if it had a big impact - the point is that it’s had no impact. The only mention of it in the body is to name a couple of people who are members of Sunshine Press, and to say they received money from the Wau Holland foundation - that’s it. Not one of the important parts of the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think Sunshine Press is something other than Assange and Hrafnsson and (perhaps) other Wikileaks staff? I dont know, my opinion is OR, and even if it is then thats the corporate structure

The only mention of it in the body is to name a couple of people who are members of Sunshine Press, and to say they received money from the Wau Holland foundation The "only mention" is that people work for Sunshine Press and thats where Wikileaks money is and it exists entirely to operate Wikileaks in your words Softlemonades (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive_9#Organization_or_website? again

@Cambial Yellowing Pointing you to a previous discussion on Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive_9#Organization_or_website? and asking you to participate in discussions before reverting what it decided [3] is not edit warring. You restoring content that you think belongs contrary to prior consensus without discussion isnt good practice.

Your edit summary [4] said four sources, none of which use the phrase "non-governmental organisation" nor "NGO". unsourced content is not allowed here. then added in language that didnt have a WP:CIRCULAR. Your summary also said please do not edit war to add content which fabricates a phrase not in the sources following it, as per WP:UNSOURCED the obligation is on the individual restoring or adding content to find a source which directly supports it. none of these sources even mention the phrase NGO. ignoring the discussion before that I linked you to where @Jack Upland suggested NGO, which has a general definition that fits and avoids a lot of questions about what "international non profit" means and what actual sources ther are for that. See the discussion from months ago

You also keep removing Wired saying that the internal WikiLeaks emails are full of "full of rhetoric and arguments" because it is a misrepresentation of cited wire article. The article [5] says The emails charted the beginnings of Wikileaks; the group's attempts to create a profile for themselves; and the arguments over how to do so. The emails talk about political impact and positive reform. They are clouded by florid rhetoric while calling for clarity and transparency around the world. How does it mispresent? Softlemonades (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack is not a source. WL describe themselves as a non-profit and many RS use the same description in Wikileaks profiles/What is Wl/etc. None of the four sources use NGO; it is therefore unsourced. “Directly support” is explained in WP:V: I means sources have to say exactly what Wikipedia is saying, not similar or “close enough”.

"Full of rhetoric and arguments" is neither encyclopaedic tone nor an accurate summary of the quote you mention nor the longer description from which it is extracted. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack is not a source I didnt say Jack was a source, I said it was the result of a discussion with them and maybe you should join a discussion instead of editing against consensus

WL describe themselves as a non-profit Wikileaks is not a RS and thats not the text that you kept inserting into the article says is an international non-profit organisation

international non-profit organisation was a problem that Talk talked about before too, because we dont know what it means and doesnt have a clear source. Thats a reason I wanted you to go to Talk and revisit discussion from months ago instead of just reverting and reinserting your own text against consensus

I means sources have to say exactly what Wikipedia is saying, not similar or “close enough”. You still havent cited a RS to support your statement, and you already agreed that Sunshine Press company was created and exists entirely to operate Wikileaks so why would we put something else that contradicts that?

neither encyclopaedic tone It was Wireds and thats why it had in line attribution nor an accurate summary I asked how it was a misrepresentation, just saying its not accurate without saying how doesnt answer or support your removal. Wired said the emails are clouded by florid rhetoric how is that wrong? Softlemonades (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The site-wide consensus is that information needs be based on reliable sources. None of the sources after the phrase NGO refer to Wikileaks as an NGO. Also, you’ve titled this section “organisation or website” which isn’t accurate. That’s what an earlier discussion was about. There’s no dispute on that here - if you want to call it a website or an organisation that runs a website, or both, I don’t care, and leave that to your judgement. I removed the acronym NGO because it’s not supported by sources, and searching found few to no high-quality sources characterising it as such – with plenty of sources using the phrase that has been in the lead sentence for the last ~ eleven years. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources after the phrase NGO refer to Wikileaks as an NGO. And you still havent added a source for "international non-profit" or said what that means

Also, you’ve titled this section “organisation or website” which isn’t accurate. That’s what an earlier discussion was about Please read that discussion, it was what led to consensus on NGO being used. It also brought up problems with the text that you restored, the first problem it says is with calling Wikileaks "an international non-profit", which is why I asked you to read it and go to Talk before restoring your text again Softlemonades (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added just the first few results of scholarly sources, including a literature review on the topic. Based on search results, it would be trivially easy to have seven or eight times this many sources saying the same thing. The next source that was already cited in the article, not coincidentally, says the same thing: that’s because that’s how the vast majority of sources define and refer to the article subject. Almost as though that’s what it is. A wiki link is provided for those who do not know what a non-profit is. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The next source that was already cited in the article, not coincidentally, says the same thing Yes and I already pointed to WP:CIRCULAR when saying it didnt have any sources, because the source youre pointing to cites Wikipedia for that part of the text Softlemonades (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added just the first few results of scholarly sources, including a literature review on the topic Unfortunately I cant read any of those sources, and "what is a non-profit" wasn the question, Cambial. Please stop skimming. The question was "what is an international non-profit"? What does international mean there? Please answer what I actually asked, and see the previous discussion

Based on search results, it would be trivially easy to have seven or eight times this many sources saying the same thing Yes and these were brought up in the discussion before, but it seems like you still havent read it well Softlemonades (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, but none of the four cited scholarly sources cite Wikipedia. Neither does the next result on lexisnexis or google scholar that use the same definition. An international non-profit is a non-profit which is international (from more than one country). More importantly, that you don't understand this is not relevant: that's how a significant body of reliable scholarship defines it, and it's how it describes itself. It seems fairly self-explanatory, and I'd suggest that's why it's come into such wide use. And that's why it's been used on this page for so long.

these were brought up in the discussion before There is no discussion of the relevant scholarly literature in the discussion to which you link in the talk page archive. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

but none of the four cited scholarly sources cite Wikipedia I wish I could read them

An international non-profit is a non-profit which is international (from more than one country). A nonprofit is a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit but you said the legal entity is Sunshine Press, and we know thats not non-profit. This was brought up in the previous discussion

There is no discussion of the relevant scholarly literature in the discussion to which you link in the talk page archive Yes, youve avoided everything relevant from the prior discussion despite me repeatedly asking you to address those issues Softlemonades (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I wish I could read them. I'm a strong advocate for accessible verification, so your wish is granted.

but you said the legal entity is... That's something you said. Please don't claim falsely that I've said something that you said. It makes your argument look silly and is unhelpful.

youve avoided everything relevant there isn't anything relevant. The question is: what do most of the best quality reliable sources, particularly scholarship, say? The answer is what has been on the article for eleven years and what is on it now. It isn't an acronym that was added to the article without a source. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a strong advocate for accessible verification, so your wish is granted. Thank you, but its unfortunate I cant see if your citing WP:CIRCULAR again

Please don't claim falsely that I've said something that you said. It makes your argument look silly and is unhelpful. I didnt. Your exact words were that Sunshine Press Productions... was created and exists entirely to operate Wikileaks. Do you think its not a legal entity? Splitting hairs makes your argument look silly and is unhelpful Softlemonades (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not correct to include footnotes from the source in the citation - no, neither of the books published by Palgrave MacMillan and Springer Nature cite Wikipedia. As to the two journal articles, like all such articles the list of sources is not paywalled, and in fact you can see for yourself: perhaps take your own advice and Please stop skimming....it seems like you still havent read it well Cambial — foliar❧ 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You ignore half of what I say, again again again

Clever Softlemonades (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

if you want to call it a website or an organisation that runs a website, or both, I don’t care, and leave that to your judgement. So youd be ok with removing the "international non-profit" part of the lead? I'm ok with leaving it out of the lead if you are. I thought you were insisting on replacing NGO with "international non-profit" but if we can leave it to the body, thats ok to me Softlemonades (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You must have lost track of this @Cambial Yellowing so Im pinging it Softlemonades (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead should define the article subject in accordance with the most reliable sources. The current sentence does so, and thus serves the needs of readers: there's a good reason to retain it; there isn't a reason to remove it. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

So you changed your mind and are ignoring the part of MOS that says it needs to be reflected in the body of the article? Softlemonades (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It's in the body, see sections Administration and Finances. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don't claim falsely the body says its an international non-profit. It makes your argument look silly and is unhelpful.

Finance says WikiLeaks is a self-described not-for-profit organisation and Administration says WikiLeaks describes itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking" and "a project of the Sunshine Press," a non-profit organisation based in Iceland

Neither says "international" and both attribute it the statement WikiLeaks Softlemonades (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Clouded by ≠ filled with. Filled with is a rather informal way of phrasing this, and the inclusion of unnecessary editorialising does not add encyclopaedic content.Cambial — foliar❧ 19:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ciutation 3, which somehow is the first citation in the article [6] says 'WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organization working for transparency which publishes news leaks based on their ethical, historical and political significance.' No mention of NGO. NadVolum (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It cites Wikipedia for that part of the text, see WP:CIRCULAR, also linked above Softlemonades (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• You ignore half of what I say, again again again
• Clever

Thank you, I agree that it's wise to ignore sentences like Your exact words were that Sunshine Press Productions... was created and exists entirely to operate Wikileaks. Do you think its not a legal entity? Splitting hairs... which do not merit a response. If you really want one, OK, here it is:

I'm not "splitting hairs", and no reasonable person would think so. You claimed, falsely, that I said the legal entity is Sunshine Press. I never said this; you are aware of that.

Apparently eager to dive deep into the pool of your own sophistry and original research, on the basis of the notion that a non-profit is a legal entity and your claim, again false, that I said Sunshine Press is "the" legal entity, you make the following argument:

"An international non-profit is a non-profit which is international (from more than one country)." A nonprofit is a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit but you said the legal entity is Sunshine Press, and we know thats not non-profit. This was brought up in the previous discussion

You presumably mean to imply that there is some contradiction here. The problems with it are that: it is based on a false premise; and it makes no sense. I didn't say Sunshine Press is "a legal entity" nor "the legal entity". Your claims that:

1. A non-profit is a legal entity
2. (*you* claim) Sunshine Press is a legal entity
3. Sunshine Press is not non-profit

all can be true and there is no contradiction whatsoever. The argument you make which I quote above simply doesn't have any meaningful content. Which is why I ignored it.

None of this relates to the only relevant question, which has been answered: what do the most reliable types of sources characterise Wikileaks as? Books, news articles, academic journals, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc regularly refer to it as an international non-profit organisation. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

What an amazing mix of nonsense.

You ignore half of what I say, again again again Clever Thank you, I agree that it's wise to ignore sentence That example you ignored me asking you to clarify what you meant. Why would you brag about that

I never said this; you are aware of that. Yes I quoted your exact words but if youd rather spend your time denying something else than discussing something productive, that says it all

The problems with it are that: it is based on a false premise What false premise?

(*you* claim) Sunshine Press is a legal entity I asked you directly if you think its not a legal entity, and didnt get an answer Softlemonades (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you failed to understand the response to your request that I not ignore your muddled ramblings above. It's better to ignore them, and only respond to the minority of things that you write that are coherent

Yes I quoted your exact words You said I said the Sunshine Press was the legal entity. I didn't say this, as anyone (including you) can check. That's the opposite of quoting my exact words: it's pretending I said something I didn't. This claim that you made is the false premise of your muddled attempt at some kind of argument. Whether it's a legal entity is irrelevant, because it has no bearing on how reliable sources characterise the article subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you failed to understand the response to your request that I not ignore your muddled ramblings above. It's better to ignore them, and only respond to the minority of things that you write that are coherent Thank you for being insulting when I ask you to clarify. It helps

You said I said the Sunshine Press was the legal entity. I didn't say this, as anyone (including you) can check. That's the opposite of quoting my exact words: it's pretending I said something I didn't. This claim that you made is the false premise of your muddled attempt at some kind of argument. I said you said it was a legal entity because that was how I understood you. You said you didnt say that and quoted your exact words again and asked several times if you thought it was a legal entity or not, which you didnt answer Softlemonades (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What an amazing mix of nonsense - That isn't a request to clarify: it's being insulting. I suggest following your own advice.

which you didnt answer - because it's irrelevant to page content, and this is not a forum. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

because it's irrelevant to page content, and this is not a forum You cant complain again and again that I misunderstood you and refuse to clarify Softlemonades (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You cant complain again and again [you can't] refuse to clarify. In the real world, I've done neither. What is it you want me to "clarify"? I haven't made a claim about whether Sunshine Press is a "legal entity"; so there's nothing to clarify. As it's not relevant to determining how reliable sources characterise the article subject, it's not relevant to determining the article content. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In the real world, I've done neither. What is it you want me to "clarify"? Instead of repeating circles, now seems like a good time to let it WP:LETITGO

Will try to figure out how to discuss this more productively if you will too Softlemonades (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of all this? I can see that the citation in the first line of the article is very probably based on a version of the article ten years ago or so. The first line then was based mainly on WikiLeaks self description. It can be fixed b citing Wikileaks and saying decribes itself as. It looks like most sources agree with the current description but I guess they have followed the lead, I certainly see no reason for introducing other terms like NGO. If other sites started quoting that then it would definitely be Wikipedia inventing things and an extremely bad case of WP:CIRCULAR rather than just summarizing what Wikileaks says about itself. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It can be fixed b citing Wikileaks and saying decribes itself as I am ok with this solution and it fits the body and can end the argument Softlemonades (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Since no one objects to this and it can solve everyones problem, Im going to edit from

WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) is an international non-profit organisation that published news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources.

to

WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) describes itself as an international non-profit organisation and a project of the Sunshine Press that has published news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources. and change citations to WikiLeaks ABOUTSELF. This removes the CIRCULAR problem, the OR problem Cambial had, and uses the language both Cambial and I thought belonged.

I think its a good compromise that fits policy. Im adding "has" back before "published news leaks" because I dont think Cambial meant to remove it and it was part of a discussion before and I think the decision was to say

"has published" and not just "published" but I dont mind if that gets deleted again Softlemonades (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Cambial I hit revert without entering an edit summary by mistake, but please dont edit war and keep reverting what you think belongs against consensus Softlemonades (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not pretend other editors are "edit warring"; from your inappropriate use of the term it is evident you do not understand what it means. A single revert is not it.

Removing numerous high quality scholarly sources is disruptive. Do not disrupt Wikipedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not pretend other editors are "edit warring"; from your inappropriate use of the term it is evident you do not understand what it means. A single revert is not it. I made one revert a week ago and you called it edit warring. [7] And now youve reverted it twice

You also changed the language from "has published" to "publishes" which is inaccurate so Im changing that back. "published" or "has published" like previous discussions. The lead even says they havent published in years. But Im sure youll be rewriting that soon too Softlemonades (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a more reasonable approach, although I'm not clear why we need to label it. Non-profit is meaningless, except in the context of various national legal franchises. In fact, many non-profit organizations pay out a huge proportion of their funds to famous figures whom they employ. We don't have verification from RS as to the organizational or financial structure of who-or-whatever sponsors the Wikilinks website. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-profit organisation is not meaningless. It has its own article, and the sources used therein define its meaning. A wide variety of sources characterise Wikileaks as a (international) non-profit organisation. If editors think we need a different definition, that would need scholarship and other reliable secondary sources that support a common definition. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

My objection stands, there is no verification of its accounting or legal status. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources confirm its status, so that's not accurate. But even if what you claim were true, it isn't relevant. An "accounting" isn't the standard used here on Wikipedia, it's what reliable secondary sources state about the subject. The sources which refer to it as a non-profit organisation are extremely numerous and include high-quality scholarly sources. If there are other, more numerous high-quality scholarly sources which agree on a different definition, that might be used instead. It is doubtful that is the case. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "NGO", there is no rule that every term we use has to be sourced. In fact we should put things in our own words to avoid plagiarism.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, there is indeed such a rule: a core content policy with which you ought already to be aware. WP:5P2 and WP:NOR and WP:V. We don’t substitute a different word, with a different meaning, in place of what the sources say, to mislead the reader for no discernible reason. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

None of those policies say that we have to use a particular term that is used in a particular source.Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary

The only thing we know is that it is a website. The non-profit bit is their own claim. Most RS that use it are careful to say it's their self-description. probably BS. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Are there *any* sources which are careful to say it’s their self-description, or did you completely make this up? Cambial — foliar❧ 07:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In reality, of the ten scholarly sources cited, much like numerous others easily available, none say it’s their "self-description". Editor personal opinions such as “probably BS” continue to carry little or no weight on this site. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

Typo in second sentence: change "non-proft" to "non-profit". 2601:401:C600:12F0:D8CE:5840:A092:3796 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

drop box quote

@Burrobert I wanted to find when Wikileaks said that because there have been different submission boxes and they said it was innovative so I wanted to say when

I searched and it was May 2011 but the page on Wikileaks also has the other part ofthe quote that wasnt on EPIC [8]

If you want to rollback and fix the citation I am ok with that or any other fix Softlemonades (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Thanks. I'll have a think about it. Burrobert (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Registration optional?

I dont think the main WikiLeaks site doesnt has registration, but they have a second site on wikileaks.org linked on the bottom of every page, our.wikileaks.org. Its a wiki that has complicated registration to post [9] but no registration to read

Does this mean we should change or get rid of that part of the infobox? Softlemonades (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting find. How did you stumble on that? I can't locate the link on my browser, though it does appear if I look at the page's source. Our page for the Wayback Machine says "Registration Optional" and the situation appears to be similar. Btw, there are reports that the WikiLeaks site may be functional again. Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

At the bottom of the wikileaks pages theres a bunch of icons, its the first one a wikileaks map that says WL Research Community - user contributed research based on documents published by WikiLeaks. under it

wikileaks search works again back but other things are still broken [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] if there are RS reports we should use them

a lot of the original wiki is back, and the search for that works too. I tried to find something today and the wiki search worked.Softlemonades (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Found it now thanks. Thought that icon was a link to the home page. Burrobert (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Editorial policy

@Burrobert Theres a transcript linked from the Harvard page [18] I didnt want to WP:CITEKILL and add it too but maybe it will help

In what I'm characterizing as a second phase we saw what I'm thinking of as an advocacy journalism phase and I would put up the collateral murder video in that camp.

MIT says it was meant to illustrate a political point of view which I thought agreed with Harvard and with Wikipedias definition of advocacy journalism but Softlemonades (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't read the whole transcript. As you said, it does use the term "advocacy journalism" so we can include it here, with attribution. I was against using the term without a source since it does have negative connotations. The two sources you used seem to be independent but both divide WikiLeaks' history into the same phases??? The Harvard source does say something about Amazon that we have not mentioned. Apparently Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off its platform after a request from Senator Lieberman. Burrobert (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The two sources you used seem to be independent but both divide WikiLeaks' history into the same phases??? MIT is using and attributing the idea. Thats how I found Harvard

The Harvard source does say something about Amazon that we have not mentioned. Apparently Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off its platform after a request from Senator Lieberman I forgot about that. I looked and its on Reception of WikiLeaks some

US Senator Joe Lieberman called on Amazon.com to shut down a WikiLeaks web-site, praised the company for doing so, and called for other companies to follow suit.

Amazon.com severed its association with WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure services, after an intervention by an aide of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. Amazon denied acting under political pressure, citing a violation of its terms of service.

WikiLeaks#Hosting talks about hosting with Amazon and has a statement from them and it could be added there if you think it needs to be Softlemonades (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think it would be worth mentioning Senator Joe Lieberman's intervention along with Amazon's statement. The sentence you quoted from the Reception article would work. Burrobert (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

Please change "subsciption" to "subscription". Periphyseon (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  17:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a plan

@Burrobert [19] Two sources say it was mentioned and suggested. Only one says it was a plan, and it doesnt have a quote to support it. That source is also the one that just mentions the report briefly. The two sources that are about the report both say it was just something the report noted. The quoted text from the report in one of the sources also doesnt support the idea that it was a plan or that The report outlined a plan

What do you think? Softlemonades (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian article says "Wikileaks published a US military document which disclosed a plan to "destroy the centre of gravity" of Wikileaks by attacking its trustworthiness.

The SMH article says "The 2008 army report suggests trying to expose those who leak documents to WikiLeaks as a way of undermining the website.

The Techradar article has a subtitle " Plans to destroy website's 'centre of gravity ".

The Guardian and SMH are green tick reliable sources. Techradar does not have a listing at the RS noticeboard. I think there is strong evidence that the document was writing about a plan. Burrobert (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I used "outlined a plan" in my edit but there could be a better way of phrasing it. Perhaps stick with the Guardian's "disclosed a plan"? Burrobert (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source.

SMH doesnt say plan, it says suggests and that was the words I edited it to. The Guardian does say plan but it isnt about the report, it just mentions it.

What about "suggested a plan" since thats the words used in both sources? My problem with "plan" was that it made it sound like they had a whole project, which the report doesnt support. "suggested a plan" would fit the source and avoid my worry Softlemonades (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that headlines are not reliable sources. It does though support the Guardian's use of the term plan. The SMH's use of the phrase suggests trying to expose, means the document was giving instructions about potential actions. Anyway, "suggested a plan" would be fine and agree with the sources. Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Surveillance by private corporations

I removed a clause in the lead about surveillance by private corporations. Tried to find what it referred to in the body but it wasn't clear (maybe Stratfor?) If we have something in the lead about it let's be clear about what this refers to and wikilink it. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

what section?

@Cambial Yellowing I am ok with you restoring this [20] but the reason I removed In 2010, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern over what they referred to as a cyber war against WikiLeaks, and in a joint statement with the Organization of American States the UN Special Rapporteur called on states and others to keep international legal principles in mind. was it didnt seem like it related to the section topic and I didnt know where else it could go. Maybe WikiLeaks#Actions_against_WikiLeaks?

The other part you restored I agree is well sourced. I didnt think it was needed for the section and their reaction so I thought it could be trimmed for space but there was no problem with it Softlemonades (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Wikileaks should be described in past tense

Since Wikileaks no longer works and documents can no longer be pulled up whether through search or direct links, all descriptions of Wikileaks should be changed to past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.1.63.216 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think MOS:TENSE says we describe events in past tense but the article is in present

By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist. Use past tense for articles about periodicals no longer produced, with common-sense exceptions.

Always use present tense for verbs that describe genres, types and classes, even if the subject of the description (e.g. program, library, device) no longer exists, is discontinued or is unsupported/unmaintained. Softlem (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The article makes clear that WikiLeaks isn't publishing at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Date quote reported

We don't need to include the time, or the time after death, that a quote from JFK was reported by The New York Times. If it's on the page it should be sourced and given accurately. But such a detail is not relevant to the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources like the one about the password and the quote use the word reportedly to describe the quote. It uses that word twice and brings up the timeline

The password is a reference to a famous quote by former US President John F. Kennedy, reportedly given to a senior administration official one month before he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. According to the official, quoted in a New York Times report published three years after his death, Kennedy said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”. [21]

I agree it should be sourced and given accurately, and an inflammatory quote should have context. Saying who published and that it was years after the person died is normal Softlem (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That source usefully points out the provenance of the password in the quote. More reliable sources, including The New York Times and the academic work cited, simply give this as a quote. The claim of three years is factually incorrect. There's no indication that it's "inflammatory". What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published to this article about Wikileaks? Cambial — foliar❧ 12:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no indication that it's "inflammatory" A President allegedly saying the CIA should be shattered is not inflammatory? Am I understanding a word wrong again? Softlem (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a quote from the US president about a proposed internal policy decision. What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published in a US newspaper of record to this article about Wikileaks? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Any quote first published years after someone died is questionable because they can't respond to it or deny it. If its inflammatory and we attribute it we should say when it was published or link to a wiki article that has context Softlem (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Move or rename Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy

WikiLeaks#Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy should be changed to Curation or moved to WikiLeaks#Editorial policy. Editorial policy has a response section. For NPOV it should have information about claims that WikiLeaks publications never hurt anyone added

WP:NPOV and WP:CSECTION Softlem (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)