Talk:2014 celebrity nude photo leak/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

The speedy deletion tag is completely bogus:

• Incidents such as this are not covered by CSD A7.
• Also, 15 references about the incident in national newspapers is an assertion of notability.
• Also, the event is just plain notable.

TF90 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...the article needs a chance - give it a few days to grow --Ulcerspar12 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because if all we need is an indication of importance, violations of privacy via technical breaches of celebrities (or any group of people, really) is a topic that would obviously be widely considered important, if not topical, in 2014. --Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I also concur with the previous comment that references demonstrate notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Another thought. This story has already caught a good deal of attention by many reputable sources. It would be kind of silly to delete this article and then the story (maybe) gets even bigger, to the point of having to re-create the article again. I would advise that this isn't the moment to get delete-happy in a probably wasteful manner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion - There is no prohibition against articles on security breaches.

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... cyber security is an extremely serious topic and one worthy of serious study. There is absolutely no prohibition against articles on security breaches. In fact, we have an entire article (and rightfully so) devoted to the Heartbleed security flaw. Other than the titillating nature of the security breach, this is no different. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why there is a deletion claim here. The Sarah Palin email hack of 2008 is a well-documented, well-referenced article with relatively similar levels of media coverage and notoriety. Woyingle (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME

I've removed[1] the name of a person accused by Redditors of the breach per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gib "Serious Article"

189.177.110.220 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Let's Try to keep a "serious article" mode so this don't get deleted.

Article Name

The article needs to return to the original name which is The Fappening. Twobells (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Got proof it's the WP:COMMONNAME? Tutelary (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I was typing this as you posted: While that name's unfortunate I have to agree, there are multiple news sources all using the name, here are a few: http://www.inquisitr.com/1446620/the-fappening-a-sex-crime-lena-dunham-begs-people-not-to-look-at-the-leaked-nudes/ ; http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/gossip/2014/09/01/fappening-creepy-hackers-release-creepy-celebrity-nudes-creeps/ ; http://betanews.com/2014/09/01/the-fappening-is-more-than-just-nude-celebrity-pics-can-we-trust-apples-icloud/ ; http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/377288/scitech/socialmedia/the-fappening-how-hundreds-of-nude-celebrity-photos-broke-the-internet. Those may not all meet Wikipedia standards, but they're a smidgen of the ones out there, the name clearly has currency & traction. The other name being used both in online discussions and news sites is "Leakgate 2014" but that conflicts with some political scandals and is in less use. Even if the article heading isn't changed to this it should be included as a mention in the article & there should be a redirect page so people searching for "The Fappening" can find this page.JamesG5 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If those are the best sources you're coming up with for that name, the argument doesn't seem very strong.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned those are only a small sample, and it's still less than 48 hours in to the event. Like I said, it's probably a better argument for a redirect page, for the simple fact that a) people will come looking for it under that name and b) without a redirect people will likely mistakenly create new pages for it.JamesG5 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Something Baseball Bugs said on another topic is relevant here. One of the goals of editors is not to make Wikipedia look stupid. JamesG5, why are you picking low quality sources? What serious journalistic source is going to refer to this incident as The Fappening? Any? [2], [3], [4], [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

NeilN That was off an initial Google search last night. I just ran another focusing on news and found several more, including multiple foreign sources, one of those being "Gala" which's one of the largest circulation news mags there. Regardless, if you read my entire first comment & my follow up remark I said from the beginning the name is unfortunate and that it probably would be a bad idea to rename the article. I said there should be a redirect solely to people searching for that term, since it's common parlance among users who don't use traditional media but will look at Wikipedia, and would likely save the issue of people constantly trying to make pages under that name, or dragging out fights about it. Call me naive, but I fail to see how a redirect makes Wikipedia "look stupid." Renaming the article, yeah.JamesG5 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's an argument for the use of the term: The Daily Telegraph has written an article specifically about the use of the term The Fappening to describe the whole leak. That's a pretty mainstream paper and is one of several that have reported on this using that name. This isn't exactly like it's a secret aspect of someone's private life that we're trying to protect here- it's a very common term used to describe this and the media is starting to use the term more and more in relation to this, or at least mention it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, thought this was the argument to keep the redirect. My bad. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

'The Fappening' title is escalating momentum in the news media.Conrad Kilroy (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Now named "The Fappening" by The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11069829/Jennifer-Lawrence-photo-leak-Lets-stop-calling-this-hacking-The-Fappening.html 131.203.240.18 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/02/the-shadowy-world-of-4chan-the-shock-post-site-that-hosted-the-private-jennifer-lawrence-photos/) and the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/jennifer-lawrence-leak) also recognize "The Fappening" as a name for this leak: "It also found a name—the Fappening." (Washington Post) "They quickly spilled to Reddit, where thousands purveyed it under the handle of “the Fappening”" (New Yorker)--Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME. I've read literally dozens of articles from reliable sources on this topic and have yet to encounter a single article that calls it by this name and only one, 4chan: The ‘shock post’ site that hosted the private Jennifer Lawrence photos that even bothers mentioning it. Yes, I realize that you can Google it and purposely find articles that use this name, but if you just organically read articles about the topic, usage of this name approaches zero. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say not one article calls it that when people, including myself have posted links to various articles that do refer to what the public calls "The Fappening" (including reliable sources such as the Washington Post and the New Yorker), while I'm pretty sure no one at all is calling it by the current wikipedia name of "2014 celebrity pictures hack" and I'm even more sure that no one will think of writing that in the wikipedia search box. We don't pick the names given to events, even if its a stupid name like the Fappening, but we have to stay true to what the name of the event is. Also as a side note, were there other celebrity photos leaked prior in 2014? If so then this title is even more misleading. --Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Fappening" is a clever title, however the current one is more encyclopedic.~Technophant (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I cringe even at seeing it in the lede (bolded no less!) so the last thing we need is to have such a distasteful term serving as the title. As far as I am concerned, this term is a BLP issue and it should be given minimal exposure in this article. That means unbolding it in the lede and, honestly, not including it there at all unless we do it in some way that explicitly notes usage of the term as being heavily criticized.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Title + title reference in first sentence

Two things:

1. First sentence needs TITLE IN BOLD (+ with other names, also in bold) as is done with most any other Wikipedia article. Feel free to edit wording to make it better but this format should stay in order to be consistent with Wikipedia standards. I've taken the liberty to do this already and I'm sure most of you would agree.
2. Suggest changing the name from HACK to LEAK? I changed the wording in the text (feel free to revert), but I'll leave it up to you guys to decide on the eventual final name for this.

179.25.138.114 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Apple Media Advisory - Update to Celebrity Photo Investigation

"After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet." I've updated the article accordingly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of WP:SPS claiming all the photos are faked.

I've removed the following from the article.[6] I did so because the claim that all the photos are faked goes against all the other sources we have, including the victims themselves who confirmed that the photos were authentic. Even the blog has started to back away from the claim. I'm not sure why we would want to include misleading information that even the blog author admits might be wrong. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Victims to add -- or not

In support of their privacy and such, I don't think we should be expanding the list of victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.222.151 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blaylockjam10- Wikipedia is not censored. However that said, the number of celebrities victimized by this is said to be about 100+, so I'd argue that we should limit the list just for space issues. We don't need a list of 100+ celebrities, as that'd be unwieldy. We should list the ones that are the most reported on, but no more than that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the # of victims listed should be limited if the list becomes too big. However, so far I've only heard 3 celebrities confirm the authenticity of their leaked photos & I've heard 2 celebrities deny the authenticity of the leaked photos that supposedly show them naked. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: Then I'd argue that we should only list those 5 celebrities that have voiced anything. The only other reason I'd say that anyone else should be listed is if they have received enough coverage to warrant being mentioned, which most haven't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also very weird the way we currently claim there were more than 100 victims, "mostly" a-list celebrities, and then we list 17. Clearly if "most" were celebrities, then there's more than 50 celebrities, so what's the rationale for listing 17 ? Either list every celebrity involved, list none of them, or remove the claim that "most" of the 100 are celebrities if it can't be substantiated. The leak is reported to be "widely circulated", so I can't imagine it's genuinely unknown who is in it. --109.247.79.218 (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as that goes, we should include the number "100" but make sure to state that it's believed to be 100+ celebrities who have had nude photos leaked. In any case, the rationale for listing celebrities is and should be that we list the ones that have received the most attention and have confirmed that the photos are of them. If someone claims that the photos are fake, they shouldn't be listed. At most we could mention them somewhere in the article along the lines of "Some celebrities such as __________ and ____________ have claimed that the photos are fake", but that's about it. But whether it's fake or real, it should be sourced by a mainstream news publication. We won't and shouldn't be listing everyone due to space reasons, but we also need to make sure that the people in the list are actually people who are in the photos in question and not just people we're adding willy nilly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a source and added that the leak claims to be mostly celebrities, as we've only had a small percentage confirm that the photos are legit. On a side note, there have been a few places that have started to question whether or not these are all from iCloud since there have been some reports that they got them from various sources since it was apparently part of a photo trading ring. No confirmation on this in legit sources, but something to watch out for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In light of BLP, I would strongly recommended removing the list of celebrities, or at least requiring BLP-level RSes to back them. I see at least one in that list by the Daily Mail which is in no way an RS. Only if a celeb has come out to say themselves they know their images were leaked should we include their name. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit exploitive to have this list. Certainly, we should mention some subset of the 100 celebrities whose data was stolen, but I'm not sure where or how to draw that line. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should have an official "vote" discussion on this, as there is a question over what to list in the article, if anything. I'll open a new, separate section for this so we can have the "voting" but still have a separate section to discuss this apart from that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

iCloud celebrity photo hack: texts, address books and more 'also accessible'

This article has some good info: iCloud celebrity photo hack: texts, address books and more 'also accessible'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"were stolen"

Please change that to "were copied" It is impossible to steal digital images. 85.246.163.227 (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it's possible to steal data that doesn't belong to you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with AQFK. Stolen credit card numbers, stolen identities... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with the IP. Might I suggest the wording "illegally copied"? This still shows the illegality of the copying, while not implying the impossible. To steal something would mean that the other party no longer possesses it. Zell Faze (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not normal phrasing. We do not say, "illegally copied identities" or "illegally copied credit card numbers" or "illegally copied passwords". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Maroney

I removed this part about Maroney[7] because this is already covered in the Distribution section. If anyone wants to integrate the part I removed with the existing coverage (or even replace it), that's fine. It just seemed redundant to mention this twice. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity name discussion: add? Not add? If so, what is the limit?

I'm opening an official "oppose or support" discussion as to whether or not we should include celebrity names and if so, where we draw the line. Personally, I think that we should include some names, but only the ones who have received quite a bit of coverage and have confirmed that the pictures are real. If a celebrity has not confirmed the legitimacy of the pictures and has not received mention in multiple reliable sources, then we should not mention them because otherwise we have a situation that could lead to a potentially lengthy, unverified list of names. There is a concern that listing anyone in the article just adds to the exploitation, but we also have to consider that multiple reliable, mainstream sources have named several celebrities that have confirmed the photos. Not listing them would be detrimental to Wikipedia as it'd make the article incomplete because we'd be omitting information that has already been confirmed by the celebrities themselves. Naming a few of the confirmed celebrities would not be exploitative, in my opinion. However at the same time, a full list would just be unwieldy and unnecessary. I do think we should name one or two celebrities that have stated that the photos were fake, but we only need 2-3 of those names and it should be held to the same criteria as the confirmed celebrities in that they have to be listed in at least a few mainstream sources as stating the photos were fake. Opinions? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who have received coverage in multiple reliable sources should be included (unless the list gets too long). If they have confirmed or denied the authenticity of the photos, that should be noted. If the list becomes too long, only note those who have confirmed the authenticity of the photos. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the page here. What do you think of this edit? Feel free to revert it if you want or if anyone wants to- I'm tempted to just revert it and let the discussion take place, but this is pretty much what I feel that the section should be like: a minimum of names while also showing how it has impacted people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: To me, this is what this section should look like in its final form. However, it might be a bit premature, though I'm fine w/keeping this way if others don't object. I'd put Kaley Cuoco and Victoria Justice back into the section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I created the section because Wikipedia should have complete information. All entries on the list must be supported by reliable sources, but the details should be as complete as possible. Wincent77 (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a complete list of names of people allegedly included in the leak. Part of this is because the list would be of 100+ people, which would be completely unwieldy. We also need to take into account that it's entirely likely that some of the photos are fake and until the celebrities themselves comment on them, we should take claims with a grain of salt. The pictures came from a trading ring, which means that they likely have fake stuff that they'll claim is a celebrity because saying that it's from someone who looks like a famous person won't sell. In other words, unless the celebrity has commented on them, we shouldn't include the names. We need to cover all aspects, but minutiae like having all 100+ names is overkill. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, if we add a name every time the news mentions that someone is allegedly involved, it'd become extremely extremely unwieldy. We don't cover this much minutiae in other articles and there's no reason we should in this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The list should be limited to only those celebrities (or their legal representative) have stated that they have been hacked, as published by a highly reliable source. Sure, there's probably several weaker RSes that have said other celebs were hacked based on finding photos of them among them, but for privacy rights, we should limit ourselves to the ones that have absolutely acknowledged it. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Three points:

1. I Support in principle Tokyogirl79's suggestions.
2. Requiring multiple, reliable sources sounds like a good idea, but in practice, such sources may be easy to find, and we might still end up having a lengthy list. Perhaps the inclusion criteria should include celebrities who have publicly commented on their photos being stolen (either directly or though a spokesperson).
3. I think we should also mention those whose photos that are fake if for no other reason than to correct the faulty information.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good point- I hadn't thought about it that way, that us listing the celebs with the fakes would be a good way to correct false information. I like the public commenting idea- that's a good way to cull the list. A good compromise might be to add a link to a news article that lists all of the celebs that are supposed to have been victimized, if an accurate one exists. (I want to make sure that nobody has added someone to the list after the fact, trying to claim they were part of the leak, which seems to somewhat be happening in some places.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Means of the hack

PCWORLD has an article about the software tool used to hack the iCloud accounts. Worth including in the article? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

the investigation claimed, it is impossible to verify the results provided by Apple 93.50.232.69 (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Additionally some sources are required to back up any changes that are requested. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Preventing link rot

Replacement for the first (bare-URL) reference for "[...] cloud were also likely stolen." in the § Investigations section. (This article is trying to use WP:PC, but it's not. Explanation here.)

References

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete list; Y or N?

There was a list of celebrities that 4Chan claimed to have. Should it be added, at least as reference? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as a full list, but I do support adding a link to a page containing the complete list down in the external links section. The only difficulty here is finding the list in a place that we can say is relatively usable. I don't think we can link to 4Chan in the EL section for obvious reasons, but an image would be problematic since someone could say that it was tampered with. This page has a complete list but I don't know if it'd be considered reliable enough just for the EL section. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good one: Variety Latino! ([8]) I'll add it to the EL section of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the link I posted isn't from 4Chan itself, but is just a repost of the list on imgur. I don't know if that makes any difference on whether it could be used, but that's still what it is. Incidentally, some of the celebrities they promised were never posted, and a few of them who were rumored to be on revised versions of that list. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, while I agree with your reasoning and stance to oppose directly linking the list (screenshot collage), in my opinion, the web page you picked and the way you embedded it into the article is problematic. After your edit, the § External links section now includes an entry "Full list of celebrities affected by nude photo leak at Variety Latino". You copied Variety's article title. I think Wikipedia should say "allegedly affected" instead of just "affected", and should use "by photo leak" (similar to Wikipedia's article name) instead of "by nude photo leak", because there is no proof whatsoever that all those celebrities are affected by the leak, and even if they are their photos may not include nude photos. Another problem is that Variety does not mention a source. Variety mentions 4chan (once), but not as the source of their overview, nor does Variety mention or show or link to the screenshot collage. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we'll change it to "allegedly". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This being wikipedia, OPPOSE! Although the absolutely shocking extent of the leak list *should* be relevant to the severity of this incident. --108.50.170.32 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. It is appropriate to name people who have had substantial discussion of their specific story. The "avoid victimization" part of BLP, and more generally, the fact that Wikipedia summarizes data, likely rules out naming individuals who simply appear on a long list of names. However, the best sources that name those names should appear as inline citations, as should the total count they give for the number of people affected. This permits further research. Also note that while of course we should cover what the sources say about statements that the images were faked, we shouldn't let that determination affect how we cover the story, since it really doesn't matter from the perspective of covering the sociology and politics; besides, Encyclopedia Dramatica makes some pretty impressive counterarguments. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Apple's denial that its security was breached.

I've removed Apple's denial that its systems were breached[9] I have no idea what strange definition Apple is using for "breach" but clearly their systems were breached. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your goodfaith edit is problematic and should be undone. It's fine if your opinion is that their systems were breached, but that doesn't change history; Apple has still made its claims. It was a quotation, properly sourced. The multibillion-dollar company's statement regarding its investigation findings is that it was a targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions. Granted, whether this (really) isn't a system breach may be somewhat subjective, but in this context also irrelevant. If you find a reliable source that refutes/contradicts Apple's statement, it could be included in the article, but still wouldn't be a valid reason to remove Apple's claims. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it is reliably sourced and we do quote parts of Apple's statements as well as Tim Cook's statements, but I think we have some editorial discretion on deciding which quotes to include and which quotes not to include. I have read some sources which touched upon Apple's question definition of "breach", but I didn't save the links. If I come across one again, I'll be sure to post it. I might be open to including it in the body of the article, but I don't think it belongs the lede. Of course, we're not the only two editors working on this article. Would some other editors like to weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Firm include. What the tech giant says about their own supposed breach is relevant. They've also released information that basically says that they were 'breached' by the 'hackers' guessing answers to security questions. Tutelary (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Would also include for the same reasons. Zell Faze (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Victims" as opposed to "Victims of"

We don't know that they are "victims" - as opposed to "victims of hacking" - yet. At this point in time after the leak of {plural of her?} tapes Paris Hilton or Kim Karadashin would have seemed like victims, but over all it worked out very well for them - so they were not victims, they were victims OF leaking/hacking (not actually sure how those sex tapes ended up in public domain as I cannot remember, but I am sure they didn't want it). We should use another name for the "Content and Victims" headline like "Content and Leak Victims" or "Content and Victims of Leak".

Even better would be to avoid the V word altogether and use a headline simply "Content" but with the paragraph maybe being bolstered more to make it very very very clear it was non consenual and those concerned feel violated.

This point might seem a subtle distinction but you get me I hope? 217.43.3.94 (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Retaliation for making anti-Israel statements?

A lot of the women who got there personal photos leaked had made public or private statements about the Hamas/Israel conflict that would be considered anti-Israel. Chances are good that it was a pro-Israel hacker who stole the photos and released them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.44.178 (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Reddit vs Imgur

Reddit had a subreddit which has now been closed/banned. The site simply aggregates links from other websites, such as Imgur. I think Reddit is being misidentified as hosting the images, when Reddit does not host images at all. Imgur was most likely the most frequently used site to link to. All the subreddits have an /r/subredditnamehere so the images are first hosted on imgur Additionally, once they are linked to on reddit, they are copied/re-indexed at imgur.com/r/nameofsubreddithere.MeropeRiddle (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Reddit does host thumbnails. They had to go through and remove them as the requests came in. Gtwy (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional leaks

It seems as though the same source that initially leaked the photos is currently leaking further photos of an even wider list of celebrities.

A couple of initial sources about this:

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nude-celebrity-photo-leak-more-images-posted-to-online-forums-1.2773135
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763604/Kim-Kardashian-s-dragged-iCloud-scandal-nude-pictures-surface-online.html
• http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-celebrity-nude-photos-leak-20140920-story.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/kim-kardashian-nude-pictures-leaked-on-4chan-in-new-celebrity-hacking-attack-weeks-after-jennifer-lawrence-scandal-9746534.html
• http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-second-apparent-leak-of-hacked-celebrity-nude-pictures-us-media-2014-9
• http://time.com/3414385/celebrity-photo-leak-kim-kardashian-jennifer-lawrence/
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/20/the-fappening-continues-nudes-of-kim-kardashian-mary-kate-olsen-and-more-celebs-leak-online.html
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kim-kardashian-nude-photos-leaked-4296570
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/rihanna-nude-pictures-leaked-images-4299658

There seems to be further leaks of Lawrence, Cuoco and leaks of Kim Kardashian, Vanessa Hudgens among others. We should probably add this into the distribution section of the article, possibly under another sub-heading?

"On September 20, nearly a month after the initial distribution of the leaked photos, previously unreleased photographs appeared via 4chan, which were quickly disseminated onto reddit. Threads and images containing the content were quickly removed off 4chan and reddit."

We should also add into Content and Victims: "The September 21 leaks allegedly featured Kim Kardashian, Rihanna and Avril Lavinge, among others." arivie (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And the article name should change to August-September I guess--Gonnym (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Celeb Responses:

• Gabrielle Union: http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/20/gabrielle-union-topless-pictures-leaked-fbi-celebrity-hack-dwayne-wade/
• Megan Good: http://instagram.com/p/tOGhSzMr6n/?modal=true / http://www.hngn.com/articles/43116/20140921/fappening-nude-photos-rihanna-amber-heard-leak-4chan-new-hack.htm

--Gonnym (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Distribution of Photos on Tor Hidden Network

I think it should be mentioned that the celebrity photos are being spread around the Tor network and The Hidden Wiki even has an article documenting the whole event. 174.108.32.84 (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Feminism

This entire attack seems to stem from some sort of attack against modern feminism and its promiscuous nature, yet the word feminism appears not once in the article or talk page. The hackers themselves are now claiming because a celebrity came out as a feminist, they are threatening to leak her nude photos. Yet not a shred of this information can be found in this article or its discussion page? --108.50.170.32 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it's original research and not cited to a reliable, secondary source. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So are the names going to be mentioned or what?--88.104.136.143 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Streisand Effect

For those who don't know, the Streisand effect means an attempt to hide or censor something brings more attention to it than it would have otherwise gotten. It does not mean, as Chaheel Riens claims, "media frenzy has certainly boosted awareness where it normally wouldn't have."

The sources he provided are garbage as well. I am not sure what this is, but the website is run by a non-notable marketing agency, so it's out. The only reference to the effect here is in the comments, so that's out. And this one does mention the effect, but only the possibility of there being one if further legal action is taken. So that's 0 for 3. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, edit summaries are hard to put a lot of detail into, and I agree that "media frenzy" is not the best term to use - "media attention" is probably a better phrase.

I'm not sure who "MadScientist" are either, but they still draw a connection between the pictures and the Streisand effect, but I'll let you have that, and the second one.

However, the third link is perfectly valid, just because it mentions the possibility of a streisand effect does not negate the validity of a source - especially when we're discussing the "See also" section of an article, which by very definition are not part of the article, but links that may be of interest and connection.

I'm not even sure if you're supposed to provide sources for a "See also" section. I would think that if sources are provided - or deemed necessary - then it warrants inclusion in the article proper, promoting out of "See also", as notability has been achieved

I don't think there's any need to patronise with a "For those who don't know" either - not only is the term linked several times, but this very discussion is a live example of the Streisand effect highlighting a very minor edit to an article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This very discussion is a live example of the Streisand effect highlighting a very minor edit to an article. I rather doubt that. In any case, no reliable sources have been presented that indicate that these images have been popularized by attempts to suppress them. If they had languished in obscurity in a publicly accessible forum online and then suddenly became a sensation after a celebrity sued, that would be the Streisand effect (which we still could add to the article only if covered in reliable sources). VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Doubt away, however your insistence on commenting on a now-dead topic consolidates my position, not yours. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rename?

There have been associated photo leaks in September. And will reportedly be more on October 1.[10] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid the forward-looking considerations, but I agree that the current name is not ideal. What are good options. Some options that seem to have been used by other sources include:

• 2014 celebrity photo leaks
• iCloud celebrity photo leaks
• iCloud celebrity photo hack
• 2014 iCloud data breach

Do any of these seem to match the requirements of WP:TITLE well enough to propose a move? VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are good options. I personally would prefer the first (with a possible rename if new pics keep getting leaked into 2015), since I don't know that it's appropriate to include "iCloud" in the article title. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

'2014 celebrity photo leaks' would be the winner imho. Tutelary (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point that bringing "iCloud" into the title should at least get some scrutiny. Boldly moved to the first title above; feel free to revert if this needs a formal discussion. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A simple Google search for "2014 celebrity photo leaks" shows the current naming convention to be "The Fappening 3" at this moment. I might suggest that as Wikipedia isn't censored and despite the less than perfect title the name appears to have stuck. 73.53.240.14 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We actually have a policy on article titles. I do not think that the one you propose is sufficiently recognizable at this time. A how-to guide on using Google effectively for purposes such as identifying the most common name is available here. Just because that is what The Daily Beast is calling the subject does not automatically mean we change the article title. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians love to scrub articles.. usually under the guise of "this is in violation of random wikipedia policy WP:ABCDEFG, therefore we must deprive the public of that truth... They don't want "icloud" in the title because this crowd favors Apple and wants to protect it's precious name by dissociating it with this scandal. They also refuse to report the true extent of the celeb list victims because they need to protect their Hollywood heroes at all costs. --108.50.170.32 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Forbes

Per Forbes itself re: its non-editorial-staff "contributor": "[The Forbes model] embraces the most natural form of blogging — 'the unedited voice of a person.'”

Per WP:ELNO, blogs generally are not allowed unless they are by a recognized authority published someone other than his blog. And the fact that it's unedited means it's clearly afoul of Wikipedia's disallowance of user-generated content. --209.122.114.237 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As well, since it pays these unedited contributors per number of visitors their content gets, these contributors can game the system by self-citing their own columns in order to generate revenue. I'm sure Wikipedia admins would take a dim view of using Wikipedia to drive traffic to one's pay-per-hit page. --209.122.114.237 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an application process [11] and the contributors do put forward impressive-sounding credentials, so we might permit them as experts in their own right. But yes, reading over the information you cited and the Forbes "Help" section, it sounds like they can live-publish whatever they want, which rules them out for negative claims about specific living persons by our policy. Though I assume that anything too outrageous would be at risk of being deleted. Wnt (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Rename leak>theft

Hey -- I apologize if this has already been raised & discussed, but I am curious whether we think this article should be renamed from 2014 celebrity photo leaks to 2014 celebrity photo thefts, or similar. To me, using the word "leaks" implies that the person doing the publishing was authorized to have access to the material, and that the publishing was motivated by ethical considerations: whistle-blowing or similar. That's why we use the word leaking to describe what Chelsea Manning did, or Edward Snowden, or Daniel Ellsburg. Whereas in this situation as I understand it, 1) the images were published by people who were not authorized to have access to them (they hacked into celebrities' accounts) and 2) nobody has claimed or suggested an ethical justification for the publishing. I'd propose therefore that we either rename the article to 2014 celebrity photo thefts, or come up with another name that better captures what happened, maybe incorporating the word hacking instead of leaking. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(I just checked and there are no earlier archived talk pages. So I'm assuming what I propose here hasn't been discussed yet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC))

Maybe, but it seems to me that might violate neutrality within the title. Yes, the photos were stolen through hacks. But they were then leaked by the thieves. It's not so much the theft we're talking about (hackers have been doing this for years) so much as it's the massive leak that drew attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. Yes, the hackers did steal the photos, but it was the leak and subsequent distribution of the photos which generated most of the coverage.LM2000 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to agree with this, but then I read our article Internet leak, which explains that 'leak' is generally used in this context to mean any unauthorised disclosure of confidential data, without any suggestion that that data was obtained lawfully or disclosed for ethical reasons. (We also use it, for example, to describe the unauthorised distribution of books and software code.) Perhaps it might be worth getting the word 'hack' or 'theft' into the title as well to make clear that the photos were obtained unlawfully, but the word 'leak' doesn't seem to be inappropriate here. Robofish (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been renamed by User:The Devil's Advocate to 2014 celebrity photo hack, which I have to say seems like an improvement, despite my comment above. After all, the fact that the photos were hacked is an important part of the story here. I can't help but note that there wasn't any controversy over the title of Sony Pictures Entertainment hack, and if 'hack' is an appropriate description of that event, it's appropriate here. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Are authorities doing anything to find the hackers?

Are authorities doing anything to find the hackers? If the hackers are from a country that is allied with the USA would the USA authorities do anything about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.200.32 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know the same thing. Even though I like looking at Ari that way Olsula (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Good article?

This article seems pretty well-developed. Is there an editor with plans to nominate it for Good article status? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's 2015 now. Cat's out of the bag...

As written in the current lead in: "The images were believed to have been obtained via a breach of Apple's cloud services suite iCloud.[1][2][3] Apple later confirmed that the hackers responsible for the leak had obtained the images using a "very targeted attack" on account information, such as passwords, rather than any specific security vulnerability in the iCloud service itself.[4][5][6]"

• That's a funny way of saying "the perpetrators hacked iCloud". Specifically, they found a weakness, a place where they could attempt to brute force the password trying many combinations until one worked. Metaphorically and literally in the comfort of their own home, on their own PC. If that sounds like it shouldn't be possible, it's because it shouldn't.
• Saying it was an attack on account information (known in non-Apple-PR world as PASSWORDS) and not a specific security vulnerability is kind of truthy: it was a GENERAL security vulnerability in iCloud. Like a fundamental flaw.
• Saying it wasn't a security vulnerability in iCloud itself is like standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a sign that says Mission Accomplished. Everyone knows Apple is full of it. And in the case of whoever wrote that lead-in, within Apple's organization or outside of it, that would make your part in this to be Fox News. You can put PR spokesperson on your resume.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6e00:382:c4d5:ea18:b31:1210 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously none of you idiots understand security. iCloud wasn't hacked, it was breached using a method known as social engineering, aka tricking customer service representatives into giving the hackers the information they need to breech the account via the recovery process. No hacking got into the iCloud system, no vulnerability was found, it was just tricking customer support staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4202:C7F0:41DE:3E7F:78C3:2EB2 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Title

I agree with the editor who addressed a specificity issue and changed "2014" in the title to "iCloud." Still, "iCloud celebrity photo leak" contains a compound modifier and by basic rules of grammar must be hyphenated. Thus, "iCloud celebrity-photo leak." In other words, a leak of celebrity photos ... not a leak by an iCloud celebrity. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Can the title be discussed before several page moves are made in disagreements? P.S it should be "iCloud" not "ICloud". Lapadite (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It appearing as ICloud is a technical limitation, see the lowercase first letter section at WP:NCTR. Melonkelon (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I hadn't seen the updated name on the article; I see that it shows iCloud. Lapadite (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:ICloud leaks of celebrity photos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• There are many citations in the intro, but that isn't necessary, since it is only supposed to be a summary of the article body, with no unique info. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Not done From WP:LEADCITE: Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. sst✈ 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

One citation for a statement in an intro summary is one thing. Three citations for one statement in the intro is unnecessary. But not a very big deal either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• As an extension of the above comment, no citations or information should only be present in the intro.
• "On August 31, 2014, a collection of almost 500 private pictures of various celebrities, mostly women, and with many containing nudity" Since the intro is only supposed to be a summary of the article with no unique info, you need to explain everything present there (eg. "On August 31, 2014, a collection of almost 500 private...") in the article body as well before going into such details.
• "under names such as "Celebgate"" Only mentioned in intro.
• "which allowed them to make unlimited attempts at guessing victims' passwords." Only mentioned in intro.
• "There are claims that unreleased photos and videos exist." I'd add "also exist", reads a bit clearer.
• "through the use of two-factor authentication" Could be explained in parenthesis. That is common for articles with "technical" terms.
• "such as phishing and brute-force guessing." Could be explained.
• " Notifications will be provided whenever data is restored to a device via iCloud and after logging into iCloud via a web browser.[66] in addition to existing notifications when a user's iCloud password is changed. Additionally, Apple will broaden and encourage the use of two-factor authentication in future versions of its software and operating systems, such as the then-upcoming iOS 8." Why is this present tense? It refers to actions that have likely already been made, and the surrounding text is past tense.
• There is some overlinking of words.
• "The FBI said that it was" When?
• "errera is just one of several people under investigation and the FBI has carried out various searches across the country." Since this is all the way form 2014, I'm sure there must have been further developments since?
• You there, SSTflyer? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• • @FunkMonk: After checking the sources again, you may as well fail this. Some statements are not supported by the sources cited, and the article may need a major rewrite. Sorry for the inconvenience. sst✈ 14:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to fix it, I can leave the nomination open for as long as it takes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you have not responded for days, I assume you're not interested, so will now fail this. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ICloud leaks of celebrity photos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140902050258/http://gawker.com/is-this-4chan-offshoot-the-ground-zero-for-the-leaked-c-1629190208 to http://gawker.com/is-this-4chan-offshoot-the-ground-zero-for-the-leaked-c-1629190208

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ICloud leaks of celebrity photos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006070133/https://www.nikcub.com/posts/notes-on-the-celebrity-data-theft/ to https://www.nikcub.com/posts/notes-on-the-celebrity-data-theft/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151227040402/http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/70210/20150804/emily-ratajkowski-nude-photo-leak-people-who-google-photos-criminals.htm to http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/70210/20150804/emily-ratajkowski-nude-photo-leak-people-who-google-photos-criminals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)