Talk:The Day We Fight Back

Possible additions

Hack of MIT to announce TDWFB

• An interesting screenshot of the hack is here. The hack was to a sub-domain, per Hacker News

From the Daily Dot

• Ironically, this is the first major online protest against those spy programs, though there have been three major physical protests. Each of those were tied to symbolic dates— Restore the Fourth (a nod to the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees privacy, held on the Fourth of July), 1984 Day on Aug. 4, and on the 12th anniversary of the Patriot Act, which provided the legal basis for many of the NSA's current practices. Feb. 11 is no different: It's one of several proposed days to honor Aaron Swartz...

• "If Aaron were alive he'd be on the front lines, fighting back against these practices that undermine our ability to engage with each other as genuinely free human beings," said David Segal of Demand Progress.

• "To be clear, pushing back against agencies like the NSA and the U.K.'s [GCHQ] is a far more difficult task than calling lawmakers en masse to argue against a single bill, as was the case with SOPA."

Segal et al Reddit AMA

• At his Reddit "Ask Me Anything" about TDWFB, David Segal said: "We need our legislators to hear from people who love the Internet that we won’t stand by and let it be turned into a giant tool for mass surveillance"

Charges dropped against Swartz

• From Creative Commons cofounder Lawrence Lessig: Swartz was "driven to the edge by what a decent society would only call bullying." Dot. The pardon and response to Swartz' apparent suicide might have a place in the article alongside mention of his charges. petrarchan47tc 01:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

MIT hack-- undue?

I'm inclined to think we're focusing too much on one hacker, who is not affiliated with any of the organizations involved, who claims to support The Day We Fight Back, but might just as easily be attempting to discredit them.

Absent any genuine reliable sources about who the hacker was or what his motives were, it's not notable on this article. At the end of the day, what are we reporting: that some anonymous guy on the internet posted a message claiming he supports TDWFB? Not Notable here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I think the "history" section essentially been used as filler as there isn't that much to say about the protest itself at this stage. benmoore 09:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The hack occurred at most a day after the event was announced, and contributed a significant fraction of the total news buzz around it - and the only thing it is is news buzz - so it seems quite relevant. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

More undue concerns

I have concerns about the notability of most (not all) of the article:

• Background: The references to Swartz in the reliable sources are mostly in passing; we don't need a whole section about a subject that's only of tangential relevance. A few sentences would be totally sufficient.
• Founding participants: This section could be written in a single sentence. Bullet points might be a clearer way to structure it, but there's no reason for multiple sentences on each entity. All of these organizations have their own articles that can be read for more details.
• Response to Obama's NSA speech: This section has no reliable secondary sources, and as such, should probably be deleted on notability grounds. Not to mention that the cited primary source (EFF) actually says the report card was created by EFF, not by TDWFB. As such I'm deleting it.

Honestly I think this article, while narrowly passing the WP:GNG threshold, probably merits 2-3 paragraphs total. At least, based on its current sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made some bold changes accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's surely nothing in WP:UNDUE that says that an entire article should be restricted to some arbitrary length. Try WP:Wikipedia is not paper. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested either of these things. Please consider my arguments in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Swartz material

According to [1], Aaron Swartz's brother Noah Swartz is "actively organizing" TDWFB. There's scarcely an article that talks about this event without mentioning him. The relevance isn't tangential. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If Noah is actively organizing the event then that should be in the article. But extensive information about Aaron's death that's unrelated to TDWFB shouldn't be included. The fact that Aaron's death is mentioned in most sources means that it should be mentioned here, not written up extensively. As the section is currently written it gives disproportionate attention to Swartz as compared to the reliable sources. It reads as promotion for Demand Progress and detracts from the focus on TDWFB. I'm not saying that's your intention, but that's how it reads. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I left out the details of the alleged suicide, which are indeed irrelevant, but if you read practically any source about this event, it jumps back and forth between Swartz and the event. I'll admit that this perplexes me --- so far, I have not seen a word actually suggesting that the NSA spotted Swartz's mass download or had something to do with his prosecution, and so it's hard to see why the event is so tightly linked to it, or why his relatives didn't have a "Share A Paper" day instead. But we have to go with what the sources think is relevant, and hope that the reason why becomes apparent at some point. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't have to go with what the news sources think is relevant. We are not a newspaper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That policy link is always misused whenever it is cited, but I have to say, I've never seen it misused in this way before. No, NOTNEWS is not an reason to remove background concepts that all the sources think are relevant. It is a call to treat those sources the same way as we would treat any other sources. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You can interpret it any way you want, but there's no requirement that we must cover material in equal breadth or proportionality as news sources. And the material I removed wasn't "background concepts." These were multiple sentences and quotes detailing the events surrounding Swartz's death that do not shed light on the subject of this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And NOTNEWS doesn't say anything about newspapers being treated equally (or unequally) from other sources. A relevant quote: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I understand your argument is that all of this Swartz material should be included simply because it's mentioned in the TDWFB news articles. That directly contradicts the quoted policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That sentence immediately follows a sentence about WP:Notability, which applies to articles, not sentences. It immediately precedes the explanation that "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Now to be sure, it's a stupid, badly abusable policy that invites everyone to apply their own interpretation of what is 'routine', but what should be clear is that it's not unreasonable for us to cover the same kind of background our sources do when they cover the same topic. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not unreasonable, but you still need to justify it and overcome the counterarguments. You yourself wrote that the inclusion of this material in the cited sources "perplexes" you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It matters very little whether editors understand why TDWFB is being used to also honor the life of Aaron Swartz, rather that is it the case and is well documented. (Ohai again, Dr F) petrarchan47tc 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I never proposed removing all reference to Swartz. If we have reliable sourcing saying that TDWFB is being used by the organizers to honor Swartz's death, then by all means, it belongs in the article. And a short bit of background (a sentence or two) summarizing the Swartz story is appropriate too. But a five-sentence standalone paragraph that's purely background, plus a blockquote that doesn't even refer to TDWFB? Totally undue and a distraction from the subject of the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Founding participants

HectorMoffet restored this entire section saying it could be cut down but should not be deleted entirely. In fact I had simply consolidated it into the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree on undue weight to the founding participants section. It looks promotional. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's get some clarity: I think there were something like 100 organizations signed on to this. How were the specific organizations selected chosen to be described in more detail? Wnt (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how they were selected, but it likely had something to do with their perceived prominence. Certainly listing all 100 or so in this article would be inappropriate, even if reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to list 100 people who competed in an Olympic event in an article about the event? This may not be the "Parade of Nations", but the same general idea applies. (I'm not even saying necessarily that I necessarily want to list them at this time, pending better source coverage, but it's not inappropriate to do so) Wnt (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it would be appropriate, and as far as I know we don't do that. Here's an example. In some cases long lists like this are kept in separate list pages. I'm not a list expert but I believe there's a guideline for this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Background / Connection with death of Aaron Swartz

I removed a fair amount of material from the "Background" section that was more about Aaron Swartz and of limited relevance to the protest, moved the bit about the announcement of the protest to the lead section (since it seems of sufficient notability), and re-named the section to "Connection with death of Aaron Swartz." In response Ross Hill re-added the extra Swartz material and changed the heading back to "Background" with the comment: "This section is more than just the connection with his death. It also talks about the announcement of the day we fight back."

This doesn't make sense to me. The section is currently solely about the Swartz connection. The bit about the announcement isn't there anymore. And the comment doesn't address why all of this Swartz material should be re-added. It's already covered in other articles and really adds nothing to this one, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary is accurate. What you don't seem to be appreciating is that when we look up the sources about this event, they all seem to focus on things tied into Swartz. As I said somewhere above, that's more than a little mysterious to me (I don't know whether it is the journalists or the organizers who pushed everything in this direction) but the result is a lot of references to him. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You already made this point in the other thread; we don't need to discuss it in two different places. But what remains of this thread is that Ross Hill wrote this section should be called "Background" rather than "Connection with death of Aaron Swartz" because it is about more than the connection with Swartz. In fact that's not true. Every sentence is about Swartz. Hence the appropriateness of the heading change. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Will wikipedia participate in The Day We Fight Back?

One bit of info missing from this page is a statement on whether or not Wikipedia will be participating. It would be nice if we could. Is anyone working on that? How can an editor help - is there some place official to suggest participation or vote for it something like that? Steevithak (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales. So far the most viable response is the formation of WP:WikiProject Mass surveillance, and I'd encourage you to consider joining and taking part. The history of WP:Surveillance awareness day may give you more of an idea of the range of possibilities involved, and why some were rejected. But in terms of developing this article, Wikipedia will necessarily not be in it unless something happens that is dramatic enough to be reported by a third party source that can be cited. Non-participation probably wouldn't create such a reference and in that case would never be mentioned. Wnt (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This has four paragraphs about Wikipedia's non-participation (in the first paragraph the site is referred to as Wikileaks).

This has three paragraphs. —rybec 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I stand corrected! Wnt (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reddit announcement

I removed primary source material about the Reddit announcement with the summary: " rm non-notable, unreliably sourced blockquote including spam link". HectorMoffet reverted with the summary: "rv inappropriate deletion".

Hector, your edit summary was insufficient. Please explain why my edit was inappropriate. I'll re-state my main concern: We're block-quoting a primary source when other content, citing secondary sources, already covers the same subject matter ; and the block quote just happens to include a URL that automagically creates an in-body external link to the subject's website. This appears to violate a veritable alphabet soup of policies and guidelines, not least of which are the ones against spam links and links in the bodies of articles.. It's the URL I'm most bothered by; it appears promotional to me (even if that's not your intention). If you find a way to remove the URL then I'll let the rest of the alphabet soup slide. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't say that there isn't a better way to present that data - I chose a blockquote simply because it was the easiest way to make it clear who considered themselves to be "friends of Aaron", the relationship with Aaron previously having been treated here as a contentious issue, as well as their self-descriptions. The problem is, you removed it with a summary "rm non-notable, unreliably sourced blockquote including spam link", which seems to oppose any reference to this key announcement. As the original announcement of the event, it is notable, and it is reliably sourced as a statement by its authors. The denigration of the link as spam is particularly perplexing, because that's the "official site" in the external links, and unquestionably appropriate to point people reading the article to. I somewhat disliked having that in the blockquote (along with some other things) simply on the basis of redundancy, but your response to it didn't make sense to me. If doing some careful digesting of the quote's contents can satisfy you, then perhaps we could agree on a version after all. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, careful digesting would be appropriate, and I'd imagine not all that difficult. For starters, what do you think is notable about that Reddit post that hasn't been covered in the secondary sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really following the "notable that hasn't been covered" idea. But the reason I want to cover it is that it provides a very early list of organizers, explains the relationship of most to Aaron Swartz, and as a reference, provides a reader with a direct link to the source material. My background is scientific, so my feeling is invariably that you don't know anything about a topic until you've read the primary sources. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to make sense of them, but that doesn't mean we should avoid them. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion to focus on secondary sources was based on WP:PSTS. This isn't scientific or medical subject matter so secondary sources are preferred in general. In any case, my more general suggestion is to summarize in our own words rather than to block-quote, and only mention the items you list above that you feel are notable. If you insist on citing the Reddit page, then that isn't ideal (per PSTS) but I suppose it's acceptable. Sourcing aside, summarization in our own words is the most encyclopedic approach, and it should lead to compliance with WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM (which say that a link to the subject's official website belongs in the External Links section). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wnt for your changes. I'm satisfied. See, we can work together productively. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos

Can someone upload photos of the website banners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.114 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate, per WP:PROMOTION. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Participant list

Can we make a page (or a section on this page) which lists the online & flesh world participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.114 (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, but if the list is long (and I believe it is if we include all participants), then I think stylistically it belongs in a separate article in line with WP:SPLITLIST. Also, individuals on the list must meet the notability criteria of WP:LISTPEOPLE. It's worth considering making this a list only of the notable participants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawmakers

I fully support including a list of lawmakers who have endorsed or promoted TDWFB or made supportive statements. At the same time we should be careful not to read too much into their words. Some of these politicians may support TDWFB's broader goals but not the organization itself. Others may make vague supportive statements and then turn around and vote for more modest reforms than TDWFB is promoting. There are a lot of fence-straddlers in this area (Obama being straddler-in-chief) and no one should be given the benefit of the doubt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links

Petrarchan47 has re-added external links to the following sources:

• The day we fight back against NSA spying and big government's big secret op-ed by US Rep. Ted Poe
• The Day We Fight Back: Easy Things You Can Do To Protest Mass Surveillance by Jesselyn Radack
• Resisting the surveillance state of mind op-ed by Norman Solomon

The edit summary was: "The nature of this topic is inherently POV. The "other side" has not spoken so isn't included."

I believe these do not belong for several reasons, first and foremost being the neutrality issues touched on in WP:NPV, WP:ELPOV, and WP:ELYES. Although ELPOV qualifies itself to "articles with multiple points of view," the fact that pro-surveillance people have not (to my knowledge) spoken up about TDWFB doesn't mean we can throw neutrality out the door. These three sources are explicitly non-neutral; all three are opinion pieces that promote the subject of the article. Their inclusion is itself WP:PROMOTION. In addition, as a matter of style, "External Links" sections really aren't meant as holding areas for sources that have yet to be included in the bodies of articles. These sources provide no unique resource (see WP:ELNO) and should either be incorporated or moved to the talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read this link Fleischman

The Telegraph article is about TDWFB, which is a global protest. They say "Today there are also live demonstrations planned in Denmark, Stockholm and the US. In London this evening there will be an event including lectures on how to improve your online security as well as the launch of a campaign called Don’t Spy on Us, backed by Liberty and Privacy International, which calls for an inquiry into mass surveillance in the UK."

You have removed two references to this - from the Lede mention of the UK version "Don't Spy on US", and the bit I added to the 'events' section about Denmark and Stockholm. I have reread the article and am quite sure you've misread it if you think these actions aren't one in the same and belong in this article. There are other articles which talk about the global nature of this protest and say the same thing the Telegraph has. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed these for different reasons. The reference in the lede was used to say that TDWFB and "Don't Spy on Us" are two names for the same thing. I understand TDWFB is a global protest but the Telegraph source doesn't say the two are one and the same; it merely says they're similar. Therefore we have a verifiability problem. I removed the reference in the "Events" section because it was redundant with other items in the same section. We already had more details on each of the US, Denmark, and Stockholm demonstrations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 11 Reddit AMA

I think the second Reddit AMA isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion; it also relies too heavily on blockquoting, which is disfavored. Wnt and I already had a disagreement over the first one because of the primary sourcing; the final decision was to keep it because it was apparently the first announcement of the event. This second one is just a political statement by the organizers; there's nothing new about what they said, and I'm sure they made lots of other public statements the same day. In any case, primary sources are disfavored; if you want to include something about this AMA, find an independent secondary source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed material, due to lack of response. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 re-reverted me without explanation, with the edit summary: "I suppose you just happened to be editing at the same time as me again? Give me a break."

I repeat, please make your best effort to remain civil. This article is on my watch list so yes, I do notice when other editors are working on it and sometimes respond quickly. Please add your explanation for your re-reversion and try to respond to my comments above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed yet again, due to lack of response. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 re-reverted yet again without explanation, with the edit summary: "This is Reddit AMA number two - why on earth do you insist on removing my work?"

I have already explained why I think this material should be deleted, and no one has disagreed with me, so currently we have a consensus of one. Petrarchan's reverts without any explanation are therefore editing against consensus, which is disruptive. If it continues I will escalate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about, but this is ridiculous. You're so wrapped up in bizarre passive aggressive Wikipedia maneuvers that ... you'll do a revert to put back in the text you want taken out? Wnt (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You've caught the "personal attack bug" too? Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that I was perfectly content to edit in a compromise version to end your dispute without further ado, not really. It should already be obvious that I've reduced the length of the quote and thereby dealt with your blockquoting concern. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't address any of my concerns, because in your "compromise" version the non-notable second AMA is still there, as well as a block quote. No one has even attempted to explain why any mention of this second AMA is warranted. If you don't care to do so then we're still at a consensus of one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You know that WP:CONSENSUS is not defined as excluding people who didn't answer every question you ever asked. This conversation gives me some appreciation for the wisdom of Petrarchan's approach here. WP:NOTABILITY does not apply to isolated facts. If it did, it would not exclude any citation of the statements made by the organizers of a protest on the day of the protest. I will not address the other complaints you made above because you've just told me I wasted my time in paying attention to your statement about blockquotes. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not very nice.

At least your sentence about WP:N is a substantive argument, but it's a bit of a straw man. I didn't cite that guideline and I agree it doesn't apply directly, per WP:NNC (though many in the community often draw on it by analogy). My reference to notability was meant to be more general. Feel free to interpret it as a shorthand reference to WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, and related concepts. As we're engaged in writing an encyclopedia (rather than a newspaper or any number of other types of detailed works), it's a basic premise that we can't include everything that someone might find interesting. We must use editorial judgment to decide what's in and what's out, and that's done based on "notability," or using the language of WP:UNDUE, "importance." This is often (but not always) determined based on coverage by independent secondary sources, a la WP:GNG. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you simply don't like linking to a principal statement by the founders of a demonstration on the day of the demonstration, so we're violating policy to conceive of such a thing, even if we're not violating any particular policy. Harrumph. And then you top it off by saying that we can't be as detailed as a newspaper. seriously???? I mean, a newspaper's notion of in-depth coverage on any topic is usually so laughably meager next to Wikipedia it isn't even a contest. And when it comes to citing their sources... well, I have a theory that if an AP reporter ever cites the source of a study in a way that a normal person could find it short of doing a web search on a couple of keywords from the title from scratch (as opposed to what they usually do, saying "the girlfriend of a professor at an institute in france published a study Friday...") that a demon would instantly appear and drag them screaming to the pits of Hell. So far, they have not given me any experimental data to test that theory, and I doubt they ever will, but the point is, they're not our models for when to cite important sources. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that the inclusion of this material is a policy violation, beyond WP:NOT (which is in fact a "particular" policy). Your comment above is confusing, beyond your theory about the pits of hell. What criteria do you use for deciding what to include and what not to include? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Planner addition

Full disclosure, I'm proposing an addition for myself under planners. I worked closely with Sina Khanifar for ~40 days before the day of protest, and have also worked on all anti-privacy protests leading up to "TheDayWeFightBack". I work with Sina under a organization called the "Rapid Response Internet Task Force", being the most active developer for the banner project and second most active on the website. EFF tweeted that the day couldn't have been possible without me (@neutralthoughts). I also created and moderated the [[2]] for the protest.

--Thomasalwyndavis — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly sufficient references, thanks! petrarchan47tc 05:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think these aren't reliable sources, so the material should be deleted until more reliable sources are found. Per the relevant guidelines (WP:V and WP:RS), references should generally not be to self-published sources, particularly when self-promotional, including social media sources such as Twitter. Mr. Davis's contribution, while not particularly controversial, also appears to be self-promotional, which is also not allowed. Most importantly, none of the links provided actually say that Mr. Davis helped to plan TDWFB, let alone that he was a "lead figure." Getting to that conclusion requires synthesis, which is not permitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed this bit of promotion, due to lack of response. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thomasalwyndavis blanked this discussion with the edit summary "Understood." I've restored it per WP:TPO for historical purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, still trying to memorize the guidelines. --Thomasalwyndavis

No problem, we all struggled in the beginning. I still struggle! :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been a misunderstanding - the Tweet from EFF is a reliable source for this bit. Of information. Dr F needs to reread WP:RS. petrarchan47tc 16:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite check

The ref named "PCMag2/11" makes no mention of "the other Five Eyes partners involved in global surveillance." 118.209.106.187 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done I removed that portion of the first sentence. If an appropriate source is found that language can be added back in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Novel idea: do an Internet search before removing content. petrarchan47tc 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, and remember that those adding content bear the burden of establishing its verifiability. Ordinarily I tag these sorts of problems and let the author of the uncited material fix it to their liking. However in this case we're talking about the first sentence, and I personally feel that major unsupported material in the first sentence should be removed immediately, especially when other editors have already flagged the problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Do a search, like this: Go to "Duck Duck GO" and put in the search "The Day We Fight Back, Five Eyes". You will get tons of references such as http://www.htxt.co.za/2014/02/05/privacy-week-join-fight-back-online-privacy-joburg-next-week/ petrarchan47tc 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. BTW that's not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be fixed with the addition of the Calgary Herald ref. Thanks Petrarchan. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BgPZc-zCMAEQ43A.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)