Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pompeo

One of our editors has taken on the role of Winston Smith to memory hole statements made by Pompeo about Wikileaks in April 2017. The remarks have been widely reported and are noteworthy because Pompeo was one of the US regime’s top henchmen at the time he made the statements. Here are the statements at issue and some further sources:

• Pompeo referred to WikiLeaks as "a non-state hostile intelligence service" and described founder Julian Assange as a narcissist, fraud, and coward".
• Pompeo said Wikileaks and its staff "pretended America's First Amendment freedom shields them from justice. They may have believed that, but they're wrong ... Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms ... It ends now".

Burrobert (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Those statements do not belong in a section about criticisms that Wikileaks has an anti-American bias. Pompeo's statement that Wikileaks is a "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia" could possibly be in the "Allegations of Russian influence" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that the "non-state hostile intelligence service" comment is currently mentioned at three other points on the page so perhaps that it enough for that one. I am open to suggestions about an appropriate section for the other one and confident a suitable section can be found. Perhaps the "Public positions taken by politicians concerning Wikileaks" section? Burrobert (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

A few points

• At some point we say “WikiLeaks has popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, such as …. implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed … “. The source provided says “Assange … implied Rich was the source of the email and was killed for working with his group”. There is a slight difference in meaning.

• At another point we say “According to The New York Times, both Assange claims are substance-free”. I removed this because it is unclear what the two claims are. The NYTimes source does not mention Assange and only mentions Wikileaks in relation to Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com. In relation to the Panama papers, the NYTimes only says Putin blamed the US and “there is no evidence suggesting that the United States government had a role in releasing them”. It is therefore difficult to see how the source can be used to support the statement that “both Assange claims” (whatever they are) “are substance-free”.

Burrobert (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiLeaks Party

Might it be worth adding Template:For to the top of the page and mention the WikiLeaks Party? I believe it could be something people easily confuse. Fixing26 (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The WikiLeaks Party is not very significant. It lasted in Australia for a short time.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Whilst not extremely significant, it still goes by a similar name and should be mentioned. Fixing26 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think one of the first sentences should mention that WikiLeaks is NOT related to Wikipedia

Hello,

I think one of the first sentences in the intro to this article should mention that WikiLeaks is NOT related to Wikipedia. As all contributors know (but the general public may not), the 2 entities have completely different missions, methods and goals.

Their non-connection is mentioned further on in the articvle, but I think it is very important that people who only read the beginning of the article learn this, if they don't know it already.

I propose that a sentence similar to the one that appears lower down could be included as the third sentence of the first paragraph: Despite some popular confusion, related to the fact both sites use the "wiki" name and website design template, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia are not affiliated

(I am not sure why my status of a long-time contributor does not allow me to make this change myself). Texteditor (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is still a very common misperception and clearing it up improves readers' understanding significantly.

I have restored the hatnote that had been in the article since at least 2018 before someone replaced it this February with an ill-conceived overly general template that was later deleted. We could also consider linking WP:WIKILEAKS in the hatnote.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I disagree with the use of the hatnote – it comes off as overly defensive of Wikipedia in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX, especially given that WikiLeaks enjoys a moderate amount of committed support and it implies that Wikipedia officially disapproves of WikiLeaks. The use of a capitalized and bolded "NOT", in violation of MOS:EMPHCAPS, just confirms this doubly. I understand that there may be frequent confusion between WikiLeaks and Wikimedia projects generally, but we shouldn't, objectively speaking, go out of our way to right that great wrong; rather, we should have a factual, encyclopedic entry on a notable organization. The last sentence of the lead paragraph – "WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation" – is more than sufficient to make this point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Texteditor and HaeB:, as I recognize quite some time has passed since this conversation was first initiated. Please feel free to discuss. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @AllegedlyHuman and HaeB:,I have no opinion about including the hatnote or not. But if capitalizing and bolding NOT is in violation of [[MOS:EMPHCAPS], then if the hatnote is kept, I think it must be without this.Texteditor (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, do either of you know of any way to suggest to Wikipedians who work on Wikipedia to include the equivalent of "WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation" in their languages? I think it should be.Texteditor (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I disagree generally that this is a thing we should do. We're a group of volunteers, not the WMF's PR team. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree too.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplication

"Promotion of conspiracy theories" deals with Seth Rich twice, and really belongs with the other stuff about Clinton.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Agree, there's plenty of repeated criticisms, this section should be moved to the criticism section below and trimmed of repeats. --Loganmac (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight in Criticism section

I checked the entire Criticism section and noticed too many instances of repeated claims, non-attributed criticisms stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice (like a sentence that read that from 2016 Wikileaks focused "almost exclusively" on the DNC, which is contradicted by the numerous notable leaks in the Leaks section starting after that year) and an entire section based on a single source.

Aside from this, there's WAY too much weight given to recent criticism (WP:RECENTISM) , most of this criticism is based around a single topic, the 2016 and 2020 US elections, in what seems Americentrism as it gets (WP:WORLDVIEW), for example criticism from other countries (some which even led to regime changes) is barely given space if at all. The debacle between Rafael Correa and Lenin Moreno over his stance at the Ecuadorian embassy is barely mentioned.

A lot of this content should be fit for the Reception of WikiLeaks article. It doesn't make much sense that the section on Wikileaks entire history of leaks is shorter than the criticism of said leaks.

The section WikiLeaks#Correspondence_between_WikiLeaks_and_Donald_Trump_Jr. is almost as long as any of the years in the Leaks section. This section is sourced entirely to a single The Atlantic article. This source, when read, reveals most of the messages sent by Wikileaks went ignored, and even in one of those messages, Wikileaks tries to get material that would be damaging to their campaign. One of the statements (about suggesting they say the election was "rigged" if they lose) is repeated from the previous section above.

As it stands it doesn't make much sense that leaks covered by the most read newspapers of the world like the Cables Leak are given less weight that criticism focused on a single topic, at least in this article. I suggest the bulk of this section be moved to Reception of WikiLeaks and given due weight with other criticisms there. Loganmac (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

Add a link to Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia in "See Also" 68.53.219.198 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Update needed

This article clearly needs an update.

• Although Assange is mentioned 174 times, this article barely acknowledges his current situation or even his sojourn in the embassy.
• Staff lists Daniel Domscheit-Berg who left in 2010 and Sarah Harrison who apparently isn't working for WikiLeaks anymore.

 Done. As of 31 October 2021, the Infobox lists neither Domscheit-Berg nor Harrison among key people. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Administration is based on a 2010 interview.
• Potential criminal prosecution doesn't update the situation past 2010.
• Financing again doesn't update the situation past 2010.
• Leaks goes up to 2019.

A subsection for 2021 has been added, covering leaks in August. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Claims of upcoming leaks is updated to 2011.

Overall, a lot of the information is 10 years old, and this is only what I've seen in passing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Updating this article is a daunting task. The page has 1,193 watchers yet is badly in need of overhaul. By comparison, the BLP of WikiLeaks' charismatic founder is a magnet for both readers and editors. Too bad we cannot divert some of that attention here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kendrawsing.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Radical transparency

Early on there was talk that Wikileaks was going to achieve radical transparency. Or did it? Is there a reliable source describing the early vision? It has also been used where the writer seems to mean releasing without checking for needed redactions which I don't believe is what is meant. NadVolum (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of deprecated (unreliable) source

Cited RT because RT's use of WikiLeaks was the subject Softlemonades (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

Remove "which had been negotiated in secret." in the description of Trans Pacific Partnership. ALL trade agreements are negotiated in secret by design, in order to prevent lobbying and other external influences. This part of the sentence evokes it is something special and suspicious.

https://www.npr.org/2015/06/19/415809462/remembering-nafta-gives-insight-into-why-trade-deals-are-kept-secret?t=1647357866276 Crimsoncaravantrader (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What you say is true, however it is also true that it was negotiated in secret and that is reliably and notably reportesd, and some of its provisions were highly controversial which is why the leaks got prominence. Perhaps negotiation using more modern methods might be better than having secret cabals decide such things and trying to make out everything is honky dory? NadVolum (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Whistleblower Aid

I recently created an article for Whistleblower Aid. Editors who edit this page may be interested in taking a look. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Kremlin conspiracy theories

Having seen these edits, [1], [2], [3] by Burrobert and Cambial Yellowing, I think both of these editors should comment on whether (Personal attack removed) about the DNC hacks. Geogene (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attack in your comment. You need to confirm whether you're here to build an encylopaedia. This article is not a collection of opinion pieces and poorly-sourced gossip. Nothing in the edits you reverted gives the slightest indication of the absurd and baseless personal attack directed at me and another editor, and as you see I've warned you against further baseless accusations of bad faith. Your edit summary does not even attempt to explain your reversion, and you've simply made up the accusation in it. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not in any position to doubt whether I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I have these diffs that show you taking sources out of context to try to spread right-wing/pro-Kremlin conspiracy theories about the DNC hacks. This is a problem. Geogene (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t want to spend too much time on this issue but, since my edit was mentioned, I will give an explanation of the changes:

- The name of the TV channel was changed from Russia Today to RT, which has been its name since 2009.

- I removed the phrase “both Assange claims are substance-free” since it was sourced to an article which did not mention Assange or his claims.

- I added a sentence about the view of William Binney, which was sourced to a green tick reliable source. Since Binney is the ex-Technical Director of the NSA his opinion is notable.

- I changed the description of the Syrian government to “Syrian government”. It was previously described as the “Syrian regime”.

Burrobert (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the "Speculation" template

Cambial Yellowing, self revert this [4]. The content there has nothing to do with future predictions. Geogene (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

But it does relate to speculation, which is the purpose of the template. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's for unsourced speculation about future events. Read it. Geogene (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's for predictions [comma] speculative material [comma] or accounts of events that might not occur. Speculative material from individuals not widely reported is not appropriate on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's obviously talking about predictions about the future, and it seems to be your personal opinion that the content in question is speculative in the first place. Geogene (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The template does not apply, and the content about Shamir was widely reported and does not need to be attributed in article text. SPECIFICO talk 09:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't apply Softlemonades (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing It's not disruptive to remove the template, it doesn't apply. Check what the template references and its clear Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Theres a consensus you just don't like it Softlemonades (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If your use of the Speculative template applies then it should have gone on the second you tried to add the Binney stuff. So either youre wrong, Binney was bad faith or this was bad faith. I think youre just wrong. Softlemonades (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Binney content is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You've not been clear as to why you bring it up inthis section. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's disruptive to remove maintenance templates when the issue is not resolved. Several editors are now involved in this discussion. If editors could simply decide "this isn't an issue" and then remove, maintenance templates could invariably be removed immediately. This is not the case. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Several editors are now involved in this discussion" and all of them but you say it should be removed. Softlemonades (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Serious BLP violations; unsourced content

@Geogene: You've repeatedly inserted material relating to a living person sourced to an archive copy of the website "cyberwire" and to Vice Media, which is not considered a reliable source. BLP material requires high quality sourcing, not little-known websites with little or no evidence of editorial control.

In addition, you've restored material "frequently been criticised" (which has been tagged since April 2019) that is infact unsupported by the NY Times article given in the reference following it. Why have you done so?

You've also reintroduced various copyediting mistakes.

It looks a great deal like you've simply reverted everything without bothering to examine the nature of the content changes, on the basis of a ridiculous and unfounded personal attack you opted to make about the motivation of other editors. Please look at content changes you are making rather than simply reverting material based on your baseless assumption of bad faith. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If the alleged BLP issue were what was bothering you, you could have only removed that part. Or mentioned it earlier in your edit summaries. That you're arguing that *now* looks like you searching for a justification after the fact. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that at all: the edit summary explained the sourcing problem and linked to RSP. Your fourth reinsertion of copyediting errors and unsourced content (NY times does not refer to any "frequent criticism" and it is your responsibility to provide a reliable source when restoring) makes it reasonable to question whether you're here to build an encyclopaedia. Thank you for removing the thinly-sourced "infiltration" claim. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you're getting at here. As soon as you (finally) mentioned an alleged BLP problem, I stopped reverting the content in question back into the article. Probably, you were struggling to find a justification to keep reverting, but if not, then you need to learn how to communicate better. Geogene (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You were apparently either unable to understand "Rm poorly sourced content. See Wp:RSP#Vice_Media." or you didn't bother to read the edit summary or look at the content before reverting. You opened talk with a baseless (and absurd) personal attack about "Kremlin conspiracy". Neither I nor anyone will be taking advice from you about how to communicate effectively.

You are still yet to justify your restoration of content unsupported by the source. Please either provide a source that directly supports the content or remove it. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw all of your useless edit summaries; they're permanently recorded here [5]. You didn't mention a BLP issue until the very end. You made some inaccurate/misleading claims about everything you were removing being "opinion pieces," and "speculations," (the DNC hack is "speculation"? [6]) which is problematic in itself. Geogene (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit summaries had the distinct advantage of actually according with reality, unlike your own. They are however only useful if you read them, rather than knee-jerk reverting based on a Kremlin-conspiracy happening entirely within your imagination.

"asked whether WikiLeaks had "become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by Russian spies" is not only speculation, but is expressly framed as speculation by the authors (they pose the question; not report the fact).

"But I have a suspicion that things are sometimes fed in, and [WikiLeaks does] know where they came from." is again speculation: "I have a suspicion". Mark Galeotti is a serious scholar, but no RS reports his views on wikileaks, and "Moscow Times" is not sufficient to establish notability of his views on wikileaks.

Lastly, I haven't suggested what you claim about the DNC. Making stuff up is uncivil and is not going to work to defend the personal attacks you made. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

All you're doing here is showing your ignorance of policy. And accusing me of incivility while simultaneously making a NOTHERE claim shows an apparent lack of self-awareness. Geogene (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact you are unwilling or unable to actually discuss the problematic content is quite telling as to your tenuous grasp of policy. If you're unable to defend your poorly thought-out edits we should remove the unsupported material and speculation you've repeatedly sought to restore. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you believe the view of an anonymous source quoted nowhere except the "Moscow Times" ought to be included? Cambial — foliar❧ 08:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether a source is anonymous or not, Moscow Times is a reliable source, and has some of the best coverage of Russian politics out there. The content in question is also not particularly controversial. Geogene (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Moscow Times is hardly a mainstream news organisation, but whether it constitutes a source for facts is not relevant. MT is the only source to have mentioned this view that "Wikileaks and Russian state have effectively joined forces". The views of tiny, anonymous minorities (one person), have no place here. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, the alignment of Wikileaks and the Russian state have been known and discussed in the mainstream for the past six years. SPECIFICO talk 09:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Cambial has been making.......questionable edits and claims, like saying there's a consensus that Vice is not a reliable source, when theres no consensus that says that, edit warring and misusing templates. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

>MT is the only source to have mentioned this view that "Wikileaks and Russian state have effectively joined forces".

It's called an exclusive interview and possible ties between wikileaks and russia have been reported and explored for at least 10 years, especially since 2016 Softlemonades (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I just had a read of the Moscow Times article, It looked like a reputable piece to me though I'm sure SPECIFICO would say it wasn't if it disagreed with them! The thing that does strike me though is that the summary here in the Wikileaks article does not reflect the original article, the summary here cherrypicks the source to show Wikileaks is in league with Russia whereas the original article would be much better described by its subheading "Some claim WikiLeaks is working for the Kremlin. The reality is hardly so simple". The summary here should either be removed or expanded to reflect the original article better. NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The section includes the article's relevant counterpoint. The other main counterpoints involve Israel Shamir and Assange's show and treatment on RT and other Russian media. Those also involve other allegations against Wikileaks and Assange, which can be added to other sections or expanded into their own. Softlemonades (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. And I wonder whether we should give further context as to who and what Shamir is and does? Possibly relevant context? SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

He comes up at least twice in this section, now, and is probably worth including on his own. I say do it Softlemonades (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum: I agree, it's not remotely representative of the content of the source. The problematic BLP content has also been added again. As that's the most urgent issue I've raised it at BLPN. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not even what @NadVolum said and (Personal attack removed) at BLPN Softlemonades (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting NadVolum, but agreeing with their point, which is the same: you are wrong. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice strawman I didnt say you were quoting NadVolum: you are wrong Softlemonades (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

1. We have a quote in a marginal (last known print circulation: 35,000; rarely mentioned at RSN) internet newspaper from an anonymous source "Wikileaks and Russian state have effectively joined forces". This is, prima facie, a very different claim to the one that certain WikiLeaks publications have been talked about by Russian officials at press conferences etc. We don't have any other sources that suggest a joining of forces, and carrying this quote from an anonymous source is undue weight to this tiny minority view.

2. This quote: "But I have a suspicion that things are sometimes fed in, and [WikiLeaks does] know where they came from." Again entirely relying on a non-mainstream internet newspaper to try to establish notability for this person's opinion on WikiLeaks.

3. "has been frequently criticised..." The source does not state this and this claim remains unsourced. The article referenced itself makes that criticism, and an adjustment to the wording would cope with the longstanding weasel word tag, ("journalists from the NYT criticised...), but we should establish whether their opinion is due, as they are not (as far as I know) subject matter experts.

There are other problems with this section. Apart from anything else it's simply terribly written: ten of eleven paragraphs starting "In 20xx, such-and-such wrote...." The most pressing issue before trying to render it like an encyclopaedia is these cherrypicked quotes from a marginal news source with apparently no reporting of their views elsewhere. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

As this issue relates to weight for these views I've raised the question at NPOVN. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time you lose an argument you find a new one Softlemonades (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

A criticisms section will be critical. A neutral solution would be expanding awards and praise, not deleting the things you dont like. Softlemonades (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Softlemonades: Regarding the BLP content: the default position of a source is not "reliable until proved otherwise" Vice is not considered a reliable source here. Sources for contentious or negative content relating to a living person need to be reliable. Claiming someone carried out an illegal hack of a national political party requires better sourcing than that which you’ve supplied; failing that the material needs to be removed. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: It's not negative content and Phineas Fisher is the one who claimed it, theres even a signed PGP statement from them that you keep removing Softlemonades (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No, there is not. There’s a copy of a self-published blog post by someone else that someone later pasted on archive.org. Claiming someone carried out something illegal is contentious, and requires high-quality sourcing. The current sources are not. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesnt matter who published it, its a PGP signed statement from them. The signatures valid, the keys public and have been for years. Its a statement from Phineas Fisher I dont know else what to tell you

"Claiming someone carried out something illegal is contentious, and requires high-quality sourcing." But you dont challenge the claims of hacks from VICE for anything else. Just this, wonder why huh Softlemonades (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Added AKP references so its solved Softlemonades (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of the "Undue weight" template

It's not undue weight, it's just a lot to cover because it goes back over 10 years and is the subject of intense interest. I think the template should be removed. Softlemonades (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Any valid sourced views that are under-represented could be added instead of the template. Please remove the template. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Done Softlemonades (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing Make your case Softlemonades (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing Please explain why its undue weight and the template belongs Softlemonades (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing In edit summaries you accuse other people of not engaging in the discussion but you refuse to engage or explain your position here despite repeated invitations. This is one of the definitions of disruptive editing: "b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Softlemonades (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion already ongoing above. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why undue weight belongs. Softlemonades (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It does; you’re simply talking nonsense at this point. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"You're simply talking nonsense at this point" you just accused me of making personal attacks but okeydoke here you are

"Undue" shows up once in that discussion, the template is not mentioned. You move from argument to argument and bring up NPOVN (after this discussion was started and several tags) but not the undue weight template. Why cant or wont you make your briefly case here instead of edit warring with multiple editors? Softlemonades (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The first two points are specifically about undue weight. If you don’t understand the policy, that’s fine, many novices don’t. I suggest reading the Wp:PAGs to familiarise yourself with the conditions for whether individual opinions are included. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no issue here; just one editor edit warring a template into the article. Geogene (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Youre right what do we do Softlemonades (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The first two points were about BLP, you wrongly saying Wikipedia:RSP#Vice Media is not a reliable source when theres no consensus, and then complaining about another editor reverting your edits.

Several editors have removed your undue weight template and your wpending a lot of time explaining why youre not explaining why it belongs there in the section of the talk page for that discussion. Softlemonades (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You also keep sending me warnings and threatening to have me blocked for removing the templates despite consensus and you edit warring but you refuse to explain why it belongs and then insult me when I ask you to explain Softlemonades (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

YOU SENT ME ANOTHER THREAT WHILE I WAS TYPING THAT TO HAVE ME BLOCKED OVER THE BLP STUFF DESPITE CONSENSUS AND LEAVING YOUR OWN NOTICEBOARD DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AS SOON AS YOURE CHALLENGED Softlemonades (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The first two points are those numbered 1 and 2 in this post which you have evidently seen but avoided discussing the issues raised, presumably because you don’t understand the policy on weight and notability of opinions. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Most people don't say "the first two points" to refer to one of the last posts in a discussion, especialy when those points are about specific lines and one source - not a section.

Maybe you can see how I was confused - especially why you would barely raise the point there instead of here days after it was started and being invited to

And maybe stop saying I dont understand when youre edit warring and others like @Geogene (also say youre wrong Softlemonades (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Binney denial of Russian affiliation

I am removing the old Intercept bit about Binney's denial of Russian affiliation, due the fact that he later recanted it and also due to his association with Trump and conspiracy theories concerning the elections that would need to be contextualized to present his no longer held opinion. We should find a better soutce than the Intercept to cover a balanced view of any dissent from the Russia/Wikileaks mainstream view. See this section and his article in total for details and references. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I was unaware of the Duncan Campbell investigation in which Binney states his change of opinion. Agreed that this renders his earlier view less relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. He does not seem like a stable or credible source based on current information. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Good evening CY. Binney's view is still that the data was downloaded locally and was not a Russian hack. He explains what the Duncan Campbell story is about in this video. See also The Duncan Campbell story was published in 2018. In this video from 2020, Binney makes it clear that he maintains his view that it was not a Russian hack (he steps in around the 4:35 mark). A partial transcript can be found here . He said that investigations lead to the CIA as a likely source. Binney and the VIPS have published articles after 2018 in which they maintain the view that the data was downloaded locally. See In summary, his views are:

- the transfer rates indicate that the download was made onto a local storage device.

- the rounding of the time stamps on the data files also indicate a local transfer onto a FAT storage device such as a thumb drive

- there is evidence (this appears to relate to the investigation of Duncan Campbell) that Guccifer 2 played around with the data by splitting it into two batches.

Burrobert (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Burrow, please address the central point. Binney has recanted, he is promoting Trump's conspiracy theories, and the Interept source is weak. We already knew what he said way back when. What current RS takes him seriously? The youtubes are meaningless. Just this morning I learned about aliens in Arkansas. One of them is planning to run for governor. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The views I mentioned are not from "way back when". They are taken from interviews and publications made after 2018 i.e after the Campbell article. No aliens appear in the videos. Aren't "Binney has recanted" and "he is promoting Trump's conspiracy theories" contradictory? Burrobert (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Binney's subsequent comments could mean his view is still relevant, but have they been covered elsewhere? The LaRouche and Schiller outfits are quite dubious and I don’t think we could realistically call them reliable sources.

@SPECIFICO: Your claim that Binney has "recanted" is not true, and directly contrary to the Duncan Campbell source for your claim: "Binney subsequently repeated and confirmed his views in an interview with the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee... Binney and McGovern have not retracted the claims in the 2017 VIPS report at the time of writing." It is relevant to assessing this that Binney told Campbell he agreed with Campbell's analysis of the evidence for the transfer location metadata. But your claim is not supported. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I was not really considering whether the sources were usable here. I just wanted to correct the record on Binney's views as represented on this talk page and also on his own Wiki-page. It would be great if usable sources could be found but in the meantime we can find comfort in knowing that Binney is still a "stable [and] credible source" on this issue. Burrobert (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Good so let's be sure not to shoehorn Binney into the encyclopedia. But what do you think of the youtube about an alien running for Gov of Arkansas? It could be good for tourism and he said that he will build golfcourses in every town above 10,000 population. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't know anything about this alien but surely it has miscalculated the mood of the electorate. Wouldn't the voters choose the candidate who will provide public funded healthcare and education? Anyway, alien takeovers have a long history of failure: V, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Star Trek NG Conspiracy, The Midwich Cuckoos ... On the other hand, according to my sources, alien species have set 2029 as the date for completion of a decades-long plan to take over world government. Perhaps, Arkansas is the first step on that path. Burrobert (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there's been three versions of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, one ended with humanity definitely defeated and in the other two the outcome was still very uncertain. NadVolum (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct Nad. I realised after writing it that the Donald Sutherland version did not end well for the humans. I must have been thinking of the original. Glad you are on the ball. Burrobert (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Allegations of Russian X section heading

The heading title keeps shifting, I thought we should figure it out here instead of edit warring it. I propose Allegations of Russian bias and contact. The last edit changed it to Allegations of association with Russian government while adding the Panama papers section back. I don't know if that fits under that heading.

What's fair and accurate? Softlemonades (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian bias would mean bias on the Russians' part. Anyway it's not really bias. It is a coordination, collaboration, alliance, partnership, collusion, teamwork, whatever word best fits. I chose "affiliation" which is neutral and does not imply overt organized conspiracy, since we have no details of the mode of affiliation. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points, my bad wording including. I thought maybe it should be broader because of things like the Panama papers stuff (I removed it to get ahead of the edit war, think its good its back) and:

In September 2016, the Daily Dot wrote that according to leaked court documents and a chatlog, a WikiLeaks release excluded evidence of a €2 billion transaction between the Syrian government and a government-owned Russian bank.

Affiliation is good but might sound too active for things like hte Daily dot Softlemonades (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Reuters says "Wikileaks played a key role" in Russia's efforts to promote the election of Pres. Trump. So affiliate seems kind of euphemistic by that standard. Also this SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems fair Softlemonades (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Reuters reported that a Senate committee said that. It does not say it in its own voice. NadVolum (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Allegation of Russian bias and contact seems fair enough to me. The Senate report did not allege affiliation and if anything was going to go that way the Senate report would be it. NadVolum (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

No, Reuters does not say that. Reuters reports that a committee of the US Senate claimed that. Reuters does not say that that claim is factually correct. These claims are, however, unverified and highly controversial. How WikiLeaks obtained the DNC/Podesta emails and what, if anything, they knew about the identities of their sources is still uncertain. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. The logs are public in court documents Softlemonades (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Softlemonades: The claim that WikiLeaks excluded information about a Russian bank transaction is heavily disputed. Just for context, this concerns a major leak of Syrian government data that WikiLeaks published. Syria is allied with Russia, so the idea that WikiLeaks would publish this leak while working with Russia does not make much sense. If anything, Russia would be very unhappy with WikiLeaks publishing the Syrian files at all. It should also be noted that WikiLeaks has published a cache of leaked Russian government documents (the "Russia Files"), which document how a government cell phone surveillance system works. Various political figures and commentators close to the Democratic Party in the US accused WikiLeaks of being connected to Russia in the wake of the publication of the DNC/Podesta emails, but to my knowledge, no one has ever provided any evidence of such a connection. Wikipedia cannot present them as anything other than speculation, and must provide the political context of the accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Heavily disputed would need to mean more than by you and your affiliates. Let's see multiple mainstream RS that agree with your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who my "affiliates" are supposed to be, and normally, people making a claim (e.g., WikiLeaks removed an email from the Syria Files at Russia's request) are the ones who bear the burden of proof. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The article references court documents and several chat logs and leaks. Your "does not make much sense" is original research. Wikileaks did dispute it and so I addeded that and the threat they made against the reporters

"people making a claim (e.g., WikiLeaks removed an email from the Syria Files at Russia's request" - Noone's claiming that. Thats a strawman dude. Noone said "at Russias request" you can check my quote above or the page itself

DNC Podesta Democratic Party and publishing 35 Russia Files all have nothing to do with this Softlemonades (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Noone's claiming that. Thats a strawman dude. Noone said "at Russias request": That's the crux of the entire argument. Supposedly, while WikiLeaks was in the process of releasing a massive trove of files targeting Russia's ally Syria, WikiLeaks removed one particular email, because it would damage Russia. Beyond the fact that the accusation makes no sense at all (why release all the other emails about Russia's ally, including emails detailing all sorts of connections between Russia and Syria?), there's no confirmation that WikiLeaks actually had the email in question. WikiLeaks denies having received the email, and the chat logs do not prove that WikiLeaks possessed the email. The whole theory is that WikiLeaks is somehow influenced by or acting on the directions of Russia, but there's never been any evidence presented of that, and even the indirect "evidence" (such as the claims about the Syrian email) is in dispute. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN of verification has been met. Typically, you ignore the request for RS that would support your POV, presumably because there are few and dubious of such. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Update Awards and praise section

The Awards and praise section needs to be updated. It doesnt go past 2010, and there should be plenty of unbiased praise at least through 2016and some in 2017 with the CIA stuff.

Extra important because a lot of critics have also said good things about Wikileaks Softlemonades (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Following manual of style policy

Just a quick gathering of views here before any formal RfC. Should we follow the consensus style policy and use the neutral "said", rather than the loaded term "speculated" when describing a statement from three sources?

• Follow style policy Long-standing consensus deems the use of loaded terms like "speculated" a problem for good reason. The appropriate neutral term to maintain neutrality and encyclopaedic tone is "said". Cambial — foliar❧ 16:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, policy is clear that we should use a neutral term such as "said" or "stated". It may make for boring text but entertainment is not an encyclopaedia's main priority. Burrobert (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically, like much of the Wikileaks/Assange content, that was subpar and should not have been in the article in the first place. If you don't want garbage to be reverted, then the best thing is to fix it yourself before anyone else does. Cheers.👩‍⚖️ SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Reception section

The "awards and praise" subsection needs to be expanded to include positive assessments of Wikileaks. A more muted subsection heading would also be an improvement. Burrobert (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to raise this at Talk:WikiLeaks#Update_Awards_and_praise_section. Softlemonades (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I added some awards. Courage should have good quotes

Dont know what youre thinking with the heading Softlemonades (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the earlier suggestion. The word "praise" seems odd. Don't have an alternative title in mind. The criticism subsections are divided into specific issues. Perhaps something similar can be done with the positive assessments. Burrobert (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Subsections by issue are a good idea I think.

"Support" maybe? Softlemonades (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Support is fine. It is the same title that is used in the Reception article. Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not an organisation of journalists

I am sceptical about whether Assange made that statement. Here are the reasons: - I have not seen any other source attribute the statement to Assange or Wikileaks - it conflicts with many other statements that Assange and Wikileaks have made - it does not make sense in the context mentioned by the RSF. It is not a defence against the charge that the RSF is making. So, if it is mentioned in this article, it should be attributed to the RSF, unless there are further developments, such as someone finding the source in which the statement was made. I don't think it is suitable for the lead. Burrobert (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, the quote in NYr is of a statement “we are not the press”, which is not the same thing. Furthermore, in no sense can this be construed as “describing itself”. The bizarre syntax used, which does not reflect the sources, reads like POV-pushing. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Burrobert: I see what youre saying and would like to hear from more. I only readded it because of the second source.

Cambial: A core wikileaks member describing wikileaks is wikileaks describing itself, so youre statement is not supported by the facts. Please stop with the personal attacks. Softlemonades (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Softlemonades: there are no personal attacks. Please stop with the absurd fantasies. A core WikiLeaks member was not “describing” WikiLeaks in making a statement about what it is not. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You've declared the same thing personal attacks and removed content on this same page and made threats to me about the same.

And yeah they were. You're wrong. Softlemonades (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed rebuttal. It was not persuasive. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing could persuade you, Cambial Softlemonades (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Nothing could persuade me to insert an unsupported and inappropriate claim into an article. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"But, in the Bunker one evening, Gonggrijp told me, “We are not the press.” He considers WikiLeaks an advocacy group for sources; within the framework of the Web site, he said, “the source is no longer dependent on finding a journalist who may or may not do something good with his document.”"

The article says Wikileaks describes themselves as journalists, it also says they describe themselves as not the press and the context is clear. If your problem is that "we are not the press" is not that same thing, you shouldve just changed the text. Softlemonades (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The writer of the NYr article is Raffi Khatchadourian, who was present in the bunker in Iceland. The quote from Gonggrijp appears to have been from a casual conversation. I don't think we should treat it as an official Wikileaks position. It may have a place somewhere in the body of the article but the context of the quote should be made clear. Burrobert (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"The quote from Gonggrijp appears to have been from a casual conversation." I dont get that from the context, Raffi put it in a paragraph about Wikileaks relationship with journalism. Softlemonades (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"But, in the Bunker one evening, Gonggrijp told me, “We are not the press.” " does not come across as an official Wikileaks pronouncement to me. As far as I can tell Rop Gonggrijp worked with Wikileaks to help with the Collateral Murder video and has had no other role in the organisation. His thoughts are interesting because he was inside the group at the time. However, if we are going to use the quote we should attribute it to him and provide the context. It may fit into the reception section under a subsection which gives various views on the characterisation of Wikileaks (people's intelligence agency etc.) Burrobert (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

He didnt "help" with the video, he managed it and was the treasurer of the project. But yeah Softlemonades (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Awards mentioned by Wikileaks

This bit

WikiLeaks, its publisher and its journalists have won many awards since, including The 2011 National Union of Journalists Journalist of the Year to Kristinn Hrafnsson, The 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, The 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, The 2011 Blanquerna Award for Best Communicator, The 2011 Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, The 2011 Voltaire Award for Free Speech, The 2011 International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists, The 2011 Jose Couso Press Freedom Award, The 2012 Privacy International Hero of Privacy, The 2013 Global Exchange Human Rights People's Choice Award, The 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts, The 2013 Brazillian Press Association Human Rights Award, and The 2014 Kazakstan Union of Journalists Top Prize.

was removed because it was cited to Wikileaks. I'd have just put in citation needed myself.I just checked the first and it was easy enough to find a source so I guess the thing people could do is find source sfor each of the awards. NadVolum (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"Julian Assange has stated that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists" in the first paragraph

The title has been thrust into the first paragraph of the lead. It is based on a 2010 open letter from RSF addressed to Assange.

- Did Assange make that statement? Where?

- Does it deserve to be this prominent or would it be more appropriate in the body?

- Should it be attributed? Should the statement be dated?

- After this statement, the RSF letter provides RSF's opinion on the same question - "Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media". Should this also be added to the lead?

- This was one part of the letter. Should other statements from the letter also be included in the lead. E..g.:

"Wikileaks has ... played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror".

Assange said the publication of the Afghan War Diary was aimed at "ending the war in Afghanistan" and that "Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future".

Assange said Wikileaks withheld “a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports” from publication while they were being "reviewed further" and that some of them would be released "once it was deemed safe to do so".

Burrobert (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders has consultant status with the United Nations and def seems to be reliable. Wikileaks does.

Def in the top section, at least.

Its attributed to Assange, and yes on the date I'll add that.

No because its an outside opinion, not an internal description

"Wikileaks has ... played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror". Maybe in the top section but not in the lead

Assange said the publication of the Afghan War Diary was aimed at "ending the war in Afghanistan" and that "Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future". Thats one publication, not Wikileaks as a group

Assange said Wikileaks withheld “a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports” from publication while they were being "reviewed further" and that some of them would be released "once it was deemed safe to do so". Thats one publication, not Wikileaks as a group and already in the article Softlemonades (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I added the date and the human rights and civil liberties thing right after Softlemonades (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Attribution in this case means saying " According to RSF, Assange said that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists".

The statement seems to conflict both with other statements by Wikileaks and with other statements that appear in the body of this article:

The Wired article which we use gives the following quote from the Wikileaks website: ""Wikileaks staff, who are investigative journalists forensically examine all documents and label any suspicions of inauthenticity."

Assange formed an advisory board in the early days of WikiLeaks, filling it with journalists, political activists and cypherpunks.

Original volunteers and founders 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.

The online "drop box" is described by the WikiLeaks website as "an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to [WikiLeaks] journalists ".

Burrobert (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I see what youre saying now. Yeah I think put it lower down, attribute the way youre saying and with "Wikileaks has made conflicting statements" or descriptions or whatever and then put them next too eachother for context. We can include the charge that WikiLeaks, and specifically Julian Assange, considered themselves the first intelligence agency for the general public'' because it did ''everything an intel[ligence] agency does''.

"Wikileaks is the first intelligence agency of the people" used to be on their About page too, I think we should add that with the others Softlemonades (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Right-ho. The quote about being the first intelligence service etc. is suitable for inclusion. Burrobert (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That is just self-serving primary-source puffery. If there is substantial RS affirmation it would then be significant. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Campaigns to discredit WikiLeaks

The Bank of America section could be merged into an expanded Banking Blockage section about the banks wider attacks on Wikileaks. Theyre clearly connected

The Army thing can stay or get merged into the timeline

Just an idea Softlemonades (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes that seems a reasonable way forward. What is the "Army thing"? Burrobert (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Writing for The Guardian in 2010, Nick Davies said there were low-level attempts to smear WikiLeaks, including online accusations against Assange. In 2010, Wikileaks published a US military document containing a plan to "destroy the centre of gravity" of Wikileaks by attacking its trustworthiness.

I think it was an army document. The citation just says military. Needs a better citation. and context.

Two for moving the bank of america section to the banking blockade because of the clear connection. Any other views? Softlemonades (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Reorganize Publication section?

Should we reorganize the Publication section or add subsections to make it easier to find stuff and to read? Its blobby right now. 2011-2015 share a subsection and some releases get one sentence.

Softlemonades (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee:

THe section doesnt belong, definitely not as its own section. Its not notable or significant enough. It was reinserted after being removed in early March. It was readded as "long standing material", I removed it with a diff showing that was false and then it was readded again. Im bringing it up here so to not start an edit war.

There was a lawsuit, it got dismissed right away, no one cared. It should get one sentence under the DNC publication at most, not its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlemonades (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You claim no-one cared. Yet, amongst those who cared were the major news organisations that reported on it. The section has been on the page since being added between 2018 and 2019. I see you've added an inappropriate tag. What minority view do you believe think or imagine is being overrepresented? Cambial — foliar❧ 19:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability#Notable_topics_have_attracted_attention_over_a_sufficiently_significant_period_of_time: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events."

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." Softlemonades (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The notability policy is about criteria for creating articles, which is not at issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's best to read all of the policy so as not to misunderstand it: WP:NNC.

You've added an undue weight tag, which has nothing to do with notability. What is the minority view with too much weight? If you don't know, let's remove the tag. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think well hear from others first. Youve done (Personal attack removed) Cambial Softlemonades (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not make a personal attack, and I'm not the first to say that on this talk page. Knock off the nonsense. Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? Softlemonades (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Too_much_detail: "Irrelevant content that is better placed in a different article" This has its own already Softlemonades (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery."

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." ... "Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."

As I've said, it doesnt deserve its own section. Prominence of placement. I dont think it should even be included on this page. Just because it was there before isnt a reason for it to stay there. Softlemonades (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a reference to how undue weight can be given. The question you need to answer is what the notional minority view is that you allege is being given excessive weight. That's a problem because there is none. There's simply the facts of the case; that are relevant to the history of the article subject. There's no dispute over the events, and no minority view is given at all, never mind with undue weight. The premise of the reasoning you're struggling to come up with simply doesn't bear even a moment's scrutiny. Cambial — foliar❧

Like I said, we should hear from others on the section and if it should be there at all, removed entirely, or merged into the section on the DNC leak. Like you said, "If editors could simply decide "this isn't an issue" and then remove, maintenance templates could invariably be removed immediately." Softlemonades (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe merged into the Legal Status section Softlemonades (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I decided your right @Cambial Yellowing and changed the template Softlemonades (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't see why this material is considered controversial or irrelevant to Wikileaks: a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Wikileaks by the DNC about the leaking and publication of its documents. The leak has a Wiki-page. We have devoted a number of sections to reactions to the publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks (Allegations of anti-Clinton and pro-Trump bias/ Correspondence between WikiLeaks and Donald Trump Jr./ Allegations of association with Russian government). The content is long-standing, having been in the article since 2019. It was removed on 14 March 2022. [7]. Had I noticed the removal at the time, I would have reverted the change. I may have missed the removal because it did not have an edit summary. Significantly, given the reactions to the publication mentioned above, the judge decided that Wikileaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place". Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Why does it deserve its own section though? If anything it should bemerged into the Legal Status section or into a larger section on the Mueller investigation which gives more context. This just restates the Pentagon Papers precdent which is why it's not significant enough for its own dedicated section.

"We have devoted a number of sections" - subsections.One of my points is that if this stays, it should get merged into an existing section or subsection and not be its own section.

"Significantly, given the reactions to the publication mentioned above, the judge decided that Wikileaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place"" - that would be better added to the publication mentioned above than its own section, like I said before Softlemonades (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"The leak has a Wiki-page." Add it there. Im just saying it doesn't deserve its own dedicated section on the Wikileaks page. It doesnt deserve equal weight as their publications and reception overall.

If the point is to push the line that Wikileaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" then it should definitely be with that publication and should be careful about agendas and NPOV Softlemonades (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to moving the material to its own subsection of the Legal Status section, but would prefer to hear what others think first. That Wikileaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" was a legal ruling made by a federal judge. Burrobert (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ywah I want more input too, and I know it was a legal ruling (but the text isnt clear on legal v fact findings), based on the Pentagon Papers case. But if thats the point of the entire section that creates bias issues unless its put with context, including the leak, other views and accusations.

There are different ways to solve but I dont think it should stay the way it is Softlemonades (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop disruptive editing by removing maintenance tags, Cambial. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&oldid=1088933893 Softlemonades (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. I moved it to Legal Status and made it a subsection like we talked about, edited it a little for relevance. The content is there, but not given too much focus. I removed the template since the problem was fixed this time. Softlemonades (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I still dont think it should be on this page but Im trying to go for consesnsus Softlemonades (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Readers will be interested to know which court dealt with the suit. The judge's comment about the newsworthiness of the publication is a relevant assessment of this part of Wikileaks work. We have included many other assessments of Wikileaks. We could perhaps move this part of the judge's comments to the Reception section. Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the court because I thought it didnt matter. I dont understand why it would and maybe more input is good but I wont edit.

I edited the judges quote because it seemed redundant. Again, I wontt edit it without input.

I dont think it should go under reception unless we find enough to make a Legal subsection first. That subsections probably a good idea anyway. Put it under Awards and support and then move Positions taken by politicians below it so the three most neutral ones are at the top Softlemonades (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of the court is minor so let's see what other editors think. The judge's newsworthiness comment is different from his next statement that Wikileaks did nothing wrong so I think it should be included somewhere. The DNC suit is the only legal case that I know of in which Wikileaks has had to defend itself. Hence, it is unlikely that we will be able to create a reception section focussed only on legal cases. We should at some stage discuss the structure and content of the Reception section. A few points:

- We have managed to create a biography of Wikileaks without mentioning the term "war crime".

- Why are "Internal conflicts" and "Campaigns to Discredit Wikileaks" under Reception?

- We have a subsection about Transparency. One would think this subsection would discuss the important issue of what people have said about how Wikileaks has affected government transparency. There is a brief mention of Wikileaks improving transparency under the odd title "Support for good use of free speech". However, the subsection is actually about Wikileaks own transparency, which is surely a lesser issue.

- Look at this sentence: "Tulsi Gabbard spoke of the "chilling effect on investigative journalism", first of the US government's reclassification of WikiLeaks (from "news organization" during the Obama administration to "hostile intelligence service" after the 2016 election), then of his arrest". It has no context so readers will have little understanding of what Gabbard is talking about.

- The following sentence would fit better under Awards: "On 16 April 2019, Mairead Maguire accepted the 2019 GUE/NGL Award for Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information on Julian Assange's behalf".

- A large part of the Reception section is based on US sources from around the time Wikileaks was releasing DNC documents. It would be good to broaden the section by including reactions to Wikileaks' from other time periods and countries. For example, what did people say about (possibly) Wikileaks most famous release - the Collateral Murder video?

- We include few favourable assessments of Wikileaks, which may leave readers wondering why why Wikileaks and Assange have received so many awards. We could include more information from the awarding bodies about why they chose Wikileaks or Assange. As one example, Mary Kostakidis, described WikLeaks as an "ingenious and heroic website that has shifted the power balance between citizen and the state by exposing what governments really get up to in out name" when she presented Assange with the Sydney Peace prize.

Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

1. - Why are "Internal conflicts" and "Campaigns to Discredit Wikileaks" under Reception? I guess because the internal conflicts are internal reception, and the campaigns are a response to Wikileaks, and it was the best place to fit it? Both could get their own section, I guess
2. We have a subsection about Transparency. One would think this subsection would discuss the important issue of what people have said about how Wikileaks has affected government transparency. There is a brief mention of Wikileaks improving transparency under the odd title "Support for good use of free speech". However, the subsection is actually about Wikileaks own transparency, which is surely a lesser issue. Disagree that its a lesser issue, but think it shuold be renamed to Internal Transparency
3. Look at this sentence: "Tulsi Gabbard spoke of the "chilling effect on investigative journalism", first of the US government's reclassification of WikiLeaks (from "news organization" during the Obama administration to "hostile intelligence service" after the 2016 election), then of his arrest". It has no context so readers will have little understanding of what Gabbard is talking about. I think it should go but that others will disagree
4. The following sentence would fit better under Awards: "On 16 April 2019, Mairead Maguire accepted the 2019 GUE/NGL Award for Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information on Julian Assange's behalf". Agree
5. A large part of the Reception section is based on US sources from around the time Wikileaks was releasing DNC documents. It would be good to broaden the section by including reactions to Wikileaks' from other time periods and countries. For example, what did people say about (possibly) Wikileaks most famous release - the Collateral Murder video? I think the main article items should be key ones, and we should expand the Reception article. After that itll also be easier to know whats most important and what to change here.
6. We include few favourable assessments of Wikileaks, which may leave readers wondering why why Wikileaks and Assange have received so many awards. We could include more information from the awarding bodies about why they chose Wikileaks or Assange. As one example, Mary Kostakidis, described WikLeaks as an "ingenious and heroic website that has shifted the power balance between citizen and the state by exposing what governments really get up to in out name" when she presented Assange with the Sydney Peace prize. Still agree here

Softlemonades (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The specific court indicates the jurisdiction and judiciary system in which the case was argued and decision was made; it's relevant to the content. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand why its relevant? Im not fighting the edit but Id like to understand if you have time Softlemonades (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have started with a few moves based on the above discussion. No change to the content as yet. Burrobert (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What do editors think about the idea of adding a section to the article entitled "Exposure of war crimes"? As I mentioned above, the term "war crime" does not appear in the article. I am currently collecting the relevant articles. Obviously, what constitutes a "war crime" is a matter of opinion, so perhaps the section would best fit into the Reception section. On the other hand, "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is opinion-based and has its own section. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We cannot state "crime" w/o conviction. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at this article: War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Burrobert (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's not get off topic here. Things are bad enough on the Wikilinks-related pages and we can't blame Assange for stuff unrelated to him. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought the topic was "We cannot state "crime" w/o conviction"? Burrobert (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you assume I was blaming Assange for the war crimes in Ukraine? I'll have to forward that one on the Caitlin Johnstone to add to her list of Assange smears. Burrobert (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont think it should get its own section, but we could do a better job in the publications section of explaining what was exposed by the publications. Subsections or just expand/clarify.

The conspiracy theory stuff is more than just their publications so I dont know if we can do the same with that Softlemonades (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Started a new section for the Publication section stuff.

Other possibility is including them under "Accomplishments" and making the Awards section more broad or a subsection, if the decision is to jsut list them, so its not out of the blue. Softlemonades (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Only mentioned the "Promotion of conspiracy theories" section to show that material that is opinion-based does not need to go in the Reception section. Yes, commentary around the exposure of war crimes could be placed in the Publication section and this choice would fit better with policy. We are encouraged in incorporate assessments within the text of an article rather than establish stand-alone Reception sections. We hardly touch on the significance of the many Wikileaks publications. Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Criticism by Zeynep Tufekci

Cambial Yellowing is doing their normal thing of removing things they dont like that are critical of Wikileaks. Some of it theyre wrong about but some are rules they know better than me.

They say Zeynep isnt notable enough and the NYT isnt a reliable enough source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&oldid=1099798214 So here are more sources from her and from other outlets and writers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wikileaks-cia-cache.html

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/22/498954190/wikileaks-dump-method-destroys-privacy-sociologist-says-not-all-leaked-pass-publ?t=1658510076800

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/how-to-think-about-wikileaks/67689/

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-dumps-erdogan-emails-turkeys-failed-coup/

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

https://www.carnegie.org/news/articles/zeynep-tufekci/

I think it should be readded with the extra sources, but want to hear from others Softlemonades (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course that is impeccably sourced and noteworthy content. Feel free to reinsert it. If you feel an editor is unduely restricting your contributions, you can seek assistance through Admin channels. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I readded it and Cambial immediately removed it again so I wanted others involved Softlemonades (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems some interesting stuff there okay but the references you gave are pretty iffy. The first is an opinion piece, the second is an interview, the third is a contributor secton not subject to editorial control, the fourth is some regularly updated thing by someone not an article under editorial control.. it just goes on. If Zeynep Tufekci is Zeynep Tufekci then I think it can be argued they are a domain expert for some of the stuff and therefore the opinion article is allowable. It would have to be qualified a according to them rather than as a normal journalistic reporting. NadVolum (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Its an opinion piece but all criticism is opinion. Same for the second and others. And Zeynep Tufekci is Zeynep Tufekci. It was qualified according to them before Cambial removed it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=1099737684&oldid=1099737167. Softlemonades (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I was commenting on the reliability of the sources in Wikipedia terms. At best I think the first source can be considered under WP:NEWSBLOG with the author considered some kind of expert on the subject matter. That's why I called it iffy. So about acceptable here but would have real problems in a bio. You talked about readding with extra sources. Putting in extra sources of even more dubious quality does not help. I am not opposing something based on the first source properly attributed being put in this article. However saying ":Its an opinion piece but all criticism is opinion. Same for the second and others." does not exclude any content being put into Wikipedia from being subject to its policies and guidelines. WP:Verifiability is the problem. If some journalist took this up and wrote a piece that came under proper editorial scrutiny it would be much better in Wikipedia terms. NadVolum (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The first source is what Cambial removed, I found extra sources because that was the issue Cambial brought up when removing the long lasting content from the article. "rmv opinion piece with no secondary coverage." Im just trying to fix other editors problems. Softlemonades (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like he had the same sort of problem with your sources as me. However I'm probably a bit more laisse faire and try to find reasons to allow content to be added. NadVolum (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"It sounds like he had the same sort of problem with your sources as me."

Again they werent my sources and I didnt add anything. It was already there and had been for a long time. The NYT source was what had been there. He said he needed more sources, so I got more sources and brought them up on the talk page instead of adding it to the article. He didnt comment on those at all.

" try to find reasons to allow content to be added."

No content was being added. He was just removing content. It was there forever. Softlemonades (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just assessing the sources. What you say is a bit relevant, that something has been in for a while should give pause, but sources are not sacrosanct simply because they have been used for a while. If somebody removes something and gives what they see as a good reason then you're still inserting it and saying you think they are reasonable by putting it back. NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

My point was, content wasnt being added, it was being removed. I was asked for extra sources so I found them.

Bottom line though we have three people saying keep the original text as it was, Cambial saying remove it, and you seeming to say its borderline. Softlemonades (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP concerns

When we have text describing Assange's many conspiracy theories, it is unacceptable to make edits like this one that present one such unevidenced and widely discredited tale as if it were fact. This page should not elevate conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think @NadVolum meant the edit to clarify where the claim started. I dont think it should have phrased it as fact or actually cited True Pundit, though. True Pundit shouldve been mentioned, but not cited. The only other time it looks like its been mentioned on WP is next to Alex Jones.

It wasnt a perfect edit. No big deal Softlemonades (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was easy to remove. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

My mistake swallowing that though I would have checked in more detail later. The CIA talking about kidnapping or killing him made me credulous. Assange was better, according to Snopes

"On the possibility of being “droned” by the CIA, Assange told the magazine: “I’m a white guy. Unless I convert to Islam, it’s not that likely that I’ll be droned, but we have seen things creeping toward that."

NadVolum (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet again the Gospel according to Julian, c. 2016 in this case.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean? He was pretty close to the mark I think in this case. Though it does remove a reason for why he was so against Hilary Clinton. NadVolum (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Poll: Should the fact that one of the accusers against Julian Assange was once working as a contractor for the CIA be included?

Talk:Julian_Assange#Poll:_Should_the_fact_that_one_of_the_accusers_against_Julian_Assange_was_once_working_as_a_contractor_for_the_CIA_be_included?

Happydaze1 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please point to exactly where in your citations this is sourced. Softlemonades (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourced content from Guardian

Content recently removed is reliably sourced and relevant to the article subject. Could the editor offer some justification for their proposed edit? Neither of two edit summaries attempts to justify or explain the removal, despite your claim to the contrary. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I originally replaced it with specifics of the plan and what the phrase "destroy the centre of gravity" actually meant and how the trustworthiness would be attacked. I reverted your edit because it incorrectly suggested there were two separate plans, "It also suggested", when they were the same. Softlemonades (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest two separate plans, but rather that the plan has different aspects as part of its strategy. Nevertheless, I've removed the word "also" to address what you say is your concern. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Still disagree, but thanks for the edit. Softlemonades (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Blockquote in Administration

Were at three reverts and past what can be discussed in edit summaries, so its time to go to Talk. Tagging @Cambial Yellowing as involved editor

The big quote that keeps getting re added

"To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands."

has a few problems with it. First, the text introducing it says "The "about" page originally read" and then cites a version of the About page thats a few months after the earliest archive and visually different from it. Earliest archive also isnt the same as earliest version of the page, I dont see an edit history

More importantly, I looked more closely and the big quote isnt in either version so it also fails verification and has no secondary source.

There is a quote in versions that is similar but also very different, some words are different and entire sentences are missing, which also removes one of my objections on ABOUTSELF.

"Wikileaks looks like Wikipedia. Anybody can post comments to it. No technical knowledge is required. Whistleblowers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss the latest material, read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their veracity can be revealed by a cast of thousands."

So it can either be removed, or the quote can be replaced and the intro rewritten to avoid WP:OR on first version vs first archive. I do think it was in the first version though because it looks like an identical quote was in a draft version of the FAQ at https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Draft:FAQ1 but I dont know if thats usable. Softlemonades (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about verifiability, and the ambiguous "original". None of the above justifies the removal of the entire passage. After the three words “to the user”, the passage is very nearly identical, except for some verb tenses and synonyms, to the archived version in either 2007 or 2008 iteration. We can perhaps change “original” to “in 2008”. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Theyre not "very nearly identical, except for some verb tenses and synonyms"

"Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications." is missing

Its replaced by "Users can discuss the latest material"

Thats a big difference, so the whole thing needs to be replaced. And agree to changing it to "in 2008", but that brings me to my next point

Its already quoted and referenced in the next paragraph, in context of the rest of the timeline and changes to the FAQ and About and editorial policy, without wasting space on junk like "The political relevance of documents and their veracity can be revealed by a cast of thousands" or repeating yet again that its anonymous. What does the full quote add that the short version in the paragraph in context doesnt? Whats the justification for leaving it in other than "its been there for a long time"? Whats been there for a long time hasnt even been accurate Softlemonades (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the quote should be reproduced verbatim from a verifiable source: I've amended it – the quote is already exactly correct (the only difference is the spelling of the word "analyze" which should be retained following MOS:CONFORM). No-one has made the argument about legacy content that you try to refute.

Following WP:NPOV we represent all significant views about article subject, including how the institution views itself. The quotes found in the succeeding paragraph are from a later version of the site, which is made clear in the article text. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That omits the significant requirement of NPOV. The entire opening of WP:WEIGHT states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. The views of WP editors do not determine NPOV. It's the prominence of views in RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Its already exactly correct"

No its not.

I suggest you actually check the real quote. Like I said, a sentence thats in the quote on the page isnt in the real quote. You keep leaving it in, despite me repeatedly pointing it out. The line "Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications." is missing from the real quote.

Your insistence on not only leaving the quote in, but leaving in a fake version of the quote, is becoming a problem

"The quotes found in the succeeding paragraph are from a later version of the site, which is made clear in the article text" Some of them. Not all. The FAQ from 2008 is obviously from 2008, just like this quote. It even uses some of the same text. Again, please read it more carefully Softlemonades (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

See my earlier edit. The text you think is missing is not missing, but present in the earliest available version of that question. It exactly reproduces the earliest ["original"] version: literally the only difference is spelling. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You changed the source and citation. It would have been nice if you had said you changed that instead of just saying you amended the quote, but its also on me for not noticing the change in the edit history. Softlemonades (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed my Watchlist filters so things wont get lost as easily. Sorry for missing that edit. Softlemonades (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No apology necessary, thanks for spotting the wrong sourcing, it wouldn’t have been corrected otherwise. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we look at the lead?

I think the lead needs improving, but its important so Im not gonna be bold and Im gonna try and get a discussion going. Examples

MOS:LEADLENGTH has a general guideline of three or four paragrpahs for an article this size. Were at seven.

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and ours doesnt

WP:Writing_better_articles#Introductory_material_/_Lead "Each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead, including any prominent controversies; but be careful not to violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies, information, or praise in the lead section." The lead only mentions some privacy issue and the DNC stuff, but theres a big section of controversies, plus the conspiracy theory section and the campaigns to discredit WikiLeaks. It also leaves out the Assange indictment.

Theres more of a focus on re telling the timeline of publications then telling the reader what kind of things WikiLeaks does, and what makes them important, and what kind of controversies theyve been involved in with wikilinks to details further in the article. I think we can still talk about them, but in less space Softlemonades (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I think the lack of update (Assange indictment etc) is the worst thing about this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont think combining unrelated paragraphs is a good solution to the problem Softlemonades (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing I dunno if you saw the comment above or if you had more edits planned. Pinging you for discussion Softlemonades (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Heres my thinking on what the layout could look like.

Paragraph 1: WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) is an international non-profit organisation that publishes news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources. Its website stated in 2015 that it had released online 10 million documents since beginning in 2006 in Iceland. Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist is generally described as its founder and director and is currently fighting extradition to the United States over his work with WikiLeaks. Since September 2018, Kristinn Hrafnsson has served as its editor-in-chief.

Paragraph 2: The group has released a number of prominent document caches that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties to the US and international public including the Collateral Murder footage from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi Reuters journalists were among several civilians killed. WikiLeaks is known for publishing leaks such as diplomatic cables from the United States and Saudi Arabia, emails from the governments of Syria and Turkey, and documents exposing surveillance by the CIA, NSA and private corporations. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, WikiLeaks released emails from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, showing that the party's national committee favoured Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries. These releases caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election against Donald Trump. The U.S. intelligence community expressed "high confidence" that the leaked emails had been hacked by Russia and supplied to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks said that the source of the documents was not Russia or any other state. During the campaign, WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and the murder of the Seth Rich.

Paragraph 3: The group and some of its supporters claim to have a perfect authenticity record. The group has been the target of campaigns to discredit it, including aborted ones by Palantir and HBGary. WikiLeaks won a number of awards in its early years and it has been commended for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, assisting freedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions.

Paragraph 4: The organisation has been criticised for inadequately curating its content and violating the personal privacy of individuals. WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealed Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers and details of suicide attempts. Various news organisations, activists, journalists and former members have also criticized the group criticized over allegations of anti-semitism, an anti-Clinton and pro-Trump bias, various associations with the Russian government, a history of buying and selling leaks and a lack of internal transparency. Journalists have also criticized the group for promoting false flag conspiracy theories, and its exaggerated and misleading descriptions of the contents of leaks. Then CIA Director Mike Pompeo called the group called a "non-state hostile intelligence service".

The fourth paragraph needs wikilinks to subsections in the article, and Im sure there are edits people would wanna make, but I think this layout does a better job of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It only has one reference to legal status with Assanges extradition in the first paragraph, so that could be improved, and I didnt get anything about Financing or the Blockade in it.

EDIT: Im making other edits and changes to the sample draft mostly based on input from others. See the page History for the full versions. Softlemonades (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks good.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: as pinged. Some aspects of this look like useful improvements to the lead. The wording to the first sentences of the first paragraph makes for smoother reading and removes unimportant detail. Other aspects of your proposed changes remove information that is standard practice to include in the lead of a media organisation, or indeed any type of institution. This material is covered in its own section in the article body. The restructuring you propose does not maintain adherence to NPOV. The most clear example of this is failing to observe WP:STRUCTURE: we should not separate various views expressed about article subject, away from the historical context in which they were made, into a separate section. Where we describe praise or criticism we should be folding them into the narrative.

When proposing significant changes it will be helpful if you indicate what you think justifies them. For example, you've proposed removing Wikileaks' own descriptions of their journalism model, that they have indicated directly and that have been reported by reliable sources. But you've made no mention of this nor sought to give any reason. There is no serious justification for it. Similarly, you've proposed removing several disclosures made in the organisation's journalism which were widely reported and made headlines (outside of the US) - you've not attempted any justification for this. Wikipedia is written for an international audience from an international perspective.

You say the aim of your changes is to make the lead more closely follow the body, and you believe at present ours doesnt. But you then propose to introduce ambiguous phrases such as "The group became internationally known in April 2010". I don't see anything which supports this in RS nor in the article body. It's not clear what "internationally known" is supposed to mean (perhaps an Americanised synonym for "known in the US"?). Again, WP is written for an international audience, and Wikileaks made headlines in multiple European countries long before the Manning disclosures.

You've placed other very minor details or views - according to their prominence in RS and in the body - into the lead. For example, you refer to DKIM headers. Quite apart from the problem with using MOS:JARGON in the lead, this is something mentioned once in a single sentence - not lead material. You also refer to a view expressed by one country's former intelligence officer. Heads of state of multiple countries, as well as scholars and lawyers far more prominent than that individual, have given other views that are far more widely reported in RS. There is no reason to preference US-based views on the institution over those based elsewhere - given it has never been based in the US, we ought in fact to preference slightly against those.

In the lead we should in general avoid the passive voice, and criticism and praise should be presented in the active voice with a grammatical subject. Where there are multiple organisations giving very similar commentary that is widely reported in RS, we should use "News organisations, such as... have said" or "national leaders, such as...have said. etc."

I do have to question why you have said, in the first instance, that you think the lead needs to follow the body more closely, and then made a proposal which serves largely to achieve the complete opposite of that effect by any serious metric of that ostensible goal. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

we should not separate various views expressed about article subject, away from the historical context in which they were made, into a separate section. They literally come from their own sections in the article

Where we describe praise or criticism we should be folding them into the narrative. Suggestions on how? Keep in mind Each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead which is why its structured the way it is

Quite apart from the problem with using MOS:JARGON in the lead, this is something mentioned once in a single sentence - not lead material. Happy to remove

You also refer to a view expressed by one country's former intelligence officer. Heads of state of multiple countries, as well as scholars and lawyers far more prominent than that individual, have given other views that are far more widely reported in RS. But the statement by the CIA Director is unique, which is why I included it. Its not something thats been said about any other media orgs, which makes it very notable. I agree that this section is a little light and could use an extra sentence or two on praise. Any suggestions on what to add from the article?

I do have to question why you have said, in the first instance, that you think the lead needs to follow the body more closely, and then made a proposal which serves largely to achieve the complete opposite of that effect by any serious metric of that ostensible goal. Following the body means Each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead, including any prominent controversies according to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Introductory material / Lead, which the current lead fails at badly, not covering or barely mentioning most of the sections. The current version spends three paragraphs on publications, doesnt mention the Authenticity, Campaigns to discredit, or Promotion of conspiracy theories sections and barely mentions Reception or controversies. Thats what I was focused on fixing.

you then propose to introduce ambiguous phrases such as "The group became internationally known in April 2010". I don't see anything which supports this in RS nor in the article body. Im pretty sure I could find RS on this but you still make good points and theres no reason not to change it. Feel free to point out any other examples.

You've placed other very minor details or views - according to their prominence in RS and in the body - into the lead. For example, you refer to DKIM headers. I was trying to give a little more coverage to that section in the lead, but dont object to it getting cut.

For example, you've proposed removing Wikileaks' own descriptions of their journalism model, that they have indicated directly and that have been reported by reliable sources. But you've made no mention of this nor sought to give any reason. There is no serious justification for it. It was a while ago but you may remember I was the reason most of it got added. I could dig out the diffs and the discussion from the Talk page archive, but it was a bunch of edits half of which were pushed by me that turned it into a mini coatrack that ate up a lot of space. I wont argue about it staying if you really think it should, but it seemed like an easy cut especially with how it got the way it is. I think a third party description would be better, or at least balance the ABOUTSELF, but its not something that I think needs to be argued. If someone else feels strongly enough about to re add, its not the sort of thing I would revert.

Similarly, you've proposed removing several disclosures made in the organisation's journalism which were widely reported and made headlines (outside of the US) - you've not attempted any justification for this. From my original post Theres more of a focus on re telling the timeline of publications then telling the reader what kind of things WikiLeaks does, but I dont object to them being included, we just dont need three paragraphs dedicated to one section. My draft was more about the structure than the exact text, so feel free to mention which ones you think should be re added or suggest direct edits.

::In the lead we should in general avoid the passive voice, and criticism and praise should be presented in the active voice with a grammatical subject. Where there are multiple organisations giving very similar commentary that is widely reported in RS, we should use "News organisations, such as... have said" or "national leaders, such as...have said. etc." Changed except for the first sentence which was there before. If we change it I think specifics would include Snowden and Greenwald, or it can be rewritten and combined with the rest, or get a new intro. Thoughts?

Made several edits based on your suggestions, think I responded to the rest, if I missed something let me know Softlemonades (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Id also be fine with trimming the DNC stuff but thought people would object if I took more out. Itd make room for other publications, even if all we trimmed was the Russia reference there since thats basically covered in the fourth paragraph with the Russia criticism and link. Softlemonades (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Since I edited based on the feedback and replied to the rest and havent heard anything else, I put the edits onto the page. I think from here if there are any remaining issues its easier if everyone can directly edit, and if I missed anyhting big we can revert and keep it all in discussion. But I think were ok for community edits on it Softlemonades (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

FAQ and editorial in Administration problems

The part of administration talking about the editorial policy and the FAQ is kinda a mess. It starts off with "WikiLeaks restructured its process for contributions after its first document leaks did not gain much attention" without talking about what the process was before. It does it again in the next paragraph after the quote with things like "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". Im not sure if it really does but that paragraph seems like it also jumps around in time some or skips context that makes it hard to follow.

Im not sure how to fix it but I think it needs edits for clarity Softlemonades (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight Public positions taken by politicians concerning WikiLeaks

The section only talks about American politicians, which isnt good. Theres a lot to work with, like on Reception_of_WikiLeaks#Response_from_governments. Even if we limit it to whatevers "most important" I doubt thats all American opinoins Softlemonades (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that perspective. Using only US politicians is unacceptable. Obviously comments from Australians politicians would be equally if not more valid. But really, I see little point in the section at all. All the comments are entirely predictable. All we are doing is providing another platform to people who desire such things. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Im not sure I agree that comments from Australians politicians would be equally if not more valid, I think itd be more of a balance between Australia, Ecuador US, Uk, and maybe Russiaa. But we can all agree that the focus right now isnt good.

I think if we get rid of the section, some of the info could be merged into the main article. Same for reactions from politicians from other countries.

Or we expand it. Im ok with any fix Softlemonades (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

verification process

I had a time stamp on the URL when I put in the citation box. Does that remove things after the ? in the URL? I had it to the second the question was asked and Julian Assange answered directly on screen Softlemonades (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the foggiest idea what you're on about. NadVolum (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

SL is referring to this. The lack of a timestamp was an aside, not the reason that it's not advisable content. The av cite templates have a timestamp parameter, FWIW. (I don't know the answer to your question; but the wiki software does sometimes remove things on save.) Cambial — foliar❧ 14:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok but notability shouldnt be an issue right? Because WP:NNC, and its definitely relevant and verifiable.

If you still say no I wont argue Softlemonades (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

? I've not referred to the notability guidelines. It's a 90 minute video; we could pick out any number of comments from the primary source (as well as numerous other primary ). No secondary RS indicate it's important or relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought thats what you were doing in your edit summary with "noteworthy", sorry primary source with no indication this is noteworthy content Softlemonades (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Fernando Villavicencio as reliable source

Hes an established journalist and member of the Ecuadorian assembly with his own Wikipedia page but is just mostly unknown to English speakers. Hes a recognized expert and has written for many outlets including El Universo. The Guardian worked with him and Focus Ecuador to report on Assange and the surveillance of him using the same reports. The New York Times also cite him and his work on it

Cambial you were right about opinion pieces. I thought we could separate the parts that were opinion and interpretation from other statements and I was wrong Softlemonades (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Merely claiming he's a recognized expert is not relevant. This individual is not a subject-matter expert on Julian Assange or his biography. It is only subject-matter experts that can be considered for use on this site. As this is material about a living person it requires BLP-sourcing, which the current poor selection is absolutely not. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Read it again, maybe with a better translation. Hes primarily reporting on SENAIN which he is an expert on, SENAIN reported on Assange which he mentioned. You even admitted there are RS and there are secondary reports citing him. Green lit RS recognize his expertise on this. Softlemonades (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

He may be primarily reporting on one thing but the content it is being used to support is the only relevant aspect. This individual is not an subject-matter expert on Assange (which is what the content is about). This is not due WP:WEIGHT with its extremely thin sourcing, repeated only with attribution by one source. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hes resported extensively on Assange, theres plenty of secondary reporting that cites him on the subject of Assange including The Guardian who also worked with him on it and The New York Times, and you agreed that a WP:RS reported this. That's not WP:FRINGE Softlemonades (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Improper editing

Cambial,

At least twice in the last couple of days youve left edit summaries saying it is a simple thing but making lots of other edits that go beyond that.

The first was here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=1131118085&oldid=1131109121 then here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=1131186489&oldid=1131185133

The second is what I wanna look at because its more concerning. You said you were removing Daily Beast, which has no consensus. You removed relevent articles by sbuject matter experts like Kevin Paulsen. You also removed Huffington Post articles and Washington Post articles without explaination. You removed entire paragraphs without explaination. You removed the Huffington Post citation saying "conspiracy theories" about Clinton's health in the section about criticism for WikiLeaks spreading conspiracy theories and then two edits later changed the wording from "conspiracy theories" to "thinly sourced theories" with the given reason of "following the source" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=1131195336&oldid=1131192675

I dont think thats ok Softlemonades (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I also dont think its okay to remove every citation from a source that has no consensus without discussion or even looking at the actual articles or the authors. Thats treating it like its deprecated when its not Softlemonades (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Softlemonades, please remember to assume good faith in these talk discussions. It would be preferable not to have another long discussion about your repeated direct evidence-free accusations of bad faith that you make against other editors. Like you and many other editors, I often make multiple changes before saving. Edit summary space is limited. The removal of Huffington Post was based on the generally unreliable/extreme caution consensus about "contributors" and its questionable reporting on issues touching on politics. We need to use high-quality sources, and follow weight, not add things based on one questionable source. Similarly with the Daily Beast, especially where it is being used for content that directly discusses biographical material about living people.

There has been what you describe as "improper editing" on this article, but I assume it is because of your lack of familiarity with how sourcing and following due weight works here. Sourcing lots of pieces of information to single low-quality non-mainstream sources is not a method for determining what is encyclopaedic content. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I didnt accuse you of bad faith, I just said it was improper. If you want to get into who has accused who of what, youve also accused me of things in the past. Lets not go there.

The Huffington Post piece wasnt a "contributor" piece. It's a greenlit Reliable Source. You also removed Washington Post sources with the explanation "rmv The Daily Beast - not a reliable source; no indication opinion is significant". Softlemonades (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not now start misrepresenting easily checkable facts here on talk. That’s quite uncivil. The Huffington Post piece states: “This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform”.

I’ve not accused you of anything at any point. Being civil includes not claiming without evidence that someone has done something - bear that in mind. I have pointed out where you have used poor sourcing for BLP and other tendentious edits. That’s appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not now start misrepresenting easily checkable facts here on talk. That’s quite uncivil. The Huffington Post piece states: “This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform”.

Im glad you said that. The article I was talking about that you deleted and used that deletion two edits later to justifying changing the language was written by Dana Liebelson, a Senior Reporter at HuffPost. The URL was

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikileaks-conspiracy-theory-hillary-clinton_n_57d6f4b2e4b00642712ebbd0 and even with search I cant find the easily checkable sentence you mention.

Also I requested temporary full page protection. Softlemonades (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The article you cited, about a tweet that - as this page claims - "was controlled by Assange" is here. It says "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform." The other piece you cite above is about Hillary Clinton during her unsuccessful presidential run. HuffPost is a very questionable source for politics, which this content undoubtedly falls under. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You say "very questionable" and link to the RSP that says "no consensus" which says the same for Daily Beast. I dont see that as reason to remove it all without discussion

Admit I missed you say "politics" in your original post. I only referred to the Clinton article in this thread, never the Zeynep article which only you brought up, thats why I was confused on that. Thanks for that bit of clarification Softlemonades (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record I had not intended to remove WaPo. Was it between a Daily Beast and HuffPo politics citation? There were a lot of those. I’ll try to locate. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Its been pointed out several times here and in the edit history but you kept doing it. Softlemonades (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've located the ref, next to a dailybeast ref, and restored. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First you try to remove it from the lead in part because its in the body, then you remove it from the body? Thats confusing to me

Also that you removed something else from the lead because it wasnt in the body which I agree with but they cant both be reasons for removing something from the lead Softlemonades (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit wars over now and Cambial has a temporary edit block on this page for it. Theres still a lot of unexplained deletes and edits like calling a journalist and National Assembly member a "political activist" when he says something negative about Assange. To fix all that Im gonna roll it back to before the edit war, then re add stuff by Cambial and others and re delete IBTimes and some challenged Clinton stuff

I dont mind looking at other things, but we should look at talk them and not just act like theyre deprecated and delete them without looking enough to notice Washington Post articles or saying its all BLP content even the one about how much BTC WL made Softlemonades (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sean hannity

Only thing someone tried to add that I didnt restore was the hannity, because it was a section on statements by politicians. Its ok it just didnt go there

Thetalk show host and author Sean Hannity, who had previously said that Assange waged a "war" on the United States, praised him in 2016 for demonstrating "how corrupt, dishonest and phony our government is". Softlemonades (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Australia investigation?

reply to [8]

I think changing the heading is ok, no argument

I didnt see the words "Australia is investigating" but if a attorney general releases a statement saying you did something and says that thing is a crime, theyre looking at it. Carefully describing it is good, but not including it because of skinny definitions is different Softlemonades (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Closest to the word investigation was ASIO and other government agencies officers are working through the material to see the extent of the impact on Australian interests and then said stuff about the persons ID name being published and it being a crime

Ill self revert if thats consensus. I think it fits but maybe I read it wrong Softlemonades (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning it is fine. No charges were laid in oz so we should not make too much of it. Maybe move it into the earlier "Legal status" section where we also mention Julia's comments, the backlash and the AFP's response. Burrobert (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Done Softlemonades (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)