| Revision as of 19:14, 20 March 2024 editRenamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8 (talk | contribs)6,278 edits →RSP#WikiLeaks: add← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:48, 25 October 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,891,546 editsm -{{BLP}}; +blp=yes (request); cleanupTag: AWB |
| (63 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=20 |units=days}} |
|
{{Talk header }} |
|
{{contentious topics/talk notice|ap|style=long}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|style=long}} |
|
{{blp}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Calm|#FFCCCC}} |
|
{{Calm|#FFCCCC}} |
| Line 9: |
Line 8: |
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
{{Australian English}} |
|
{{Australian English}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi| date = January 12, 2007 |
|
{{Old XfD multi| date = January 12, 2007 |
|
| result = '''Speedy Keep''' |
|
| result = '''Speedy Keep''' |
|
| page = Wikileaks |
|
| page = Wikileaks |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |vital=yes |class=B |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |blp=yes |vital=yes |class=B |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Libraries |auto= |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Libraries |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media |importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sweden |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sweden |importance=low}} |
| Line 28: |
Line 27: |
|
{{WikiProject Espionage |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Espionage |importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{split article |
|
{{Split article |
|
|from=WikiLeaks |
|
|from=WikiLeaks |
|
|to1=Information leaked by WikiLeaks |
|
|to1=Information leaked by WikiLeaks |
| Line 41: |
Line 40: |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|algo = old(20d) |
|
|archive = Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
== Date quote reported == |
|
== Daily Dot questionable? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] I partial reverted , why are the Daily Dot articles questionable? ] (]) 22:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
We don't need to include the time, or the time after death, that a quote from ] was reported by ''The New York Times''. If it's on the page it should be sourced and given accurately. But such a detail is not relevant to the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 12:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Consensus has determined it ] for the reasons given at the time it was raised. It certainly ought not to be relied upon for contentious statements of fact. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq|Consensus has determined}} The RSP you cite says {{tq|There is no consensus}}. |
|
|
::It does not say {{tq|It certainly ought not to be relied upon for contentious statements of fact.}} It says {{tq|there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact.}} Why do you think the statements are contentious? If it is we can attribute it like the RSP you cite says ] (]) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We could, but given that this appears to be the only source which makes certain claims, it's more appropriate not to give this slightly dubious source excessive weight in the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I ask again. Why do you think the statements are contentious? |
|
|
::::Why is it ]? it is not unlikely, particularly difficult to verify, ambiguous and open to interpretation, and no RS makes different claims |
|
|
::::Why is it ] It is not widely acknowledged as extremist, promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions ] (]) 23:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Similarly, the Daily Beast is not regarded as a high-quality and reliable source, particularly for statements of fact about living people. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You did not answer. Please stop ignoring questions. |
|
|
:::::About Daily Beast, you were ] with no consensus and nothing has changed |
|
|
:::::And WikiLeaks is not a living person, BLP does not apply to the organisations Twitter account does it? ] (]) 23:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Some instances have other sources, so the use of low-quality sources is redundant. Others make claims not reported on by any other sources, not even by better sources (such as Wired) that focus on tech/cyber reporting and that closely reported on WikiLeaks. We ought not to give undue weight to 1 source lacking a strong rep for reliability. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 02:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Please stop ]. You have cited things and said they had consensus for things they did not. You mention other policies that do not seem supported and are not answering about it ] (]) 10:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It’s time to stop making false claims that I’m ignoring questions. What you mean is that I’m not answering them the way you want. That's not on me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should be using mainstream ] with strong reputations, not shoestring sites with little or no evidence of editorial oversight and disagreement on reliability. Hence I replaced e.g. the DailyDot website with '']''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 05:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Sources like the one about the password and the quote use the word {{tq|reportedly}} to describe the quote. It uses that word twice and brings up the timeline |
|
|
:{{tq|The password is a reference to a famous quote by former US President John F. Kennedy, '''reportedly''' given to a senior administration official one month before he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. According to the official, quoted in a New York Times report published three years after his death, Kennedy said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”.}} |
|
|
:I agree it should be sourced and given accurately, and an inflammatory quote should have context. Saying who published and that it was years after the person died is normal ] (]) 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::That source usefully points out the provenance of the password in the quote. More reliable sources, including ''The New York Times'' and the academic work cited, simply give this as a quote. The claim of three years is factually incorrect. There's no indication that it's "{{tq|inflammatory}}". What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published to this article about Wikileaks? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 12:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{tq|There's no indication that it's "inflammatory"}} A President allegedly saying the CIA should be {{tq|shattered}} is not ]? Am I understanding a word wrong again? ] (]) 12:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's a quote from the US president about a proposed internal policy decision. What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published in a US newspaper of record to this article about Wikileaks? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Any quote first published years after someone died is questionable because they can't respond to it or deny it. If its inflammatory and we attribute it we should say when it was published or link to a wiki article that has context ] (]) 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{tq|with little or no evidence of editorial oversight and disagreement on reliability.}} You described WikiLeaks |
|
== Move or rename Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy == |
|
|
|
:{{tq|Hence I replaced e.g. the DailyDot website with The Atlantic}} You replaced one source with The Atlantic and removed the others without replacing them, or even adding a {{citation needed}} first like I did |
|
|
:And you still havent explained why it is dubious or contentious ] (]) 10:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Read the first and last sentences of your own comment. Your posts are becoming absurd. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My input is probably not warranted here, but I would like to point out that you are not answering. You call the source "dubious" despite the fact that there is no concensus behind it. Leaving unanswered the question of why you think the statements from the source are questionable. ] (]) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You may wish to {{tq|point out}} what you claim, but given it's not true, it's not "pointing out" something but merely making a false claim about the above comments. I agree that such input is not warranted, nor is it productive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Donations via cryptocurrency: oddly missing from the article == |
|
] should be changed to Curation or moved to ]. Editorial policy has a response section. For NPOV it should have information about claims that WikiLeaks publications never hurt anyone added |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article prose mentions "donation" or "donations" 30 times, and extensively covers bank and credit card donations, and the ectensive efforts of various state and financial entities to stop or halt such payment channels to WikiLeaks. Yet it makes no mention at all of WikiLeaks accepting donations in ]. |
|
] and ] ] (]) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Odd that. The official website of WikiLeaks, linked as the first item in the "External links" section of the article, clearly indicates that WikiLeaks is set up to receive donations in at least a half dozen digital assets, that do not pass through banks or credit card processing centers. ] (]) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Page size and changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024 == |
|
Two points: |
|
|
* Page size has now reached 114 kB. Policy says pages of > 100 kB should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". |
|
|
* It is easier to follow changes when they are made in small increments. |
|
|
] (]) 06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|WikiLeaks|answered=yes}} |
|
:I replaced a lot of the reception with a summary because of ] |
|
|
|
'''MINOR GRAMMAR EDIT:''' |
|
:Size is now 96 kB ] (]) 22:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Line says "times '''were'''" - source article uses grammar that I think is correct "instances '''where'''" - if not protected I'd have changed it to "times where". |
|
== Typo. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Line in question: |
|
Hello, i wanted to warn users with edit perm that in 2011–2015 section, the word "malware" is written as "mawlare". ] (]) 11:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Rei Da Tecnologia}} I've fixed it. ]] 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''In response to a question in 2010 about whether WikiLeaks would release information that he knew might get someone killed, Assange said that he had instituted a "harm-minimization policy." This meant that people named in some documents might be contacted before publication, '''but that there were also times were members''' of WikiLeaks might have "blood on our hands." One member of WikiLeaks told The New Yorker they were initially uncomfortable with Assange's editorial policy but changed her mind because she thought no one had been unjustly harmed.'' ] (]) 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Minor typo == |
|
|
|
:{{done}}. '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">]</span> ] 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== About the ] announcement on the top == |
|
"In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden leave Hong Kong" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's very necessary to add the announcement about "WikiLeaks is not part of, also have no relations with us Misplaced Pages" at the top of the page. But I can't find a proper way to add it. So I want to ask others' opinions about this suggestion. ] (]) 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
It should be |
|
|
|
:Is there any evidence anyone is confused?--] (]) 01:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::There was a problem many years back with people who clearly ''were'' confused posting hostile comments on this talk page: see e.g. this discussion. I'd be surprised if it is still happening now with enough regularity to be an issue though. ] (]) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Typo == |
|
"In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden in leaving Hong Kong" ] (]) 02:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The word "raided" is mistakenly repeated in the sentence "In March 2009, German police raided raided the offices of Wikileaks Germany and the homes of Theodor Reppe, who owned the registration for WikiLeaks' German domain while searching for evidence of 'distribution of pornographic material'." ] (]) 05:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== RSP#WikiLeaks == |
|
|
|
:Fixed. ]] 15:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Trump–Russia relations == |
|
{{tq|Citing your own easy is cute}} essay went through ] and ]. Content copied from WP policy pages. I cited ] first. Ignoring RSP {{tq|is cute but}} against policy. Ignoring consensus required {{tq|is cute but}} against policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this really relevant ? ] (]) 09:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{tq| but it’s common practice across the site to cite the subject’s own website for information about what it says it’s done}} Not when the site doesn't meet RSP. {{tq| It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, '''but only if it is discussed by a reliable source'''.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt remove '''any''' content and I left citations to WikiLeaks about what they said. It should be easy to find sources that meet RSP. ] (]) 14:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
:thats how templates work ] (]) 04:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:Considerations of reliability for information outside of the article subject are not at issue here. No-one is disputing the 2021 RfC. Like numerous other news and media organisations (and other institutions and individuals – see ]) we can cite the Wikileaks website for information about the views or outlook or what is presented as content on the Wikileaks website. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::] {{tq|Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:}} |
|
|
::{{tq|1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;}} |
|
|
::{{tq|2. it does not involve claims about third parties;}} |
|
|
::They are self serving and ] and they involve third parties |
|
|
::And @] said {{tq|Yes, ABOUTSELF allows linking to the main index page and About page, but WikiLeaks hosts lots of illegally obtained content, and I believe we are not allowed to link to such URLs. This list links to many such pages.}} ] |
|
|
::Valjean started ] you said {{tq|Pinging @Diannaa as the resident expert to see whether such links represent a copyright issue.}} and no answer ] (]) 05:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support; the citations are merely for prosaic information about what documents they posted. Nor do they involve claims about third parties. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{tq|There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support}} |
|
|
::::Self serving to say |
|
|
::::* published classified info |
|
|
::::* published emails from vice president candidate |
|
|
::::* published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables |
|
|
::::{{tq|Nor do they involve claims about third parties.}} |
|
|
::::Third parties |
|
|
::::* vice president nominee |
|
|
::::* US Embassy Reykjavik |
|
|
::::* State Department (published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables) |
|
|
::::* Guardian journalist WikiLeaks said {{tq|negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords}} |
|
|
::::* Stratfor |
|
|
::::* Syria |
|
|
::::* Saudi Foreign Ministry |
|
|
::::* AKP Party and source comments |
|
|
::::Saying someone is not a source is about a third party. Have the information means third party lost it. ] (]) 14:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's not self-serving to state that you are releasing something on the internet on the internet page where you do so. |
|
|
:::::Neither this article nor the source make any claim about the third parties you list. Your opinion that {{tq|Have the information means third party lost it}} is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source. The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree with Cambial foliar in their argument that they are not unduly self serving. And they can be brought in as primary sources because of reliable sources discussing the area.. The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations. ] (]) 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Cambial |
|
|
::::::{{tq|The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks}} Not true and ABOUTSELF does not say you use self-published if attributed |
|
|
::::::{{tq|Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords}} How do you say that the self published editorial isnt about third party? |
|
|
::::::{{tq|During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for ], Denmark, Norway and Thailand.}} Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand are third parties |
|
|
::::::{{tq|Your opinion that Have the information means third party lost it is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source.}} it says {{tq|the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee ] were ] '''after being hacked by ] user David Kernell'''.}} |
|
|
::::::NadVolum |
|
|
::::::{{tq| The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations.}} That allows denials not self published editorials accusing other people and denial has other sources |
|
|
::::::More problems |
|
|
::::::COPYLINK on Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages and Stratfor |
|
|
::::::Maybe COPYLINK Syria, TTP, and Saudi Cables |
|
|
::::::{{tq|In mid-February 2010, WikiLeaks received a leaked diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Reykjavik relating to the ] scandal, which it published on 18 February.}} not supported by link restored. page does not say when received or about Icesave ] (]) 04:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Giving the attributed view of someone or something is a statement about the person or institution that expressed that view, "this is what this person said". It's not a statement ''about'' a third party. |
|
|
:::::::You write "{{tq|Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords}}". This is not in the article. |
|
|
:::::::You write "{{tq|During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for ], Denmark, Norway and Thailand.}}" This is cited to three other secondary sources. |
|
|
:::::::You write "{{tq|the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee ] were ] '''after being hacked by ] user David Kernell'''.}} I infer from the emphasis you added to this sentence that the part you object to is "after being hacked by ] user David Kernell". This claim is not mentioned in the WikiLeaks page, and it is not used to support this part of the sentence. That claim relies on two other sources. It has nothing to do with a (non-existent) claim about a third party on the WikiLeaks site and no relevance to your argument. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{tq|Giving the attributed view of someone or something is a statement about the person or institution that expressed that view, "this is what this person said". It's not a statement about a third party.}} A statement about third party. {{tq|Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: it does not '''involve claims about third parties'''}}. This is that |
|
|
::::::::{{tq|You write "Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords". This is not in the article.}} Thats the name of self published Wikileaks editorial cited in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::{{tq|This is cited to three other secondary sources.}} Yes so why do you need this? Saying there are RSes agrees with my first post. {{tq|I didnt remove any content and I left citations to WikiLeaks about what they said. It should be easy to find sources that meet RSP.}} |
|
|
::::::::{{tq|You write "the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell. I infer from the emphasis you added to this sentence that the part you object to is "after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell". This claim is not mentioned in the WikiLeaks page, and it is not used to support this part of the sentence. That claim relies on two other sources. It has nothing to do with a (non-existent) claim about a third party on the WikiLeaks site and no relevance to your argument.}} |
|
|
::::::::Not true. The Wikileaks page says {{tq|activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous' gained access to U.S. Republican Party Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account}} |
|
|
::::::::Why didnt you reply about the COPYLINK problems on the other citations you restored? |
|
|
::::::::Why do you want self published sources and not RSes? I dont understand ] (]) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|Thats the name of self published Wikileaks editorial}}. So? I don't understand. It's not used to support such a claim in the article. |
|
|
:::::::::Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader. |
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|Not true.}} It is true. David Kernell is referred to in that sentence in the article. He is not mentioned on the Wikileaks page. "{{tq|activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous'}}" are not mentioned in that section of the article. |
|
|
:::::::::I see no copylink problem. |
|
|
:::::::::I neglected {{tq|not supported by link restored. page does not say when received or about Icesave}} Page cited: "from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave". You're right about it not saying when it was received; I removed it. |
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|and not RSes}} I've made no such argument, nor (I think) has anyone else. Arguing against a position no-one has taken is not productive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 14:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq|It's not used to support such a claim in the article.}} The material still involves {{tq|involve claims about third parties}} so its not right to link to it. But your right it doesnt support the claims cited to it in the article except {{tq|Knowledge of the Guardian disclosure has spread privately over several months but reached critical mass last week.}} which is about third party |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq|Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader.}} That doesnt change ABOUTSELF or the RSP or explain why you reverted |
|
|
::::::::::CN tags for things that only had self-published primary source {{tq|It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but '''only if it is discussed by a reliable source'''.}} |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq|I see no copylink problem.}} Why do you think Palins emails are public domain? Or Stratfor? Or Syria? Why do you think they do {{tq|not involve claims about third parties}} |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq|I've made no such argument, nor (I think) has anyone else.}} I asked why you were doing what you were doing. You ], restored ] that ], and when you admitted that Icesave had info that wasnt in the source, you remove the info and didnt restore CN or better source tag. You ] not RSes and removed information instead of restoring it ] (]) 12:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Its almost two weeks and because you are ] and there is ] on why you think the leaks are public domain or why "someone else wrote this" doesnt {{tq|involve claims about third parties}}, I will replace self published links with ] ] (]) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::A lack of interest in reading you ] the same arguments yet again is ]. Both NadVolum and I oppose your proposed change. Your admonishment that {{tq|The material still involves involve claims about third parties so its not right to link to it.}} is not policy but your own moral judgment. I do not share your view and it is not relevant to creating this site. I have no objection to the addition of further secondary sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 17:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed. Do not add self-published material that has been objected to again. Do not add suspected COPYLINK violations again. And refusing to answer questions isnt {{tq|A lack of interest in reading you ] the same arguments yet again}}. ] (]) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I'm not explaining things yet again to you just because you ]. The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above. There is no copylink violation, and there's no self-published material in the article. You need to stop edit-warring against consensus and trying to bulldoze changes to get your own way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::{{tq|I'm not explaining things yet again to you just because you refuse to listen to other editors.}} You ]. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::{{tq|The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above.}} The policy says not to use it if it {{tq|involve claims about third parties}}. This involves claims about third parties. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::{{tq|The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above.}} Where? ] does not say that. And you didnt say the policy said that. ] (]) 18:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::@] Can you give third opinion on COPYLINK issue? If you say its okay I will stop objection ] (]) 17:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Sorry I don't have the time or interest to investigate this. — ] (]) 18:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Ok ] (]) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|15}} |
|
|
Quoting ] (again): {{Teal|may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties}}. The information sourced in this instance does not involve claims about third parties. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 19:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{tq|The information sourced in this instance does not involve claims about third parties.}} But it involves third parties. |
|
|
:{{tq|If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed.}} You havent explained why you think Syria and Stratfor and Sarah Palin emails do not involve claims about third parties. Stratfor involves Stratfor. It is a third party. |
|
|
:{{tq|The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article}} what you quoted does not say that. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
The article prose mentions "donation" or "donations" 30 times, and extensively covers bank and credit card donations, and the ectensive efforts of various state and financial entities to stop or halt such payment channels to WikiLeaks. Yet it makes no mention at all of WikiLeaks accepting donations in cryptocurrency.
Odd that. The official website of WikiLeaks, linked as the first item in the "External links" section of the article, clearly indicates that WikiLeaks is set up to receive donations in at least a half dozen digital assets, that do not pass through banks or credit card processing centers. N2e (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's very necessary to add the announcement about "WikiLeaks is not part of, also have no relations with us Misplaced Pages" at the top of the page. But I can't find a proper way to add it. So I want to ask others' opinions about this suggestion. Awdqmb (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The word "raided" is mistakenly repeated in the sentence "In March 2009, German police raided raided the offices of Wikileaks Germany and the homes of Theodor Reppe, who owned the registration for WikiLeaks' German domain while searching for evidence of 'distribution of pornographic material'." 2001:16B8:DEF:E100:507E:A9D5:6C00:932C (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=icon}
Done. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)