Talk:WikiLeaks

How does one access the normal documents?

Is wikileaks devoted to the warlogs now? There does not seem to be an archive to look at the old documents anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, given that the current main page of http://www.wikileaks.org/ is devoted entirely to the Iraq War Logs. The older archive material is still at http://mirror.wikileaks.info/, perhaps the article should mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The URL you provided is not a real mirror. You cannot search nor browse categories, nor does the document links work. It seams like there is no way to access the old documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder--though this is called a "talk page," Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of a topic. This page is only for discussing improvements to the article itself. Also, in case this wasn't clear, Wikileaks and Wikipedia are not at all related other than the first four letters of their names, so we don't necessarily have any clear insight. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that this had WP:NOTAFORUM issues. We don't know how WikiLeaks works here at Wikipedia, but since the article mentions plenty of things on WikiLeaks other than the Iraq War Logs, it is useful for the article to be able to cite them. At the moment, the main page of WikiLeaks mentions only the Logs, so it is hard to point readers at the material in the "Notable leaks" section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm overreacting, because this page has often hosted more chatter than work on the article...but even if you're right, I it's not really our "job" to point people to the other material. By analogy, we don't point out the pages numbers in books where various plot points happen in our summaries. Particularly since the original questioner was an unsigned IP, I figured the person may be unfamiliar with our policies, so better to stop now than before it got more extensive. 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DERP. I was not arguing as if this was a forum, nor did I think wikipedia was affiliated with wikileaks. It is you who turned a legit concern I had to your canned response about this not being a forum. Get off your high horse and make yourself useful instead. I concern was regarding the article refering to stuff that is no longer available or describing the website in an inaccurate way since the site has completely changed and no longer holds leaked documents other than the war logs. If you dont have anything of value to add it is better if you don't jump in to stir up stuff. What I say still stand, the majority of the article refers to something that is no longer there, and it speaks of the site as it was, not as it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a worrying number of dead links from wikileaks.org in the article at the moment, so it is an article related issue. These citations are clearly not going to work while the site is devoted to the Logs, so it needs to be addressed. For example, although the Loveparade is mentioned on the mirror site, the link to download the documents produces a 404 error. While Wikipedia is not responsible for other sites, it does need to ensure that the article reflects the up to date situation. Many of the older pages and document downloads seem to be unavailable at the moment, so they cannot be used as citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found a fair few replacements for the dead links today, by googling the names, but some are not accessible at the moment. I'd imagine they'll come accessible again in the future though, once things have calmed down. SmartSE (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Section: Relation with the Wikimedia Foundation

It's already established that Wikileaks is owned by the Sunshine Press, not Wikimedia. Disclaiming it in the article is not necessary. "Wiki" is not a trademark as far as I can tell. It's like having to say a product called ITRANS is not owned by Apple Inc.

Srsly. CompuHacker (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying to myself here: I read the source for that section, and I think that any reference to Wikimedia should be removed, and it should be reiterated that Wikileaks is not actually collaborative in nature. CompuHacker (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

i think the motivation is that despite Wikipedia.org being one of the world's most popular websites, probably a huge percentage of the same people have no idea that Wikipedia is a wiki,<ref>subjective extrapolation based on my own personal experience</ref> they think of it just a brand name. After all, among the Wikimedia foundation wikis, there is Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc., and Wikitravel is totally independent of Wikimedia Foundation, but has a similar look and feel. So saying that Wikileaks is not collaborative (apparently it was a wiki early on, but the people+wiki system became too heavy to manage for the moment) would not help explain things, since many readers would not realise that Wikipedia is a wiki-collaborative effort.

So a better analogy would be e.g. explaining that Segleaks has nothing to do with Segway, the maker of two-wheeled inverted-pendulum-based feedback systems. Some people might guess that both are made by someone called Seg or a company that chose Seg as a brandname.

If you don't like the section, then maybe the best thing would be a disambiguation-related template at the top of the page. Have a look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/General#Disambiguation_and_redirection to find a good one.

Maybe:

• {{ about|topic|other topic|location }}
• {{ distinguish|topic }}
• {{ distinguish2|topic }}

e.g.

• {{distinguish2| [[wiki]] [[website]]s such as the [[Wikipedia]] or other [[Wikimedia Foundation]] or non-Wikimedia Foundation websites}}

Any objections to removing the Wikimedia Foundation section and replacing it by this template? (Edit and preview without saving to see what the effect would be.)

Boud (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone already removed the section, so i'm going to WP:Be bold and put in the template without waiting further. Someone can improve it if s/he is not happy. Boud (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This certainly should be removed as it is not encyclopedic, but rather something political between Wikileaks and Wikipedia. I didn't check the history, but it is not currently removed from the introductory section. It should be.Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree to remove. While there might be a falsely percieved relationship, which might make WP appear unpatriotical in the US, that might be a threat to funding. But, just because the Leader feels the need to publically emphasize this in proper PR channels, doesn't mean that cohorts must translate that blindly into editorial propaganda. WP should explain clearly what things are (and this has been done), not what they aren't. While you could consider mentioning organizations and individuals distancing themseleves from Wikileaks further into the article, it really challenges what is encyclopedic information. Maybe, maybe, it could be mentioned two main articles away at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Organizations Kokamomi (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Animated Heatmap of WikiLeaks Report Intensity in Afghanistan - should it be linked to?

I came across this fine animation of the wikileaks report on Afghanistan: http://www.r-bloggers.com/animated-heatmap-of-wikileaks-report-intensity-in-afghanistan/

I am not sure if it should be added to the article or not. What do you think?

Talgalili (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WIKILEAKS - The premise of the site is disruption. When something is fundamentaly wrong it will be shut down or fought. Instead of trying to look at the past and expose controversy why not tackle issues head on. I am always amazed at people that expend all this negative energy. Instead of casting stones build something society can be proud of not a gossip machine. Companies, Corporations and Governments mandates are to build lives and create opportunities for people. They do not function without errors because humans are fallable. Get past this and move on to a new website. Or go outside and enjoy the world around. Enjoy the art of communication and of humanity in a real form. WIkILEAKS and this phenoma of online sensationalism is garbage. Try spreading hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefresh01 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

There's been enough criticism of Wikileaks from all sides, from those opposed to leaks to those (i.e. John Young) alleging some nefarious intent behind Wikileaks, that it seems a short and compact section on 'Criticism' might be warranted. Felixhonecker (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am shocked at the positive language of this article, there is not a word about the criticism voiced against this wacko by governments around the world. The article reads as if it's talking about a youth club! This is a quite controversial organization. Also, there is no mentioning - as far as I saw - of the Swedish international arrest warrant against Assange, something that would be mentioned on the article about any other organization, like it or not. This page reads like an advertisement. I am completely shocked at the lack of neutrality here. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree! The article reads more like it was written by WikiLeaks advocates/cheerleaders than it does like an entry in an encyclopedia. The article barely mentions the dangers to peoples' lives and the dangers to diplomacy that WikiLeaks creates by releasing secret documents. It also fails to mention the legal consequences that contributors could face. The introduction states "WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces..." which is about one tenth of the whole story--one NPOV tenth (two civilians were non-Iraqi reporters who were embedded with Iraqi insurgents, two other civilians were children in a van (not visible to the pilot) that was struck while providing support to the insurgents. Why have that in the introduction? Either give it a NPOV approach (which would be lengthy), or take it out of the intro... Just My Suggestions. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit. What sourced material would you like to add? HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, I'd strongly disagree that information on the Swedish arrest warrant should be included here. I do think that John Young's assertions that Wikileaks is a COINTELPRO operation should be included, as they have been noted in WP:SOURCE acceptable outlets (e.g. WIRED, cnet.com, etc.). I think there's much more that could be included but I also think an edit of this nature has the potential to open the doors of abuse for everyone with an axe to grind with wikileaks that a discussion is warranted before an "anyone can edit" approach is taken. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The "anyone can edit" comment is simply stating a truth of WIkipedia. But I agree with you. Discussion here is a great idea. Let's give others some time to repsond. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The arrest warrant concerns Assange's private life, not WikiLeaks (or at least it does if it isn't an attempt to intimidate him, which has been suggested, but we'd need WP:RS for that). It has no bearing on the article topic. I'd be more inclined to take comments about the lack of neutrality of the article from people who don't describe Assange as a 'wacko'. I'd also suggest that a look at the broad range of 'leaks' released by WikiLeaks makes the any possible 'nefarious intent' difficult to reconcile with the obvious interests of any agency or pressure group: though again WP:RS to the contrary would change things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree the arrest warrant should in no case be included in this entry. To the other point, analyzing the broad range of leaks and making a conclusion that they don't support a 'nefarious intent' is original research and beyond an editor's scope of operation. Simply reporting on various allegations that have been made by reputable sources (a former WL board member and the domain name's original registrant, John Young) and reported on by WP:RS acceptable outlets should meet all standards of significance. To wit:

- http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets

- http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574462119793480.html

Felixhonecker (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section called "Criticism" which I feel is important for reasons stated previously. However, I do think it is a little lopsided without any itemization of the public support it has received from other notables like Daniel Ellsberg, etc. Does anyone have thoughts about changing this to a section called "Reception" or something similar with a sub-section called "Support" and a sub-section called "Criticism"? Felixhonecker (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Word

Under 'Diplomatic Cables Relase', there is a sentence which says "On 28 November, Wikileaks announced it was undergoing a massive Distributed Denial-of-service attack attack". Note the repeated use of the word 'attack'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt0chew (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MikeBaun, 28 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please include the information that Wikileaks is a facilitated by spy agencies of foreign governments and has possible terrorism links. My last request for edit was not taken seriously and removed. This is a series matter for actual discussion.

MikeBaun (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If not, it doesn't go in the article. Reach Out to the Truth 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm untranscluding the request. If MikeBaun has sources, then we can review and consider adding them.

This is a global encyclopaedia edited by people from all over the world. What do you mean by "foreign governments"? Foreign to whom? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt a place for original research WP:OR Wims (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Why is the climate research email leak referred to as "illegally obtained", but nothing else is. By definition, everything on Wikileaks is illegally obtained. That's why they are called leaks. Either call every leak illegal, or none of them illegal. Calling some illegal and others not simply reveals the writer's bias (it reads like anything that supports a liberal agenda is a good leak and anything that hurts the liberal agenda (i.e. CRU emails) is a bad leak). I would fix the article myself but access to this particular page seems to be restricted to the more "wise" among us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.136 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that term with "leaked' per your suggestion.--agr (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Not everything 'leaked' against the wishes of those who keep it secret is necessarily 'illegally obtained'. Commercial information obtained from a whistleblower for instance may be perfectly legally obtained, even in the cases where the leaking is possibly a breach of contract. Furthermore, it is entirely possible the climate research emails weren't 'leaked' at all, but hacked into by an outsider unconnected with the research. On that basis, I'm restoring "illegally obtained". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe leaked is not the best word, but we don't normally declare a particular incident to be illegal absent some court judgement. Presumably everyone whose material winds up on wikileaks believes it was obtained illegally. Singling out one incident seems POV.--agr (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Presumably everyone whose material winds up on wikileaks believes it was obtained illegally". Not necessarily true, and even then 'believing' something to be illegally obtained isn't the same thing as proving it. I'd say there may possibly be a POV problem in the article, but less so in this case, where the statement about how it was allegedly obtained is sourced, than in many others, where it isn't. Having said that, I see your point about court judgement, and I'll revise it to avoid making any definitivestatement on the legality of the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed. WikiLeaks had nothing to do with the CRU release. The emails were first released to skeptical bloggers and their readers who set up sites like eastangliaemails.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.162.35 (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.52.149.174, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the paragraph:

In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[9] In October, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations.

The last word "organisations" is misspelled and should read "organizations"

68.52.149.174 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just the UK spelling. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There has been a low-level war going on for years between those who use US spelling, and those who know how to do it properly... Only kidding, the rule seems to be that we try to be consistent in a single article: If the subject is specifically about US-related subjects , we use US spelling, if it is UK-related we use UK spelling, but otherwise we are supposed to use whatever was first used in an article. Unfortunately this tends to become difficult to figure out if not done consistently from the start, and in an article like this, which changes rapidly, you're bound to see inconsistencies. One of the joys of an open, international project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Julian Assange is Australian, can I insist on Australian spelling? For those unaware it's mostly like UK English. That would mean "organisation". HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically there is no real consensus in UK when to use ize and ise though. [1] talks about this. OED seems to prefer ize. They state "There is no reason why in English the special French spelling (iser) should ever be followed," referring to words that have derived from Greek and Latin. Nymf _hideliho! 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My copy of the OED clearly states in the introduction (from memory, as I don't have it to hand) that they use ize simply out of convenience, and both spellings are correct in UK English.71.106.173.131 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is WikiLeaks based? Which spelling do they use? Do we really need to worry about this right now? I'd say note that there is an inconsistency, and fix it when the article settles down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Their servers are based in Sweden, but I agree - I don't think a change is necessary at the moment either. Nymf _hideliho! 03:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: No consensus for the change, and AndyTheGrump's suggestion is very sensible. For what it's worth, http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html states, "WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikileaks and/or it's suppliers of information whistleblowers according to the Whistleblower Protection Act?

Dunno. Reads like a US-centric question to me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Any answer would be original research and couldn't be added to the article without a reliable source. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 is right; question is narrowly focused on U.S. federal civilian -- not military -- employees covered by that act, though the need for disclosures to be 'lawful' is also required under the separate Military Whistleblower Protection Act. The[Whistleblower Protection Act] only covers civilians uploading to WikiLeaks. This communication to WikiLeaks was made by a soldier. WikiLeaks itself would have to be under U.S. jurisdiction to be covered by U.S. law, but even then, there is no specific law protection a general corporate whistleblower (assuming the communications was 'lawful' to begin with). I do not think an answer to this runs afoul of the no original research provision; there is plenty collected on the internet addressing the topic. One of the best is Senator Akaka's statement, just scroll down to the top of Page S5971. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Should a discussion of the illegality/legality of Wikileaks methods be included in the article? The legal perspective would obviously be different for different countries.

Adding what newspapers has discussed about the legality of wikileaks would improve the article, but it would need to be written within the context those discussions has been made. Sweden has discussed it in regards to its source protection laws, US regarding its secrecy and espionage laws, Australia in regard that Assange is a citizen and so on. Belorn (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Censorship in Iran

Warlogs are also censored in Iran!09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.168.184 (talk)

Endangering people's lives

• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/30/2010-11-30_daring_doc_fears_for_his_family.html They are revealing information that might cause the Iranian government to hurt people's families. Have any of their past leaks endangered anyone's safety? Got to balance things with the negative aspects of what they are doing also. Dream Focus 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Ellsberg said no to the BBC today. Per that BBC clip "the Pentagon has admitted they have not been able to identify a single person harmed" from the August release. This is referenced in the Criticism section. Felixhonecker (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus - you ask "Have any of their past leaks endangered anyone's safety?" I ask "Have any of the secrets now being revealed endangered anyone's safety?" HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ellsberg isn't impartial. He has a personal interest in making leaks look like a good thing. Nobody is dead yet that we know of. That's not the same thing as saying that no one had to pack their bags and run. It will take time to know how this will play out.

Consider that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved because of a secret deal. Wikileaks and its supporters have decided that deals like that are now off the table. Whether or not that would have endangered the lives of Cubans and Floridians, we can't know.

BTW: I'm not saying Ellsberg can't be used for a quote in the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You said, "Ellsberg isn't impartial. He has a personal interest in making leaks look like a good thing." For that matter, the USG isn't impartial. It has an institutional interest in making leaks look like a bad thing. I'm unaware of any WP guideline that mandates anyone referenced by an otherwise acceptable source be "impartial." If I'm wrong, however, and there is such a rule or guideline, I would welcome correction.

As for the point about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's an editorial analysis and, as original research, outside the scope of this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not impartial at all, but there's a huge difference. Any government's position has the stamp of authority and responsibility that speaks for more than just one person, group, or movement. It may have the force of law behind it.

In this specific case, we're talking about Ellsberg's interpretation of what the Pentagon said. Ellsberg's opinions clearly mean something to a lot of critics of the U.S., and it's worth remembering where he claims to stand. But he shouldn't be a filter for where the Pentagon claims to stand.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed where someone was suggesting to use him in that context in this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

diplomatic cables not whistle blowing

I think there has been a large increase in negative opinion of wikileaks following the leak of the cables. Mainly because they are seen as an attempt at disrupting the diplomatic process, and not constituting whistle blowing. It should also be noted that they don't really contain any shocking information. source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/wikileaks-is-gossip-not-whistleblowing/article1817502/ the fact that embarrassing is used, and the only investigation launched as a result is into wikileaks and its sources, seems to indicate that this latest release hurt wikileaks reputation more than those mentioned in the documents. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a favourite team and you're keeping score. Your opinion is not really relevant to improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for the general discussion of WikiLeaks. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tapiwagwatidzo, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} wikileaks site switched off by amazon.com, their host, probably because of pressure from us govt.

Tapiwa Gwatidzo (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

• Please look at the template to phrase your change request.
• Assuming that line is what you want to incorporate, it appears to be dubious and unsourced anyway - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have added this information to the article, after having found reliable sources - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk Cleanup

Since we are going to bombarded with all kinds of WP:NOTFORUM, is it okay if we can clean up the talk page? Phearson (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Please. Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Per second motion by Sushilover2000 I have gone ahead and cleaned up some stuff. Although there seems to be a lot of mixed in forum quibbling in legitimate article discussion. Will clean more as it develops. It's good to keep talk pages short. Phearson (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Samizdat

Please add a link to the article about Samizdat movement in the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.53.134 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? What did they have to do with the article? Phearson (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The anti-secrecy organization Wikileaks has described itself as being a "global Samizdat movement". - see Samizdat. This may not be a good reason to add to the article, but, together with the general purpose of both being to reveal information that a government wants to suppress, seems to make the link reasonable and the dismissive comment by Phearson inappropriate. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment was not dismissive. It was to clarify why this information was needed in the article. I don't think that information needs to be included, perhaps a double bracket around the word somewhere in the article, but thats it. Phearson (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange Arrest Warrant

Why hasn't the article mentioned that Assange is on the run and that people want to assassinate him? I read this article on msn :Lawyer condemns call to assassinate Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen C Wells (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

because Assange isn't Wikileaks. That info is appropriate for the Assange article, but not on the organization he runs. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aduckett, 2 December 2010

Please change this dead link: |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/tcetoday/NewsDetail.aspx?nid=12188 to this new live link: |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/trafigura

Aduckett (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, TheIguana (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Domain "killed"? - no, currently working through IP addresses only

Wikileaks has reported its domain been "killed" by Everydns.net because of "constant attacks" via wikileaks twitter. Not sure how to fit it into the article. Phearson (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LUCASLITTLEWOOD (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Change current status from 'Active' to 'Offline' As of 2nd December 2010 the company providing the domain name withdrew it effectively making the website off-line.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/wikileaks-offline-after-domain-killed/story-e6frfro0-1225965338553 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11907641

---

But the site is not offline, it is still accessible from its IP/s ( http://46.59.1.2 ) ( http://213.251.145.96 ), the hosting is still on just not the domain. Funnyfela (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DNS service was interrupted due the recent permanent attack on this site. But the site is still available at its numerical addresses: http://46.59.1.2 and also http://213.251.145.96/ This address should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.119.97 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The site currently lacks a Domain Name System allocation, but can still be accessed directly through the IP addresses given above. This means that the site is not offline, as suggested in some media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The site is now accessible via the new Swiss domain: http://wikileaks.ch/ and of course on Twitter. 83.7.154.147 (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.ch appears to be dead now. 91.153.250.70 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.ch is back. 91.153.250.70 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also another domain mirror at http://wikileaks.stasi.fi/. It directs to the swedish server (46.59.1.2). 91.153.250.70 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A list of mirrors is available at wikileaks.info --illythr (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As of now, six U.S. domains (ORG, NET, COM, BIZ, MOBI, and US) are down (note that one U.S. domain remains operational, i.e. http://213.251.145.96.nyud.net ), but the picture in Europe is different: only the Swedish (.SE) domain is down.

More detailed story: [2], [3], and [4] Tijfo098 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that one development is still conspicuous by its absence. The Wikileaks team has still not freed itself from the centralized client-server data distribution model easily controlled by governments and is still not present on the major Peer-to-peer_file_sharing networks such as: EDonkey_network and BitTorrent_(protocol). 83.7.134.219 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a comprehensite list of WikiLeaks mirrors, some of which (e.g. http://wikileaks.eu.org/ and http://wikileaks.lu/ ) could be added to Wikipedia:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/79s9r1

Arguably, this list should be maintained by the Wikipedia editors community, on a separate page e.g. Wikileaks Mirrors to keep it clean from spoofing. It is probably safe to include only the simplest DNS-Mirrors (host name aliases) but I would be cautious with HTTP Redirects (they can lead to spoofed sites such as http://likiweaks.com/). 83.10.101.150 (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Spoofed WikiLeaks mirrors

The automated attempt to keep a database of mirrors at http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/ is inherently unsafe, because anyone can submit a spoofed site, and they do! Now the spoofed site (with the blood-thirsty vampire face and organ donation, see: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2260/spoofedwikileaksbanner.jpg ) it has been moved to http://wikileaks.cx/ while http://likiweaks.com/ is now clean (while it was spoofed at 09:27 during my previous post). Automatic mirroring is not safe, please give at least a warning to users that some mirrors may be spoofed by WikiLeaks opponents. 83.7.137.239 (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Authentic mirrors are now reported to stand at 355 (viral mirroring?).[[5]] This is an interesting quote:

"As we stated yesterday, the obvious issue at hand is what happens to sites that mirror or link to the Wikileaks content. However in the list of mirroring domains there is a notable lack of US based top level extensions. While it is unknown where the parties who own these sites reside, it is safe to say that those within the US are likely using either false or hidden information for their domain registrar." 120.20.120.104 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [general question removed SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)]

Wikileaks.nl

There should also be a Dutch domain (wikileaks.nl), but it's not yet listed. Could someone who is authourised put it in there because the page is protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.107.21 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been added, incidentally it resolves to http://46.59.1.2/, which is the Bahnhof server in Sweden.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

White Mountains and Cyber Bunker

About the hostings, a reference should be made to both CyberBunker and White Mountains as these are two different locations.

Source for White Mountains and WikiLeaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI1o6nHhwTc (CNN)

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/tech/wikileaks.cave.server_1_julian-assange-cold-war-bunker-wikileaks-site?_s=PM:TECH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.143.118 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive can still be downloaded

The Wikileaks page references file.wikileaks.org as the place to download the archive, but it is now unresolvable. The lookup wasn't given at the wikileaks.info site. But using Netcraft (http://searchdns.netcraft.com/]) I was able to find out that this was at 88.80.16.63 as of November 30, and making that substitution (http://88.80.16.63/torrent/cablegate/cablegate-201012031001.7z.torrent) I was able to download the torrent, which successfully gave me the current archive.

I don't want to push WP:OR too far here (for instance, it is believable that some hostile entity could confiscate the IP address and start feeding misinformation from it) but if someone can scare up a source for this it would be a useful addition for the article. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wnt - unfortunately WikiLeaks know nothing about PGP signing of archives and cables, as result all sources are unreliable. --TAG (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually just a list of MD5 checksums would be enough, even post facto. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No entries about hactivist Jester's attacks on Wikileaks?

The former military operative hactivist known as the Jester, A.K.A. th3j3st3r, Tweeted that he levied attacks on wikileaks. Some say this is credible since wiki's Denial of Service outages coincided with th3j3st3r's claims on Twitter of when he'd take them down. That commercial servers can be so completely vulnerable to Layer 7 DOS attacks demonstrates a need harden the internet, in case there are massive, concerted, state-level attacks in the future.

• "Hacktivist' Jester Claims Responsibility for WikiLeaks Attack" Fox Nation
• "Wikileaks DDoSser 'Jester' in phantom cop raid tomfoolery" John Leyden The Register
• Infosecisland by Anthony M. Freed, on the Jester's attack:

Apparently Jester's attack is an undetectable XerXes Denial of Service attack, coded by him, that lets the attacker make realtimme adjustments to counter defensive countermeasures. Jester claims his attacks are temporary and do no permanent damage.

The site has a video that looks like it's Jester's screen dashboard (on a Linux box?) as he attacks the website alemarah.info and brings it down. At the bottom there's a trace showing the target's repetitive "heartbeat" that flatlines when it succumbs to the attack. When the attack is over the heartbeat display resumes. Jesters signs, "Peace Out." The video claims that no permanent damage to the target or intermediary nodes has been done, and that no bots or zombies are used. But at one point the attack is ramped up with "parallel drones," whatever that means. So Jester's claiming a single-machine attack -- not a plain vanilla Distributed DoS (DDOS) attack that uses massive flow of packets. It was reported this May that XerXes could attack Apache and IIS possibly via backend databases. It is similar to a powerful "Slow Loris."

• PandaLabs says "th3j35t3r” took down wikileaks and shows a time display of Wikileaks' outage, at http://wikileaks.org. Don't know if WL was truly down globally -- Slashdot says WL has tried a massive mirroring effort and asked for hosting space on Unix servers at 213.251.145.96/mass-mirror.html.

DonL (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DoS attacks against Wikileaks are a common occurrence. It's unclear how significant this one is, but the recent hosting troubles as a whole are definitely worth a mention. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think distributed DoS would have been more likely than the no-bot single-person Wikileaks attack that is attributed to a "single hacker," even in the Wikileaks main article. I'd suspect heavier guns. I don't think logs will be forthcoming showing what attacks were used, and when they hit Wikileaks before it moved to Amazon servers. As I remember it people were saying that with the encryption ploy Wikileaks was trying to honeypot the NSA into divulging its AES256-backdooring tricks. Sure you're right -- the whole hosting/mirroring thing could add material for a new "Millenium Trilogy," (S. Larssen) without 90-lb girl hackers skilled in martial arts. I trust the Wiki community to come out with as accurate a narrative possible on this. I'm just waiting for S.F.'s "Smokin' Warehouse's" secret BBQ sauce recipe to be leaked. :-)

DonL (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pasuman

{{edit semi-protected}}

sir/madam i have to update the new website URL for wikileaks so help me to do so. Pasuman (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pasuman, Thanks for your assistance.

If you give us the URL here, we can then see whether it can be included. We may need to check it is genuine first. Perhaps you could give an indication of where you found it (preferably a link)? As you'll appreciate, this is an ongoing issue, and we need to ensure accuracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. As stated above, please provide us with the new URL. It is impossible for us to allow you to do it yourself while the page remains semi-protected, but if you provide the info here, we can determine if the new info should go into the article and then add it for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: add to list of urls

Add http://wikileaks.info/ to list of known urls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.120.127 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks shut down & rebooting in Switzerland

Please discuss this material and allow time for the full story to develop before adding it to the article:
Transcript of Democracy Now! story and debate between Glenn Greenwald and Steven Aftergood
Anarchangel (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Defining Moment

In article integrity. So far our articles are about the only neutral reports (with a large audience) on this organization and its people. The "you're either with us or against us" threat, from both points of view, has expanded its global duress to media reporting in a frighteningly rapid way. I hope this and related articles can withstand the pov pressure which is likely going to get much worse, from both directions. So far, so great. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no collateral damage section? Were no foreign lives lost?

Where is the section for the humongous levels of collateral damage perpetrated by Wikileaks? Its leakage of facts on the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts involving the military of the United States has resulted in the losses of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghan lives. Why does Wikipedia suppress the Satanic human losses incurred as a result of Assange's role in the Middle East? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic here, but if you're being serious, please provide a reliable source to support those claims, and then we can consider adding them to the article (phrased neutrally, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Zloyvolsheb, WikiLeaks' activities have not been found to kill anyone, much less "hundreds of thousands".[6][7]. In fact, if anyone is guilty for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, its the people who started these wars (and continue to fight in them). [8] Sonicsuns (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there has been no reported outings of "Spies, informants, etc" or anything remotely like that. Seems the redactions made prior to release have kept these supposed people safe. Phearson (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

peter king

Is there a "whocares" tag in wikipedia? The below quote is basically pointless since its usual political claptrap made by a politician of no importance:

U.S. congressman Peter T. King called for WikiLeaks to be designated as a terrorist organization in response to the leak of the cables.

There is an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, as the reaction from Peter T King is reliably sourced. Mike Huckabee has called for the person behind the leaks to be executed.[9] These are interesting reactions, and the article should reflect how US politicians have reacted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editor calls for U.S. congressman Peter T. King to be designated as a politician of no importance"? I'm not sure about this, though I'm inclined to agree that we don't want the article cluttered with random condemnations. Unless congressman King's comments are actually of real significance, they need to go. I don't see why Mike Huckabee's opinions are of any significance either. (The King quote is from primary sources anyway). If there is WP:RS commenting on the reactions of US (and other) politicians, that of course may be worth including. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with "I don't like it" and everything to do with it adding no value. If he was chairman of the house intelligence committee or something then fine, but he's just some random congressman. The section is "Investigations, censorship, and alleged harassment and surveillance" and some random remarks by a random congressman hardly qualifies. This is what I mean by "WP:WHOCARES". King might be important to someone, but not to Wikileaks. Andy got my point pretty well: "we don't want the article cluttered with random condemnations". I feel the same about statements of praise. I'm sure we can find the mayor of somewhere supporting wikileaks, but again, who cares? The article is locked, could someone please remove the statement? --65.2.0.134 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What about a "What've ya got ta hide, pal." tag for Peter? Its already being used extensively when the average citizen wants some privacy. Seriously, though, its notable what King says because 126,142 people (72%) voted for him. Its as simple as that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

126142 ~= 0.04% of the US population. Compared with the viewership of American Idol, I would argue that Ryan Seacrests opinion, if offered, is 262 times more valuable than this random-assed congressman from upstate new york. Can we get it out of there now, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.134 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia isn't a US-only project anyway. Since King's opinions seem to be of no particular significance, I'll delete the sentence. As I've said, a proper source summarising reactions from US political circles would probably be worth including, but not this. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The Wikileaks dumps of 2010 have focused on the U.S.. There are only 535 U.S. Congresspeople. One of them has called for WikiLeaks to be designated a terrorist organization, which is a much bigger deal than just saying "I don't like them". Overall, I feel that King's statement is important enough to be included in some way.Sonicsuns (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, for the reason given by Sonicsuns and because the opinion King states is not only King's; so its important to accept the reality of it within the article. Having said that,AndyTheGrump's idea of having a summary of reactions from US political circles is a better way of handling it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One very important thing I should have mentioned: Peter King isn't just some random congressperson. He's the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. [10] . So his views on alleged terrorist activities are very important. Sonicsuns (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible bias editing

I'm sure in the last 24 hours this has been edited.

"The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[4] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine[page needed] describe Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, as its director."

From what I recall, the past paragraph mentioned it MAY have been and in a context of that it was a group of nationals. Also the reference [4] make no links to what is claimed above. I believe this maybe due it being used for a pro-Chinese forum discussion elsewhere.

Anom Dec 5 2010, 5:50 am (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.133.198 (talk)

Not to be confused with...

What's this "Not to be confused with other websites such as the Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation or non-Wikimedia Foundation websites that use wiki software and culture"?

I don't recognise that from other disambiguation messages. This sounds more like a pr comment on behalf of the WMF, and implicitly judgmental given the implication of wikipedia choosing to distance itself from this particular web site but not from say meatball wiki or wikianswers, rather than something you'd expect in an encyclopedia promoting a neutral point of view. 92.39.205.102 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair. Wikileaks is in the news a lot. There are probably a lot of people who think they're related.

On the flip side, there are probably some bozos out there who've given money to the Wikimedia fundraising drive because they think they're supporting Wikileaks.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Look up on this talk page. It used to be a section by itself, but I noted that it sounded exactly like what you say; PR. I wanted to remove it altogether. CompuHacker (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it from a silly 'this is nothing to do with us' disclaimer abuse of 'see also' into something more closely resembling a genuine attempt at reducing confusion. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is worth investigating, but considering Mr. Jimmy Wales funding drive it may be worthwile. Specifically, I draw attention to the idea that I am regularly correcting people letting them know that Wikileaks is not part of the Wikimedia group. I think that the negative publicity that Wikileaks is receiving on an escalating level may be harmful, even slightly perhaps, to Wikimedia. There is far to much hard work in Wikipedia and related sites to allow any undue negative publicity to go unchecked. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict WP:NODISCLAIMERS policy which means pages can contain offensive, harmful or illegal content (depending on jurisdiction), and there is to be NO warning. This policy should be respected.

Also note that anybody who has enough knowledge that they have even heard of the Wikimedia Foundation is likely to understand that that Wikileaks is not a part of it. OTOH, Wikipedia itself is much better known than the Wikimedia Foundation and there is a genuine chance of confusion. Therefore 'not to be confused with Wikipedia' is more than sufficient. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A peek on m:Foundation wiki feedback on any given day is going to show that a lot of folk manage to find their way to Meta from the fundraising page and give ... ah, feedback ... on that page quite often. Kylu (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have replaced the hatnote at the top of the article and tweaked it to make clear there is no association between Wikipedia and Wikileaks. OTRS has gotten over 50 emails about wikileaks in the three days this has been on the In the news section on the main page. Some have been simply confused, but others have been quite angry. A clear hatnote is good editorial practice.--Chaser (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's narcissism that places undue coat-rack-y weight on a comparatively minor issue. We should not add distraction to the article solely in the name of our non-objective personal/community views of the distinction's importance; to do that is to editorialize. Also, hatnotes are supposed to be disambiguatory; this one isn't, it doesn't involve page titles being confused. It's legitimate article content which is now covered in the lede anyway. Unless one is such a pessimist that they don't think readers even read the freaking lede, the hatnote is duplicative and unnecessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've just replaced the hatnote. This talk page is getting abusive comments from people who don't seem to understand the distinction. Fact. I'd call that a clear enough justification for 'disambiguation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of inappropriate talkpage use to article content / hatnotes. By that reasoning, a whole crap-ton of articles which people frequently post to the talkpage asking questions about would need FAQ "hatnotes"; this not being the case, I don't a see policy/guideline/best-practice-based reason supporting having the "hatnote". --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, ask yourselves this: Would Citizendium's "WikiLeaks" article have such a hatnote? Why? If the answer is No, then I argue we're violating WP:NPOV. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what NPOV has to do with correcting a common misunderstanding? In any case, Wikipedia does lots of things to encourage users to edit in the correct place. How is this any different? If people think they are addressing WikiLeaks when contacting or editing Wikipedia, are we not permitted to point out they aren't? The similar names are clearly causing confusion, and where confusion is likely, we disambiguate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers. Yes, normally we would not refer to Wikipedia, but in this case it is extremely helpful to explain a very common misunderstanding, so the "Wikileaks is not related to Wikipedia" hat note should be at the top of the article. There is no NPOV problem: we're not claiming that "wiki" implies "Wikipedia", and we're not presenting a view about WikiLeaks or Wikipedia: it's just a simple fact that many readers are confused about the point, and the hat note is helpful. We don't have a bureaucratic set of rules that prevent helpful text. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cybercobra. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Get rid of it.Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Citizendium argument is really right. The problem is, a reader here could think that because this is Wikipedia, and if Wikipedia were connected with Wikileaks, it might not cover the article completely or fairly due to some internal conflict of interest or for other reasons. To illustrate this in a different context, consider that the Wikipedia article also has a hatnote, "For Wikipedia's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Wikipedia:About." Yes, Wikipedia wants to present all content neutrally and without intruding itself into the process, but there are times when it is necessary to do so in order to prevent doing so. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apt analogy to Wikipedia's selfref note; I won't dispute that selfref note's existence further. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet again the hatnote has been reworded. It now reads "Not to be mistaken as being associated with Wikipedia", which looks to me like ungrammatical nonsense. Can we at least try to agree the wording, and stick with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I go into edit mode, I get a message at the top that says: Please note that the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has no connection whatsoever with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely has an article about WikiLeaks.

If it's good enough for us editors to be informed in this very explicit, unambiguous way, it's good enough for our readers to be so informed. Let's copy that wording exactly to the article hatnote. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad idea in several ways; 1: 50 emails is nothing 2:Overt and disputedly unnecessary dis-association with a controversial entity is a weaselly type of pov; e.g."Wikipedia has no connection with the U.S. Government." 3:if its about name similarity then you ought to put it on every other article with wiki in it,now and in the future.

Get real, this "hatnote" ,is not cool, its paranoid narcissism in a very mild form. Our readers and editors aren't as illinformed as this "hatnote" assumes. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit w.r.t. the "hatnote."

See Talk:WikiLeaks#Hatnote

Can the existing hat note please be changed to something more professional? I.e. How about the initial text in the box above the edit winbdow, "Please note that the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks has no connection whatsoever with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the encyclopedia Wikipedia."? brenneman 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Only semi-protected, I now see. Apologies for being an idiot. - brenneman 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I made exactly the same suggestion @ Talk:WikiLeaks#Hatnote above. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the non-action on that suggestions was what made me mistake this for full-protected. I was bold, and went ahead and made the change. - brenneman 11:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See hatnote, this is no agreement to even include any kind of hatnote, so the wording composition is moot at this time, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a degree of self-reference in the hatnote. Jimbo has pointed out in interviews that he receives e-mails from people who think that he is responsible for WikiLeaks [11], but there is no need to overdo the lack of a link. Personally, I would support removing the hatnote and leave pointing out the distinction between the two sites to the main body of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is currently pointed out in the article body. See first paragraph of WikiLeaks#Name_and_policies. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The big advantage of a self-ref instead of distinguishing them in the text is prominence. Given the still high readership of this article and the fact that we are in the middle of a fund drive, I think making this as clear as possible to potential donors is wise. I am not expressing an opinion about WikiLeaks itself. But if people have this misimpression, we should proactively clarify.--Chaser (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The people most likely to be confused (and irate), are probably also the most likely not to read the article carefully before responding. This isn't normal policy, but then it isn't a normal situation, I think common sense probably suggests erring on the side of clarity, even if it looks a little strident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I might agree on a very practical level, but tailoring article pages to accomodate the confused and irate of this world might be a slippery slope, it seems to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be. I'd suggest we'd probably do better to wait until we see evidence that it is. Sadly, slippery slope arguments tend not to be particularly helpful when dealing with single events rather than trends. This is an admittedly-imperfect fix for a specific problem. Maybe a better long-term solution could be arrived at if it recurs, but for now we just have to make do the best we can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But its not a single event. Its the 3rd or 4th with the "big bank" thing to come,they say. Also, the New York Daily News ran a poll last week asking "Is WikiLeaks right in making these 'secret' documents public?"70% of the respondents said "Yes, the people have a right to know." So, I just don't see where this is a problem that needs fixing, at least not at this time. What's more important, I don't see where there is a consensus that the Hatnote is needed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for removing it, for that matter. Can I ask why you think this specific hatnote is problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that this is a clumsy solution only well suited for these rather extraordinary circumstances. If these pageviews go down, I'd be willing to experiment with removing the self-ref and see whether we're still getting confused messages about this.--Chaser (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To AndyTheGrump, I just don't see the need for this one, but I accept that others do see the need. Actually, I just realized that I haven't been considering the Volunteer response team in my thinking about this. I can see where the hatnote would help them. I'm ok with Chaser's plan. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal status

Hello, the section WikiLeaks#Legal facts critically need expansion. Does the US gov charged Wikileaks ? on what ? etc. Yug (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that the government could pursue action under the Espionage Act of 1917. The NY Times has done some digging on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html. On a related note, Bloomberg has also looked at the legal implications for Wikileaks from the Afghanistan leaks: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/wikileaks-secret-records-dump-stays-in-legal-clear-ann-woolner.html. –TheIguana (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(I integrated Bloomber content. I have to go in real life. Reading and integration of NY yimes digging is welcome !) Yug (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a paragraph about this to WikiLeaks#United_States.--Chaser (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section for the moment. If a well sourced section can be written, I agree it should be included, but a speculative, unsourced sentence isn't much use to anyone. The refs TheIguana has supplied are probably only relevant to the specific leaks and so it would be difficult/impossible to use these to write a section about the legality of WL in general. It's been pointed out that many people have threatened to sue WL, but no one has ever taken them to court AFAIK. SmartSE (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The current lack of source IS NOT a sufficient point to remove content. No rule affirm this. But that clearly a backsliding in the expansion effort. Please stop to this. Yug (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a rapidly-developing and important story. We need to maintain high standards. A lack of source is a very good reason to remove content. To be honest, I can't see what the section removed was trying to say in any case. It looked more like opinion than fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense. "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." There's your rule, Yug, from the lead section of the policy.--Chaser (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source". My point is that this WP policy page is not all black or all white.

The removed content was by that time really basic and really secure : wikileaks international nature make its legal status complex. The international nature statement is in all the article. The complexity it create is a very safe statement. But this create a stub-section to expand and focus efforts. Indeed, a talk was ongoing to find sources and expand the section. TheIguana just provided 2 sources in the talk page, ready to add.

In such safe cases, over deletionism is not helpful, but simply regression (article side) and time waste (users side).--Yug (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to balance the point on Wikileaks not specifically requesting information. The original text stated that Wikileaks does not solicit information. This is correct in the context of statements made by Wikileaks. However, they have previously compiled most wanted lists for materials. These lists were produced from public input not directly Wikileaks themselves, but Wikileaks appears to at least partially publicized them which does raises questions. –TheIguana (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ;) --Yug (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.120.55.63 (talk)

It's certainly an improvement on yesterday's version, but it still contains what I consider to be speculative and weasely passages that are unsourced: e.g. "The legal status of WikiLeaks is complex", "The files it leaks are from countries around the world in which they may have various legal statuses" and " compilation of most wanted lists of confidential or classified materials raises legal grey area questions." Andy and Chaser are correct to point out that the burden is on the contributor to provide verifiable sources to back up information added and that unsourced content can be removed. I strongly agree with this, particularly for what is currently such a high profile article. Yug is correct that policies are not black or white, but the quoted sections can obviously be challenged and must therefore be cited. If you can find sources to back up these claims, please add them, but if not I think we need to reword the section accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I will add source If I come on some relate press articles. Personally, I usually write a section in 2~3~4 days, I also thinking about it when drinking a chocolate, doing nothing on my bed, etc. Just, we are humans, we act by wave, each isn't perfect, but let's a little time to safe statements, and that will get better.. Yug (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, every WP article is a work in progress, so to some extent that may be the best way to work, but in a case like this where the article is getting very high attention, we need to keep it up to standards as best as we can at all times. If you think of something that needs adding, Yug, make a note of it somewhere on your PC, and then find sources. When you've done that, it can go into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a note that the US AG has commented on the charges and that they could stem from more than just the Espionage Act. I also removed the sentence on legal grey area I added yesterday. It is repetitive in the current context of the section and it can't be verified at this stage of WikiLeaks legal saga. If some good support comes out in the next couple of days then we can add it back in. –TheIguana (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Hi guys, I added this piece of information and they reverted my edit, which is sourced from a newspaper website from Canada. I think there are some users with a conflict of interest trying to revert this kind of additions:

Because of the continuous attacks to WikiLeaks the website has become a good example of the Streisand effect with many sympathizers mirroring the site voluntarily with source:

The Vancouver Sun.

I believe the addition to be important given the fact the website is indeed going through the Streisand effect. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The objection was partly that it doesn't belong in the lead. I'd go further and say that it belongs in the article about the Streisand effect rather than in this article. It's interesting, but not particularly relevant to WikiLeaks.--Chaser (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It was me that reverted your edit, because (a) it didn't belong in the lede, which i supposed to be a general summary of the article, and (b) the article is about WikiLeaks, not the Streisand Effect. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to be accused of a conflict of interest, but just to satisfy my curiosity, and add something new to the list of conspiracies I've been accused of participating in, can you let us know what this 'conflict of interest' entails? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How can it not be relevant? the reason why the website is still online is because of such effect , that whether we want it or not has been called the Streisand effect and I believe the addition is important and notable enough. Please add it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd not dispute that the Streisand Effect may be at work here, but does it merit inclusion? If you can find a few more references to this, maybe it might be worth inclusion somewhere in the article, but we can't include everything every news source has to say about Wikipedia. If this has been commented on more widely, it is another matter.

For now, I'm going to assume your comments about my supposed 'conflict of interest' were just frustration, but I'd ask you not to repeat them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it does merit inclusion, the effect is implicit of an internet environment as the one we live in now. Think of an average reader wondering "wow, how is it that people suddenly support and put such information online?"..well, it's an effect inherent to the natural rejection to censorship on the internet. Can we lead the user into getting more information about such effect? sure we can, we tell them that the effect is called the Streisand effect and that is why WikiLeaks still manages to stay online after the ferocious attacks it has received. See where I am coming from? the effect and the current situation are closely related, why shouldn't/wouldn't we include it? ..and to Andy, sorry mate, I think I took you for one of the pro-American biased editors that have been trying to reduce some aspects of this article. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but it really needs proper sourcing, from more than one article. I suspect this aspect of the story will become more significant with time, but we can't make predictions. We can only really report what others are saying now. And thanks for the apology, though in a way it is a disappointment not to be accused of a new bias, I've just started compiling a list ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How about adding it into the censorship section? I think this would be better written in prose, rather than having separate headers for amazon, paypal etc. and then this could be included at the end of it. There are other sources discussing the effect too. There are also these sources which could be added to discuss censorship as well. How does that sound? SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly gone ahead and done so. Comments welcome. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this can be an additional source regarding the "Streisand effect": Wikileaks mirrors SovereignCitizen (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but using that as a source for the Streisand effect would be original research, we need news articles that mention it. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This can be a valid reference: The New Zealand Herald - How the Barbra Streisand Effect keeps WikiLeaks online SovereignCitizen (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's effectively the same one as mentioned at the top of this thread as it's published by the AFP. I incorporated it into the article earlier on today. SmartSE (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks#Legal_status

Can someone keep an eye on this section? The editor involved seems sincere, but it needs copyediting, and perhaps a little verification too. I'd do this myself, but it's getting late. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Just realised this is also being discussed above. The point still stands though AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

+1, thanks ;) Yug (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC) The editor involved seems is sincere

Current event template

I've removed the {{current event}} due to it being an inappropraite use per the guidelines for that template, but have been reverted twice. This article is not rapidly changing, and the template has been in place for a week, when it should generally only be used "for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days". The leak is still ongoing, and at the present rate will be going on for weeks, months or even years. Can anyone explain why it is useful beyond the fact it adds a link to the cables leak to the top of the article? Meco's edit summary demonstrates that this reason is pointless anyway, even though hundreds of thousands of people see the link, very few click through to the cable article. Andy's edit summary indicates that he may have misunderstood the point of the template and that it is not simply to indicate something is in the news. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"This article is not rapidly changing"? I suppose that depends how 'rapidly' is defined, though a look at the article history seems to indicate that it isn't exactly static. The template guidelines seem to me to suggest that it isn't entirely inappropriate. Is there a specific reason why it's presence is objectionable at this point? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I object to its removal and will reinstate. There is no time limit set to remove the the tag, and this article is CONSTANTLY changing as events surrounding Wikileaks and Mr. Assange are unfolding. I'd wait a little longer before removing the tag. Phearson (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I also object. I am aware what the guideline for its parent template {{current}} states, but this situation calls for WP:IGNORE to take precedent. There needs to be a hatnote reference to the current leaks article, which is the real event here, still this article receives 20 times as many hits (500,000 a day) as United States diplomatic cables leak (25,000 a day). I really don't think the fact that so few click their way to the "right" article is an argument for the template's uselessness. On the contrary. __meco (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request External Links

Please add these links as External Links. These links are to the official websites of wikileaks mirrors, from their mirror page: http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
wikileaks.as50620.net wikileaks.tard.is ipv6 freeus.jsdev.org wikileaks.enzym.su freeus.jsdev.org wikileaks.cellue.de wikileaks.kafe-in.net ipv6 wl.opsec.eu ipv6 wl.donatepl0x.com wikileaks.challet.eu wikileaks.kister.org wl.gernox.de wikileaks.morningtime.com wikileaks.renout.nl wikileaks.fdn.fr wikileaks.gonte.se wikileaks.kaptenkong.se wikileaksmirror.proxelsus-hosting.de ipv6 leaks.gooby.org wikileaks.dubronetwork.fr ipv6 wikileaks.perry.ch wikileaks.sbr.im wikileaks.u0d.de wikileaks.81-89-98-125.blue.kundencontro... www.fuckip.de wikileaks.psytek.net wl.mrkva.eu wikileaks.joworld.net www.wlmirror.com wikileaks.chiquitico.org wikileaks.rout0r.org www.gruiiik.org wikileaks.adhelis.com wikileaks.high-color.de wikileaks.holarse-linuxgaming.de ipv6 wl.alfeldr.de wikileaks.jikan.fr wikileaks.huissoud.ch wikileaks.geekview.be wikileaks.fs-cdn.net wikileaks.burnzone.de wikileaks.dysternis.de wikileaks.nulset.net wikileaks.franslundberg.com wikileaks.krkr.eu ipv6 wl.yoltie.net wikileaks.gnourt.org wikileaks.theunfamiliar.co.uk wikileaks.zeitkunst.org wikileaks.aelmans.eu wikileaks.serverius.net wikileaks.synssans.nl wl.ernstchan.net wikileaks.yasaw.net zwartemarktplaats.com wikileaks.dena-design.de wikileaks.zone84.net wikileaks.subastas-xxx.com wikileaks.iuwt.fr wikileaks.chmod.fi wlmirror.wildeboer.net www.wikileaks.freelists.com.au leaked.rndm.ath.cx wikileaks.splichy.cz wleaks.3sge.pulsedmedia.com wleaks.hellfire.pulsedmedia.com wikileaks.palisades-berlin.de wikileaks.razor1911.com wikileaks.dokansoft.com.ar wikileaks.thinkfurther.de wikileaks.trankil.info wikileaks.gonte2.nu leaks.stumcomie.com wikileaks.timburke.org wikileaks.ehcdev.com wikileaks.zurk.org wikileaks.myscripts24.de wikileaks.breit.ws wikileaks.emilts.com wikileaks.ruicruz.pt wikileaks.now-pages.com wikileaks.ego-world.org cablegate.r3blog.nl ipv6 www.wikileakz.eu wikileaks.realprogrammer.org wikileaks.the-secret-world.info wikileaks.superjoesoftware.com wikileaks.rtjuette.de wikileaks.rustigereigers.nl mirror1.wikileaks.lu mirror2.wikileaks.lu internaluse.net wikileaks.r00t.la wikileaks.cordover.id.au brd.mcbf.net wikileaks.spurious.biz wikileaks.1407.org wikileaks.mollar.me azow.selb.us wikileaks.furdev.org wikileaks.datkan.net ipv6 wikileaks.nortemagnetico.es wikileaks.threefingers.ca wikileaks.brenne.nu ipv6 www.anontalk.com wikileaks.hutonline.nl vm8157.vps.tagadab.com nl1.wikileaksmirror.nl wikileaks.noomad.org wikileaks.xcplanet.com www.wikileaks.nw-ds.com wikileaks.infinium.org.uk wikileaks.piratskasit.cz peoplerule.info wikileaks.sirobert.com wikileaks.solvare.se wikileaks.marktaff.com wikileaks.hmaks.com im.wikileak.im wikileaks.aamjanata.com www.wikigoteo.dialetheia.net wikileaks.dft-labs.eu wikileaks.julietvanree.com wikileaks.argenton.ch wikileaks.i0i.co wikileaks.lionelwood.com wikileaks.antifan.de ipv6 wasiutynski.net wikileaks.diedx.nl wikileaks.chram.net wikil3aks.dyndns.org wikileaks.encgmail.com wikileaks.yoerin.nl wikileaks.mcpond.co.nz wikileaks.siwhine.org wikileaks.schroth.cx wikileaks.delight.ch wikileaks.moochm.de wikileaks.syncaddict.net www.hallitus.info info.patourie-systems.com wikileaks.softic.cz wikileaks.redhog.org wikileaks.brokenbydesign.org wikileaks.nisd.dk wikileaks.sentientrobot.net wikileaks.kronoss.org wikileaks.s4ku.com wikileaks.glembotzky.com wikileaks.nperfection.com wikileaks.laquadrature.net wikileaks.legrandsoir.info wikileaks.artwww.net wikileaks.39mm.net leaks.uaqv.com wikileaks.krtek.net www.emilts.com leaks.3nglish.co.uk wikileaks.explain-it.org wikileaks.dunnewind.net wl.fcharlier.net wikileaks.poete.eu.org wikileaks.datenscheibe.org wikileaks.kapitein.org www.wikileaks.djity.net wikileaks.nodemaster.de wikileaks.listepik.net wikileaks.explain-it.org wikileaks.sedrati-dinet.net wikileaks.rigacci.org wikileaks.ratm.ch wikileaks.tonbnc.fr cablegate.sentientrobot.net wikileaks.ist-bremer.de wikileaks.spinrise.com wikileaks.rothnet.org wikileaks.webtito.be ipv6 wikileaks.lainconscienciadepablo.net wikileaks.g33kthug.co.uk wikileaks.b166er.net wikileaksmirror.matstace.me.uk 87.106.58.253 wikileaks.virii.lu wikileaks.junkle.org leaks.iamfos.co wikileaks.wass-media.com wikileaks.karlsen.co wikileaks.lupine.me.uk ipv6 wikileaks.webprofiles.org wikileaks.azatoth.net wl.unbloggbar.org santocristo.info wikileaks.back2hack.cc wikileaks.supercrapule.com wl.treymassingill.com wikileaks.poliisi.mobi wikileaks.karlsen.co wikileaks.rickfalkvinge.se wikileaks.amette.eu wikileaks.batsh.it wikileaks.freei.me wikileaks.chsdl.de last.to wikileaks.iheartfreedom.ca wikileaks.rackstack.com wikileaks.serverlicious.org wikileaks.excds.se wikileaks.under.ch leaks.kooll.info wikileaks.nldla.com cablegate.dyndns.info wikileaks.afturgurluk.org wikileaks.phasebook.net wikileaks.emquadat.com wikileaks3.no-ip.org wikileaks.hermans.net wikileaks.urli.eu wikileaks.laotracarboneria.net wikileaks.datapusher.net wleaks.shellmix.com wikileaks.citizen-boycott.org wikileaks.in-edv.de wl.hor.de wl.rekursion.ch naixt-genne.com wikileaks.aircraftdispatch.net wikileaks.cimeterre.info wikileaks.2qt.us wikileaks.rhgnet.de wikileaks.crypton-technologies.net wikileaks.xgstatic.fr wikileaks.medienfuzzis.com wl.creative-guerillas.com wikileaks.philpep.org ipv6 wikileaks.para-dice.de wikileaks.outcast.no wikileaks.bandsal.at ipv6 wikileaks.concretedonkey.cz.cc wikileaks.oualid.net wikileaks.webterrorist.net wl.22web.net wikileaks.deepdata.de wikileaks.theano.de wikileaks.buzzworkers.com wikileaks.electric-castle.net wikileaks.caseid.org wikileaks.luchaspopulares.org wikileaks.paysen.net wikileaks.atpolitics.com wikileaks.otnf.tk wikileaks.nslu2-info.de leaks.letsneverdie.net wikileaks.yasaw.net wikileaks.atpolitics.com mhym.de www.wikileaks.videoteppista.net wikileaks.deutero.org wikileaks.grokia.se wikileaks.tamcore.eu wikileaks.youfailed.de wikileaks.stephaneerard.fr wikileaks.jotocorp.com wikileaks.canariaswireless.net wikileaks.thearksakura.com wikileaks.thefrackin.info wikileaks.maero.dk wikileaks.metrogeek.fr wikileaks.simplaza.net wikileaks.fellr.net wikileaks.mindfreakonline.de wl.dixon.pl wikileaks.zombix.pcriot.com wikileaks.wkellner.com wl.thj.no wikileaks.sodom.se wikileaks.macventure.de wikileaks.damn1337.de wikileaks.bitciple.com wl-mirror.sokoll.com wikileaks.224charenton.net help.majestan.com wikileaks.giggsey.com wl.kallix.net ipv6 wikileaks.unknowntruth.net wl.kaizer.se wikileaks.legalsutra.org wikileaks.kitara.nl wikileaks.kyak106.com wikileaks.marpeck.net wikileaks.leech.it wikileaks.pamphleteer.de wikileaks.return0.de wikileaks.0x04.com wikileaks.mirror.jfet.org wikileaks.nerdhero.org wikileaks.3ofcoins.net wikileaks.g0rn.com wikileaks.chpwn.com wikileaks.fuck.cc wikileaks.hoppipolla.net wikileaks.slackdev.com wikileaks.openmafia.org wikileaks.paper.st wikileaks.efremigio.es wikileaks.zanooda.com wikileaks.wtfstfu.org wikileaks.freedomofspee.ch www.elajt.info wikileaks.chuso.net wikileaks.letras.net wikileak.eicat.ca wikileaks.0xff.it wikileaks.apileofbytes.com wikileaks.revspace.nl leaks.curaj.tv wikileaks.mumu.cz wikileaks.kassala.de wikileaks.chpwn.com wikileaks.k-ribou.com wikileaks.stasi.fi wikileaks.milchi.de wl.kollegstufe.org leaks.freudian.sl wikileaks.laez.nl wikileaks.dexite.de 74.63.248.219 wl.ownage4u.nl wikileaks.peer7.de wikileaks.infinityloop.es wikileaks.orfeu.es wikileaks.myke.us wikileaks.noova.de ipv6 wikileaks.leckerbits.com wikileaks.byteserv.de wikileaks.zro.co raubmordkopiert.ws wikileaks.adoutte.com wikileaks.iodev.org wikileaks.ludost.net wikileaks.roethof.net ipv6 wikileaks.thespinlight.com wikileaks.apathie.net wl.mimamau.de www.wikileaks.ufone.de wikileaks.mooo.se wikileaks.neofosis.com wikileaks.eglin.net www.mistermikileaks.com wikileaks.pwnt.nl majjj.com wikileaks.antoniojperez.info wikileaks.ig33k.com wikileaks.extensity.co.nz wikileaks.rudemusic.net wikileaks.adoutte.com dgmx2k.dyndns.org:800 wl.fuldaecho.de wikileaks.nc23.de www.wikileaks-backup.com wikileaks.bynoob.com wikileaks.martindv.es mirror.friendsofwikileaks.org.uk wikileaks.disknode.org wikileaks.adundo.com wikileaks.lazzurs.net wikileaks.deathserv.net wikileaks.tollofsen.se wikileaks.brokenco.de wikileaks.buckyslan.com wikileaks.moell.us wikileaks.classcast.de wikileaks.datenwelten.de www.priv.us wikileaks.neopt.org wikileaks.samhargreaves.eu www.finngaria.de wikileaks.skvorsmalt.cz wikileaks.neurd.org wlmirror.cosego.com leaks.boerdy.net wikileaks.gundam.eu ipv6 novgorod.zunedevwiki.org ipv6 wikileaks.biz.tm wl.i2pbote.net leaks.underrun.org wikileaks.simleb.cc wl.stefanpopp.de wikileaks.tejero.ca www.keepinformationfree.com whatever.grillcheeze.com wikileaks.olivu.com wikileaks.jieji.org wikileaks.zakulisa.org wlm.flooble.net wikileaks.eondream.com www.shamanhouse.com wikileaks.galama.net wikileaks.eondream.com wikileaks.goodlifebikes.ca wl.newscenterx.de wikileaks.kofuke.org ipv6 wikileaks.xr3.cc dev.quadodo.net wikileaks.yacy.info wikileaks.anarka.nl wikileaks.happyforever.com wikileaks.data-get.org wikileaks.humanpets.com wikileaks.hellopal.biz wleaks.verymad.net whitenetdownloads.com WL.sanvicentemedia.com wikileaks.lotek.org wikileaks.profithost.net wikileaksmirror.eu wikileaks.chronzz.co wikiconstitution.info wikileaks.tinychan.org wikileaks.holy.jp leaks.no.net www.wikileaks.angelbeast.org www.wikileaks.angelbeast.org wikileaks.drewhavard.com wikileaks.keladi.org wikileaks.awardspace.us wikijm.com wikileaks.pandas.es wikileaks.mustashwax.com wikileaks2.info wikileaks.artwww.net wikileaks.oneeyedman.net wikileaks.openconnector.net wikileaks.jordanroy.net wikileaks.crazzy.se wikileaks.moo2ah.com wl.udderweb.com www2181u.sakura.ne.jp wikileaks.blackwire.com wikileaks.rlsjrnl.info wikileaked.jamestheawesome.kicks-ass.net wikileaks-in.ganesh.me wikileaks.luotettu.net wikileaks.xakep.name wikileaks.jejaring.org wikileaks.mahut.sk wl2.gernox.de wikileaks.mine-server.info wikileaks.revoleaks.com bonsainetz.de www.spacemission.org wikileaks.media.pl wikileaks.imrof.li wikileaks.hoper.dnsalias.net wikileaks.escism.net wikileaks.lelapinblanc.eu wikileaks.tryptamine.net wikileaks.piratenpartei-nrw.de wikileaks.cancamusa.net wikileaks.aamjanata.com wikileaks.joevr.org wikileaks.toile-libre.org wikileaks.parano.me wikileaks.slite.org wikileaks.zvdk.nl wikileaks.picturesbyphilipk.de wikileaks.hostingjuice.com wikileaks.editia.info wikileaks.renout.nl wikileaks.phoeney.de wikileaks.msga.se wikileaks.infotubo.com wikileaks.adzi.net www.example.sk wikileaks.wazong.de RealnoeBlinDelo.com wikileaks.matschbirne.com wikileaks.aadnoy.no wikileaks.erfassungsschutz.net wikileaks.aleph-0.net wikileaks.oliverbaron.com wikileaks.vyus.de wikileaks.ladstaetter.at wikileaks.willjones.eu wikileaks.anti-hack.net wikileaks3.piratenpartij.nl wikileaks.ninanoe.net wikileaks.g0tweb.com 74.207.247.66 wikileaks.schuijff.com wikileaks.iqaida.de fremont.ca.us.wikileaks-mirror.com wikileaks.version2.nl newark.nj.us.wikileaks-mirror.com london.uk.eu.wikileaks-mirror.com dallas.tx.us.wikileaks-mirror.com zurich.ch.wikileaks-mirror.com wikileaks.zici.fr wikileaks.tunny.ch wikileaks.breit.ws wikileaks.weltgehirnmaschine.de wikileaks.csbnet.se wikileaks.digital-revolution.at wikileaks.nijhofnet.nl ipv6 leaks.mooninhabitants.org wikileaks.ralforolf.com wikileaks.pancake-pirates.org 93.90.28.65

Jeebus Christ! Perhaps just the one link to the page which lists all this instead? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that already exists. I'm collapsing your request because its way too messy - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done No way in hell. Phearson (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks censorship

Within days of Wikileaks releasing statements made by the Australian ex prime minister Kevin Rudd the site became unreachable from many ISPs within Australia, no public acknowledgement or statement was made confirming that the Australian government had requested WikiLeaks be blocked. WikiLeaks had also announced that further Australian documents were to be made available at the same time the site became unavailable to most Australians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.58.119 (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for that, it should be possible to include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You means Wikileaks.org don't work ? -> the domain name have been cancelled by DSN, that's well know.

Or you means "all mirors of wikileaks, or all url containing 'wikileaks' are unaccessible." ? -> Censure Yug (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

List of WikiLeaks mirrors

I created this list of mirror sites for Wikipedia so that one can always visit a WikiLeaks site directly from here with high probability. It may be that the few sites listed in this main WikiLeaks page page will be closed down and then you'll need to do some searching to find a mirror site (because the large lists of mirror sites are given on WikiLeaks sites that may then not be accessible). Now, there are also other sources where lists of WikiLeaks mirrors can be found, but these usually contain a few sites that are then obvious targets. So, having a complete list is i.m.o. necessary.

Of course, the List of WikiLeaks mirrors does need to be maintained on a daily basis. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone adds a good WP:LEAD the list will get deleted. --Neo139 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wikileakshelp, 7 December 2010

Support WikiLeaks with donations through paypal wikileakshelp@yahoo.com

Wikileakshelp (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done. Wikipedia does not engage in agitating for financial support for any non-Wikipedia affiliated organisation. Furthermore there are no evidence that your provided adress has any connection to Wikileaks at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Q2323, 7 December 2010

Please remove the link to

http://leaks.viviti.com

That website contains a "Donate" button to transfer money via PayPal to alam80@mail.ru owned by Noman Alam without making it clear that he's not affiliated with WikiLeaks.

Q2323 (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Danish child porn list

Wikileaks published a list of websites blocked by Danish anti-child porn filters (including sites that actually did contain child pornography). Is this not mentioned because no-one got around to adding it to the article, or is there consensus against mentioning it? Andjam (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)