Talk:WikiLeaks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:17, 22 February 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiLeaks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on January 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about WikiLeaks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about WikiLeaks at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Journalism B‑class Top‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:Banner/ JournalismJournalism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:Banner/ Internet cultureInternet culture articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Libraries B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:Banner/ LibrariesLibraries articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:Banner/ CryptographyCryptography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Sweden B‑class Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:Banner/ SwedenSweden articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

The Newspapers receiving the leaks

Not a single word about the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten and the other english language newspapers who recieved the bulk of the leaks recently and have been publishing them ever since??? Nunamiut (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. So, what do YOU plan to add to the article about it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks

Wikilleaks is a US government mouthpiece.--91.115.59.43 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything it sounds like they purposely only release information that makes the US look bad. Either that or the choices of items to list in this article has that purpose. Either way someone has an anti-US bias, since you wouldn't have to look very hard to find vastly more cases of worse behavior from the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have enemies here - apart from each other. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel prize nomination

Whoever added the paragraph of "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" supported:

Incorrect reference, it redirects to ft.com homepage
Stated that "WikiLeaks is not expected to win", just why on earth? Is he some kind of a fortune teller? Very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoorayforturtles (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five new books about Wikileaks link

So I found this link [1] talking about the 5 books available (or soon to be available?) in regards to Wikileaks. I guess they would be good additions to the further reading section (as one already is there) and if someone actually had copies of the book, they can be used to add further references to the article. I know some of them have posted excerpts of the books, in particular Greg Mitch. Thoughts/comments welcome.Calaka (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to books

http://www.thenewage.co.za/10173-1020-53-WikiLeaks_suing_insider_over_tellall_book

Ocaasi (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikileaks-wiki

MattisManzel (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC):[reply]
I started a center-wiki for web-sites about wikileaks and its friends and supporters: the wikileaks-wiki. Link to it in the external links of the article if you please.

I take it you noticed that I already removed it. Considering you run the site, it should almost certainly not be linked as you have a potential conflict of interest in adding the link. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come back once it's been covered in multiple independent news sources. Until then, good luck with the site. Ocaasi (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HBGary, WikiLeaks counter attack

So Anonymous and Wikileaks were targeted by a security agency called HBGary-Federal. Here's an article about it. Might fit in the criticism/responses section, or in the upcoming links section. If not here, than maybe at Cablegate.

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201106/6798/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks?page=1

a proposal titled “The WikiLeaks Threat” and an email chain between three data intelligence firms. The proposal was quickly developed by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal, and Berico Technologies, after a request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm that currently counts Bank of America as a client...The law firm had a meeting with Bank of America on December 3. To prepare, the firm emailed Palantir and the others asking for “…five to six slides on Wikileaks - who they are, how they operate and how this group may help this bank.”

This is a .pdf of the counter-WikiLeaks proposal:

http://wikileaks.ch/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pd

Here's another article about Bank of America's response to the Announcement that they might be targeted in a future leak:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/business/03wikileaks-bank.html

Ocaasi (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the reception section should be splitted. Ankit 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit Maity (talk • contribs)

Ars Technica piece by Nate Anderson: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks.ars ^walk victor falk^talk 13:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is going on?

"bank+of+america"

there has been so much talk in the news before that in january some leaks would be published. its mid february and no relevant leaks yet?!? is there any news source that talks about this? 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 * Ars Technica piece by Nate Anderson: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks.ars <sup><small><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/Victor_falk|''walk'']]</font></small></sup> <font color="green">[[user:victor falk|''victor falk'']]</font><sup><small> <font color="green">[[user_talk:victor falk|''talk'']]</font></small></sup> 13:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
+== what is going on?  ==
+[http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A213.251.145.96+"bank+of+america"]
+there has been so much talk in the news before that in january some leaks would be published. its mid february and no relevant leaks yet?!? is there any news source that talks about this? [[Special:Contributions/89.216.196.129|89.216.196.129]] ([[User talk:89.216.196.129|talk]]) 09:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)