|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Ellsberg article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Daniel Ellsberg was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: December 4, 2006
Donald Rumsfeld is mentioned as "[then cabinet-member Donald] Rumsfeld", but he doesn't seem to have held a cabinet-level post at the time (June 14, 1972). According to the Wikipedia article on Rumsfeld, he held two administrative positions in the Nixon administration, but neither sound like a cabinet position (although the article describes them that way). From the info box on the left, he didn't get a cabinet position until he became Secretary of Defense under President Ford. Can we come up with a better way to describe Rumsfeld? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, quite right. I could find no reliable source placing him in Nixon Cabinet. I removed that statement. Given that there is a link, I don't think we need to explain who Rumsfeld was. Sunray (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
what mistrial? if the judge "dismissed all charges against him", that's an acquittal, no?
Arrest in Dec 2010
When Ellsberg found that Amazon had kicked WikiLeaks off their servers, he publicly stated that he would boycott Amazon. This should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you have multiple reliable sources to verify this, please feel free to add it, but give consideration to WP:RECENTISM before doing so.--JayJasper (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Restoring deleted sourced material regarding Ellsberg's views on Edward Snowden
I have just restored material deleted regarding Ellsberg's views on Edward Snowden which are relevant since Snowden, like Ellsberg, has released controversial material that is either a "leak" or "whistleblowing" depending on your point of view. I think that removal of the material is not correct on the charge of WP:RECENTISM... this is sourced, to the point information on the topic that is why Ellsberg is a historical figure. I invite civil discussion on the material, which is important for every Wikipedian to remember regarding article content no matter what they think of Snowden and his actions. Jusdafax 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Definitely should be INCLUDED. Snowden, Assange, Ellsberg and the late "Deep Throat" are major figures in whistleblowing history. If any of them issues a statement concerning another, that is significant news. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Under Fileding break-in, bottom of the section:
"The break-in was not known to Ellsberg or to the public until it came to light during Ellsberg and Russo's trial in April 1973. Ellsberg then died three months later"
Ellsberg died three months later? Am I missing something? Ellsberg is still alive today, right?
Removing some material
I was speaking today with Daniel Ellsberg at a conference, and he's told me that much of the material in this article is inaccurate. I'm planning therefore to make some edits to the article removing material that is unsourced and that he says is incorrect. Feel free to revert my edits if they seem wrong to you, particularly if you have citations. (I'm not an expert and probably won't do any research. That's why I'm going to restrict myself to removals, rather than revisions or additions. I may do a little rewording as well, but I'll try to keep it minimal.) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just made ~10 edits to the article as described above. This article could really use a review from someone familiar with the subject matter, and I'm guessing the Pentagon Papers article maybe too. (I haven't checked.) Most of my edits were pretty trivial but it would be great for this article to be accurate at both a detail and a big-picture level (e.g. relative weight, etc.). It would be awesome if anyone has time to do a real review. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)