From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Financial Blockade[edit]

"Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America and other U.S. financial institutions began to block donations to WikiLeaks in 2010 after the controversial site began publishing more than 250,000 U.S. State Department cables that the group allegedly received from former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning. The financial services cited violations of their “terms of service” agreements as the reason for blocking the donations."[1]

This seems like something that was really significant--Wikileaks claimed it cut their donations significantly--and should warrant a sizable mention. Is there a reason it's absent? All I see is a single reference to the Valitor case and a brief mention of Paypal freezing their accounts. Visa, Bank of America, PayPal, Amazon (hosting)...there was a lot going on here that we just ignore. [2]

It gets a lot of mention on the Cablegate article, but nothing here.

General Wesc (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Illegal Wikileaks[edit]

Why information about leaked private personal data is not published? Please give legitimate reason or restore content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are citing unverifiable primary-source documents from Wikileaks. And making statements about them that the sources themselves do not directly assert. The article already briefly discusses Stratfor, and we already have an article on the 2012–13 Stratfor email leak, based on secondary sources. If the paragraph on Stratfor merits expansion, it needs to be done in a manner in accord with Wikipedia policy - citing verifiable sources for all statements, making clear the nature of the organisation and the content of the leaked material - which certainly wasn't simply 'credit card information'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I can verify that data was stolen from Stratfor, because those documents contains my name, my address, my correspondence. If some detail is not correct then it must be corrected (correct meaning, correct paragraph etc) and not completely removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:45, 23 August 2015

Wikipedia content is based on material verifiable in published reliable sources. We do not base content on assertions from contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Okey, then I will go to Swedish or EU authorities, journalist and then my words will be "verifiable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:54, 23 August 2015

It will be verifiable when it is published in a source meeting Wikipedia reliability criteria. Whether it merits inclusion in the article will be dependent on whether it conforms to other policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

TTP leaked text[edit]

Same explanation as in section above - sourced article actually does not verify fact that leaked text is authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Read in sourced article title "according to Wikileaks documents" There is no verification of fact that leaked text is authentic.

I am waiting for response HERE - if it is not received in 30 min, then again unverified information will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Again, everyone read — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say, not what editors have vetted as "truth". If other reliable sources give conflicting information, we can talk about those, too. Of course, if a statement is contentious and relies only on one source, we don't need to state it unequivocally. So I've added attribution to the text ("according to Sydney Morning Herald..."). That way we cite a reliable source and defer to them for "truth". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: This "if I don't get an answer in 30 minutes" business is extraordinarily ineffective. By edit warring and threatening us that way you're just working against your own interests (it discredits your position, will get you blocked from editing, etc.). You should know that because of the "pending changes" on this page, nobody but the people you're arguing with are seeing the fruits of your crusade (e.g. someone else has to approve the edit before the public sees it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for meaningful answer.
PS: You said that "This "if I don't get an answer in 30 minutes" business is extraordinarily ineffective" and do not see that I actually got answer in time (from you).

But what actually is extraordinarily ineffective: "it discredits your position, will get you blocked from editing". You understand how it is not possible, when anyone with some technical skills (while remaining anonymous) can change his/her computer's outer IP address like changing glove. You said, "You should know that because of the "pending changes" on this page, nobody but the people you're arguing with are seeing the fruits of your crusade" only because you do not see whole picture, that I am learning (those are my first steps). I have very long experience (mostly very successful) in such learning and crusade have never been my objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In which case I suggest that you start by learning Wikipedia policies regarding article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that article can be protected or semi-protected but it cannot be forever.

Also I can join editors and make changes from within. I have big experience in upsetting status quo and bringing (at least some) changes to stagnating mindset and order. Now I am only learning (firsts steps) - poking "hornets nest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Also... if it is crusade, then also protecting article from my changes is crusade And you can see that anyone, who is REALLY interested in truth about Wikileaks, can look in article's history and read. (also more changes are coming in future) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a controversial article, and any significant changes will have to be arrived at by consensus. You can work with us, or be ignored - your choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

i need yo talk[edit]

Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:A00:60D0:C8D9:4177:25E1:1C75 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WikiLeaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)