Talk:WikiLeaks

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

Allegations of Russian influence[edit]

This subsection, which is currently titled "Allegations of Russian influence", should remain so. Most (if not all) WP:RS that have reported on the issue do not refer to it as a conspiracy theory. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Allegation Russian agents have Infiltrated WikiLeaks is a conspiracy theory by definition.
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist
No one has yet verified Russia was involved.--Thymefromti (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand what an "allegation" is? The sources support these allegations so there is no violation of WP:NOR. If you want to go through each source, aside from the one in German, I'm willing to do that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand what a conspiracy theory is? It does not have exclusivity to allegations being made against western governments conspiring against the people. Conspiracy theories can involve Russians conspiring too. When you theorise agents are conspiring you are forming a conspiracy theory.--Thymefromti (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Show me the sources supporting it's a conspiracy theory. Have a look at this article demonstrating what a conspiracy theory looks like. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Straight forward logic does not need a reference. A policy against original research does not imply there is a policy against using an original combination of words. It is straight forward logic that a theory that involves a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. The definition of a conspiracy theory does not require the theory to be labelled--Thymefromti (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. At the moment you don't have consensus so I advise you to leave the current header in place. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Opinion does not trump logic but I am unsure this is even your opinion. Do you actually believe this is not a theory about a conspiracy?--Thymefromti (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If you search you will find Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Russia Today and others have labelled the theory of Russians being behind the DNC leaks a "conspiracy theory". So not only does this theory fit the definition, it is labelled one too.--Thymefromti (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't reach consensus by having the numbers. Wikipedia makes it clear polling is not a substitute for discussion. To reach consensus reasonable arguments must be madeThymefromti (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
@Somedifferentstuff. Yes, sure, agree with all your changes. BTW, one man was already arrested. According to some experts, next stage will be putting virus into voting machines in US. But that is probably indeed a pure speculation right now. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw there was an arrest of a Russian hacker in Czech Republic, but it's in regards to the LinkedIn hacking from 2012 [1] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
More on this [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's a conspiracy theory, then it'd be a conspiracy theory that got more gas in its tank from no less than the New York Times. A conspiracy theory holds that if you are clever enough, you can figure out what is really going on. That's not what we have here. There's no great mystery here that gets explained when you connect the all the dots in some insightful way that the establishment/mainstream media refuses to consider. We have straightforward allegations that Wikileaks gets fed material by persons sympathetic to or connected to the Kremlin. Maybe those allegations are true and maybe they aren't, but we do not have a basis to go beyond reporting them to claiming they constitute a conspiracy theory given that you need a conspiracy theorist to generated a conspiracy theory and the sources here are not conspiracy theorists.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • total oppose the header Infiltrated by Russian agents conspiracy theory - apparent anti Russia bias without any reliable reporting as ever. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed a sentence about this in the lead, which said that "many leaks" are provided by Russia to influence US elections. The content was supported by a single CNN article. It was too broad, saying "many" without elaboration, and did not specify which elections are allegedly being influenced. Roches (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't the Guardian since retracted a line in the article they published on December 24 about Julian Assange being in league with Putin? And would it be important to add that the whole article itself has been questioned for fabricating what Julian Assange actually said in the interview that they're quoting him from? VasOling(talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

They have, and hence I have removed that line from the article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning: Editors organizing offsite and calling for others to change this page[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/59545r/on_wikipedia/

And redditors, in case you think of deleting that, I've taken screenshots.

https://s22.postimg.org/jzpqwlm69/eldflaug19.png

Rei (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Obvious suspect edits, given the time of the reddit post and the fact that they're making the changes called for on the reddit:

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Users therein:

128.61.50.112 176.26.198.131 Mitchcairns Thymefromti 145.116.174.79 213.124.162.109

- Rei (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Followup: The edit made by 176.26.198.131 is specifically confessed to by reddit user "stordoff" here (also visible in the screenshot). - Rei (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The edits are completely valid. I'm from that thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchcairns (talkcontribs) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. A group of people brought in to achieve a specific goal are known as meat puppets and face sanction if an investigation agrees. - Rei (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There was already enough problems that upped the protection from PC to Semi. New users can't add to it at all now. Dennis Brown - 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia states: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. I do not not have a reddit account. Every time I delete this defamatory claim against myself someone undoes my deletion. Doesn't this violate Wikipedia policy? Thymefromti (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thymefromt: No, it's not a personal attack. Notification of improper canvassing is not a personal attack, nor is someone removing your edit a personal attack I suggest you drop this and move on or you're headed for a block for edit warring and inappropriate removal of talk page comments. Sundayclose (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016[edit]

Can somebody change the reference in the template from |launch date = 4 October 2006; 10 years ago (2006-10-04)[1] to this reference,[2] since the other reference is outdated and doesn't work anymore.


173.73.227.128 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference whois was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "WikiLeaks.org WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info - DomainTools". WHOIS. Retrieved 2016-12-07. 
Yes check.svg Done - DRAGON BOOSTER 08:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC).
Can somebody re-add the access date "|accessdate=08 December 2016" to the said reference I wanted to add? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Source(s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=753626842&oldid=753626643

Done Modified to correct format (drop the 0) - |accessdate=8 December 2016 -- Dane talk 01:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on WikiLeaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement on Podesta's password[edit]

I have recently removed a statement by Assange from the "Conspiracy theory" section. For one thing, it's not a "conspiracy theory" as much as it's false or misguided information. For another thing, Assange wasn't making a statement on behalf of WikiLeaks, he was making his own statement. This actually belongs somewhere in the Julian Assange article. FallingGravity 02:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The section can be re-named 'Criticism of Wikileaks' promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods'. I don't see how the statements by the editor-in-chief and director of Wikileaks about the contents on Wikileaks are irrelevant to this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The way I think of it, if Jimbo Wales made a false statement about Wikipedia, would that statement go in Criticism of Wikipedia as an example of false information spread by Wikipedia? I would try to keep that statement in the autobiographical article because of WP:WEIGHT. That's why I think this should go somewhere in Julian Assange's article. FallingGravity 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017[edit]

The last two edits scream of gaslighting. Most glaringly, they declare that President Obama mentioned Wikileaks in a speech, with no citation. I checked his farewell address and found no mention of Wikileaks. ColdFury (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Reverted — JJMC89(T·C) 08:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qfl2xKr7tE

Video of Obama stating that wikileaks was not substantively linked to Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.138.138 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake News and US election[edit]

The US election generated a lot of Fake News articles that were quickly exposed but are now being cited as references.

WikiLeaks did NOT promote conspiracy theories, they simply promoted and contextualized the content of their leaks. For example, it was reasonable to explain to readers what "Spirit Cooking" meant.

It's true that WikiLeaks has been criticized for not criticizing Russia. But go to wikileaks.org and search for e.g. "Putin". There is lots of information there! As Assange explained, WikiLeaks is predominantly an anglo-speaking resource and nobody has given them leaks about Russia. Same goes for Trump's tax returns etc - they cannot leak them if they do not have them!

And the stuff about WikiLeaks exposing people's credit cards etc is also FAKE NEWS. Citing a hundred sources (who were all wrong) does not make it true. A security analyst named Michael Short admitted that he was the person who posted that information.

In any case all the above issues do not belong in the introduction section of the page.

If WikiPedia is going to become a source for Fake News then it is in serious danger of losing credibility.

Please check these frequently distorted facts: https://wikileaks.org/10years/distorted-facts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

gazo65 24 Jan Gazo65 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gazo65: As you are well past 3RR now, please stop reverting and gain consensus for your changes here. I'm open to adjusting the wording for the lede's criticism paragraph, but like others who have reverted you, am opposed to its complete removal. I'm also opposed to your addition of "President Obama admitted in his farewell speech that there was no evidence linking WikiLeaks with Russia" as it is a misleading and NPOV statement that doesn't belong in the lede of this article. gobonobo + c 03:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gobonobo, I originally moved the "criticism" text down the page to a more appropriate section where such criticism is presented. I think it is fine to discuss such criticism but surely (a) it doesn't belong in the intro (b) text should include WikiLeaks response to criticism and (c) criticism that is just plain wrong is not worth mentioning.

Similarly, if you are going to state that US intelligence were "highly confident" WikiLeaks emails were supplied by Russia then you need to add that (a) WikiLeaks denied this and (b) no proof was ever provided. Then let people make up their own mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talkcontribs) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important point about Wikipedia. What goes in the article is not capital-T Truth or fairness, but a representation of what the body of reliable sources say about a subject, including all significant viewpoints (not based on what editors say are significant, but what the literature indicates are significant). New York Times is a reliable source, for example, and simply calling it "fake news" does not make it so. Can they be wrong? Sure, but if the majority of mainstream sources take a particular perspective and are wrong about it, Wikipedia will also be wrong. Thankfully, reliable sources are partly defined by checking errors and issuing corrections, so the record tends to be corrected (and more often than not -- which is not to say always -- it's the minority of unreliable or primary sources which have it wrong). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am appalled to hear a Wikipedia editor tell me that this site is not supposed to represent "capital-T Truth". In fact that is what Wikipedia should always be striving for. Of course sometimes there is debate, which is why I have moved the offensive text to the appropriate section and characterized it as debate. Whatever you think of WikiLeaks, there is no way to justify this text in the introduction section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talkcontribs) 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracies and Falsehoods about Hillary Clinton and John Podesta[edit]

This line should be removed from the header for the same exact reason that it was removed from the Julian Assange page. Not only does it violate the policy of NPOV, it is largely undue and the sources need to be verified to determine if they directly support this highly disputed claim against WikiLeaks and Assange. If anything, it should be included in the criticism section and each source should be assigned accordingly instead of stating it as objective fact. VasOling (talk) 05:48 PM, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It was removed from the Julian Assange under the auspices that the falsehoods and conspiracies promoted by the Wikileaks twitter account were not by him. I think the removal of the content from his page was poorly justified, but I don't have the time and patience to get past all the veto players on that page. There's no justification at all for removing the content from the Wikileaks page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I wholly agree with Snooganssnoogans: There's no justification for removing this. The sentence in the lead section is proper because the lead is supposed to reflect and summarize important content from the body. The statements in both the body and the article are sourced and important. A single sentence can hardly be said to be undue weight. And the claim is not "disputed"; it is rather a fact (as reflected in the cited sources, which are mostly news article and not opinion) that WikiLeaks did spread conspiracies and falsehoods during the 2016 campaign. Now, that may be embarrassing to some, but we don't remove properly sourced, relevant, and encyclopedic information merely because it may be unflattering. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If a BLP concern has been raised, consensus is needed to include the material. No such consensus exists. The lede currently amalgamates Wikileaks and Assange, creating a vacuous BLP-smear in the WP:LEAD. I have already proposed a compromise to get around the BLP issue and make the accusation more precise (anything wrong with factual precision?), but this was thoughtlessly reverted. The issue has already been tortured to death on Talk:Julian_Assange#Editors_delete_any_mention_that_Assange_promoted_and_popularized_conspiracy_theories_about_Clinton_and_the_Democratic_Party. In short, the sourcing is not there to label Assange as a conspiracy-theorist and it is a BLP-vio to do so. Pinging those involved: @Volunteer Marek, Ryk72, Thucydides411, Govindaharihari, My very best wishes, and Snooganssnoogans:. TheTimesAreAChanging has also written extensively on the issue of BLP smears against Assange, so mentioning him here as well. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your statement. Your statement applies a label four times in rapid succession (you make an assertion four times that this is a BLP violation) but I'm not seeing any no actual reasoning for why you think this is the case. It would help if you were to quote the particular portion of BLP that you think applies. I can't imagine any, since this text does not identify or deal with an identifiable living person.
If something if well-sourced, relevant, and presented in an encyclopedic way (i.e., with context, not sensationalized), we include it. Even if BLP did apply to the text (and I do not think it does), it would be proper, because the BLP policy directly states: "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." Neutralitytalk 23:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing is insufficient for your version (it may also be undue for lead—news about tweets usually are). I am not going to rehash the arguments. Please see the Assange talk page linked above. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
If this is all there is to it then I support the rewording (the misspelling aside of course). It looks like most of the sources say "Wikileaks" rather than Assange (with one exception being Bloomberg).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiLeaks revelations in 2017[edit]

I apologize if I am doing this wrong, please include a new section "2017" and this information to article, the front pages of Le Monde, Libération, Mediapart, La Repubblica are all talking about this:

WikiLeaks released the CIA espionage orders for 2012 French presidential election. The United States meddle the 2012 Election Against the French People using CIA's human (HUMINT) and electronic (SIGINT) in the seven months leading up to France's 2012 presidential election. The documents reveal that all major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the spies. The CIA showed particular interest to the presidential candidates positions on the European economic crisis and specifically to the issue of the Greek debt crisis.

Done Rephrased for WP:IMPARTIAL, added wikilinks and minor tweaks, only used the most relevant sources. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • French: Front page news for top papers
  • Russian: "Nuclear bomb shell"
  • US: "standard intelligence-gathering" -
That AP newswire by David Satter's son playing it down "the orders seemed to represent standard intelligence-gathering" is audacious! US media becoming national embarrassment.
Images of DSK's perp walk were condemned in France, where it is illegal to publish such photos before the subject is convicted.
The operation began seven months before the elections on November 21, 2011 and lasted until three months after the elections. It ended on September 29, 2012 a total duration of ten months. The operation targeted the Union for a Popular Movement, the French Socialist Party and the National Front, along with current leading presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, current President Francois Hollande, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy, Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry and... then Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and leading contender to unseat Sarkozy as president of France Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK)!
But DSK was trapped and humiliated in a bizarr 'oral-sex offender' scandal in a Hotel in Manhattan. He was immediately tracked down, escorted off a plane just before its departure, and arrested. High-ranking detectives, not lowly officers, were dispatched to the crime scene. The DNA evidence was sequenced within hours, not the normal eight or nine days. By the end of the day’s news cycle, New York City police spokespeople had made uncharacteristic and shockingly premature statements supporting the credibility of the victim’s narrative — before an investigation was complete. He was handcuffed and escorted before television cameras — a New York tradition known as a “perp walk.” The suspect was photographed naked, which is also unusual, initially denied bail and held in solitary confinement. The Police Commissioner has boasted to the press that DSK is strip-searched multiple times a day — also unheard-of.
It was thea “killer blow” for the potential Socialist challenger for the 2012 presidential election. He had been left “discredited as a candidate” for the highest office of the state. With that scandal the Washington consensus prevailed. The application of IMF economic medicine had already been applied in several EU countries including Greece and Portugal during DSK’s mandate, he wanted change. But in the course of the following years, it reached new heights. Drastic austerity measures triggered unprecedented levels of unemployment. The entire European social landscape was in crisis. In many regards the DSK scandal was a watershed in the evolution of EU-US relations, with European governments becoming increasingly subservient to Washington’s demands. It was "Regime Change at the IMF". As DSK stood for a strong Europe and a strong Euro, he was not really welcome by many people in the US. The Obama administration had demanded DSK’s replacement by a more compliant individual. In retrospect, the framing of Strauss Kahn and the appointment of Lagarde had an impact not only on EU economic restructuring including the crisis in Greece, but also on the State structures of the French Republic. The “Honey Trap” is a powerful instrument. Had DSK not been framed, Francois Hollande — who largely serves US interests – would no doubt not have been elected president of the French Republic and Christine Lagarde would not have acceded to the positon of Managing Director if the IMF.
There was no firm evidence against Strauss-Kahn. The New York Court ruling which completely exonerated DSK on the basis of lack of evidence. Have a splendid day! --87.159.122.128 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: If you wish to request a modification to the article, please provide the exact contents you wish to add/remove. Concerning your comment, if you want to add any of its contents - mention of bias, mention of front page coverage, mention of DSK story - you need to provide a reliable source for it. It can be in French if you can't find one in English. Per WP:OR we can't add it without it. See also WP:FLAT. The best I can do with what has been provided is add the Libération story - which mentions DSK and doesn't play it down to routine investigation - to the list of references (it is the original and most comprehensive publication after all). I do not speak Italian so I didn't check the Italian sources. It's worth mentioning that the LeMonde link from the original post also mentions it may be seen as routine investigation. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)