Revision as of 15:03, 1 March 2024 editCambial Yellowing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,018 edits r← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:22, 1 March 2024 edit undoNadVolum (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,123 edits →RSP#WikiLeaks: Seem okay to meNext edit → | ||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
:::::It's not self-serving to state that you are releasing something on the internet on the internet page where you do so. | :::::It's not self-serving to state that you are releasing something on the internet on the internet page where you do so. | ||
:::::Neither this article nor the source make any claim about the third parties you list. Your opinion that {{tq|Have the information means third party lost it}} is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source. The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | :::::Neither this article nor the source make any claim about the third parties you list. Your opinion that {{tq|Have the information means third party lost it}} is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source. The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::I agree with Cambial foliar in their argument that they are not unduly self serving. And they can be brought in as primary sources because of reliable sources discussing the area.. The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations. ] (]) 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:22, 1 March 2024
Skip to table of contents |
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
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. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
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. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) 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. |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from WikiLeaks was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Date quote reported
We don't need to include the time, or the time after death, that a quote from JFK was reported by The New York Times. If it's on the page it should be sourced and given accurately. But such a detail is not relevant to the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sources like the one about the password and the quote use the word
reportedly
to describe the quote. It uses that word twice and brings up the timeline The password is a reference to a famous quote by former US President John F. Kennedy, reportedly given to a senior administration official one month before he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. According to the official, quoted in a New York Times report published three years after his death, Kennedy said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”.
- I agree it should be sourced and given accurately, and an inflammatory quote should have context. Saying who published and that it was years after the person died is normal Softlem (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- That source usefully points out the provenance of the password in the quote. More reliable sources, including The New York Times and the academic work cited, simply give this as a quote. The claim of three years is factually incorrect. There's no indication that it's "
inflammatory
". What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published to this article about Wikileaks? Cambial — foliar❧ 12:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)There's no indication that it's "inflammatory"
A President allegedly saying the CIA should beshattered
is not inflammatory? Am I understanding a word wrong again? Softlem (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)- It's a quote from the US president about a proposed internal policy decision. What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published in a US newspaper of record to this article about Wikileaks? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Any quote first published years after someone died is questionable because they can't respond to it or deny it. If its inflammatory and we attribute it we should say when it was published or link to a wiki article that has context Softlem (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a quote from the US president about a proposed internal policy decision. What do you think is the relevance of the date it was published in a US newspaper of record to this article about Wikileaks? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- That source usefully points out the provenance of the password in the quote. More reliable sources, including The New York Times and the academic work cited, simply give this as a quote. The claim of three years is factually incorrect. There's no indication that it's "
Move or rename Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy
WikiLeaks#Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy should be changed to Curation or moved to WikiLeaks#Editorial policy. Editorial policy has a response section. For NPOV it should have information about claims that WikiLeaks publications never hurt anyone added
WP:NPOV and WP:CSECTION Softlem (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Page size and changes
Two points:
- Page size has now reached 114 kB. Policy says pages of > 100 kB should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed".
- It is easier to follow changes when they are made in small increments.
Burrobert (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I replaced a lot of the reception with a summary because of Reception of WikiLeaks
- Size is now 96 kB Softlem (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Typo.
Hello, i wanted to warn users with edit perm that in 2011–2015 section, the word "malware" is written as "mawlare". Rei Da Tecnologia (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Rei Da Tecnologia: I've fixed it. Mindmatrix 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Minor typo
"In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden leave Hong Kong"
It should be
"In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden in leaving Hong Kong" 2601:647:6300:9590:58D:3732:6BDA:CD15 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
RSP#WikiLeaks
Citing your own easy is cute
essay went through TEAHOUSE and Reliable Sources. Content copied from WP policy pages. I cited WP:RSP#WikiLeaks first. Ignoring RSP is cute but
against policy. Ignoring consensus required is cute but
against policy.
but it’s common practice across the site to cite the subject’s own website for information about what it says it’s done
Not when the site doesn't meet RSP. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source.
I didnt remove any content and I left citations to WikiLeaks about what they said. It should be easy to find sources that meet RSP. Softlem (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Considerations of reliability for information outside of the article subject are not at issue here. No-one is disputing the 2021 RfC. Like numerous other news and media organisations (and other institutions and individuals – see WP:ABOUTSELF) we can cite the Wikileaks website for information about the views or outlook or what is presented as content on the Wikileaks website. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTSELF
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
- They are self serving and WP:EXCEPTIONAL and they involve third parties
- And @Valjean said
Yes, ABOUTSELF allows linking to the main index page and About page, but WikiLeaks hosts lots of illegally obtained content, and I believe we are not allowed to link to such URLs. This list links to many such pages.
Talk:List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks#Violation of policy - Valjean started Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Policy_violation_to_link_to_WikiLeaks you said
Pinging @Diannaa as the resident expert to see whether such links represent a copyright issue.
and no answer Softlem (talk) 05:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)- There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support; the citations are merely for prosaic information about what documents they posted. Nor do they involve claims about third parties. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support
- Self serving to say
- published classified info
- published emails from vice president candidate
- published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables
Nor do they involve claims about third parties.
- Third parties
- vice president nominee
- US Embassy Reykjavik
- State Department (published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables)
- Guardian journalist WikiLeaks said
negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords
- Stratfor
- Syria
- Saudi Foreign Ministry
- AKP Party and source comments
- Saying someone is not a source is about a third party. Have the information means third party lost it. Softlem (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not self-serving to state that you are releasing something on the internet on the internet page where you do so.
- Neither this article nor the source make any claim about the third parties you list. Your opinion that
Have the information means third party lost it
is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source. The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) - I agree with Cambial foliar in their argument that they are not unduly self serving. And they can be brought in as primary sources because of reliable sources discussing the area.. The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations. NadVolum (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support; the citations are merely for prosaic information about what documents they posted. Nor do they involve claims about third parties. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTSELF
- Biography articles of living people
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Top-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Top-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- B-Class Libraries articles
- Mid-importance Libraries articles
- WikiProject Libraries articles
- B-Class Media articles
- Top-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class Sweden articles
- Low-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages
- B-Class Internet articles
- Mid-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- High-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of High-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Low-importance Freedom of speech articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Cryptography articles
- Low-importance Cryptography articles
- B-Class Computer science articles
- Low-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- WikiProject Cryptography articles
- B-Class Espionage articles
- Low-importance Espionage articles