Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::::::::If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed. Do not add self-published material that has been objected to again. Do not add suspected COPYLINK violations again. And refusing to answer questions isnt {{tq|A lack of interest in reading you ] the same arguments yet again}}. ] (]) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed. Do not add self-published material that has been objected to again. Do not add suspected COPYLINK violations again. And refusing to answer questions isnt {{tq|A lack of interest in reading you ] the same arguments yet again}}. ] (]) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::@] Can you give third opinion on COPYLINK issue? If you say its okay I will stop objection ] (]) 17:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::@] Can you give third opinion on COPYLINK issue? If you say its okay I will stop objection ] (]) 17:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I'm not explaining things yet again to you just because you ]. The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above. There is no copylink violation, and there's no self-published material. You need to stop edit-warring against consensus and trying to bulldoze changes to get your own way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
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 sourcedmust 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 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. 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:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Misplaced Pages. 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:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. 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:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
WikiLeaks is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
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.
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 be shattered 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)
Move or rename Inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy
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:ABOUTSELFSelf-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
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
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)
Cambial
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 Not true and ABOUTSELF does not say you use self-published if attributed
Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords How do you say that the self published editorial isnt about third party?
During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand. Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand are third parties
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. it says the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaksafter being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell.
NadVolum
The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations. That allows denials not self published editorials accusing other people and denial has other sources
More problems
COPYLINK on Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages and Stratfor
Maybe COPYLINK Syria, TTP, and Saudi Cables
In mid-February 2010, WikiLeaks received a leaked diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Reykjavik relating to the Icesave scandal, which it published on 18 February. not supported by link restored. page does not say when received or about Icesave Softlem (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Giving the attributed view of someone or something is a statement about the person or institution that expressed that view, "this is what this person said". It's not a statement about a third party.
You write "Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords". This is not in the article.
You write "During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand." This is cited to three other secondary sources.
You write "the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaksafter being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell. I infer from the emphasis you added to this sentence that the part you object to is "after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell". This claim is not mentioned in the WikiLeaks page, and it is not used to support this part of the sentence. That claim relies on two other sources. It has nothing to do with a (non-existent) claim about a third party on the WikiLeaks site and no relevance to your argument. Cambial — foliar❧13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Giving the attributed view of someone or something is a statement about the person or institution that expressed that view, "this is what this person said". It's not a statement about a third party. A statement about third party. 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: it does not involve claims about third parties. This is that
You write "Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords". This is not in the article. Thats the name of self published Wikileaks editorial cited in the article.
This is cited to three other secondary sources. Yes so why do you need this? Saying there are RSes agrees with my first post. 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.
You write "the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell. I infer from the emphasis you added to this sentence that the part you object to is "after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell". This claim is not mentioned in the WikiLeaks page, and it is not used to support this part of the sentence. That claim relies on two other sources. It has nothing to do with a (non-existent) claim about a third party on the WikiLeaks site and no relevance to your argument.
Not true. The Wikileaks page says activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous' gained access to U.S. Republican Party Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account
Why didnt you reply about the COPYLINK problems on the other citations you restored?
Thats the name of self published Wikileaks editorial. So? I don't understand. It's not used to support such a claim in the article.
Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader.
Not true. It is true. David Kernell is referred to in that sentence in the article. He is not mentioned on the Wikileaks page. "activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous'" are not mentioned in that section of the article.
I see no copylink problem.
I neglected not supported by link restored. page does not say when received or about Icesave Page cited: "from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave". You're right about it not saying when it was received; I removed it.
and not RSes I've made no such argument, nor (I think) has anyone else. Arguing against a position no-one has taken is not productive. Cambial — foliar❧14:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not used to support such a claim in the article. The material still involves involve claims about third parties so its not right to link to it. But your right it doesnt support the claims cited to it in the article except Knowledge of the Guardian disclosure has spread privately over several months but reached critical mass last week. which is about third party
Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader. That doesnt change ABOUTSELF or the RSP or explain why you reverted
CN tags for things that only had self-published primary source 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 see no copylink problem. Why do you think Palins emails are public domain? Or Stratfor? Or Syria? Why do you think they do not involve claims about third parties
Its almost two weeks and because you are active and there is WP:SILENCE on why you think the leaks are public domain or why "someone else wrote this" doesnt involve claims about third parties, I will replace self published links with reliable sourcesSoftlem (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A lack of interest in reading you rehash the same arguments yet again is not silence. Both NadVolum and I oppose your proposed change. Your admonishment that The material still involves involve claims about third parties so its not right to link to it. is not policy but your own moral judgment. I do not share your view and it is not relevant to creating this site. I have no objection to the addition of further secondary sources. Cambial — foliar❧17:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed. Do not add self-published material that has been objected to again. Do not add suspected COPYLINK violations again. And refusing to answer questions isnt A lack of interest in reading you rehash the same arguments yet again. Softlem (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not explaining things yet again to you just because you refuse to listen to other editors. The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above. There is no copylink violation, and there's no self-published material. You need to stop edit-warring against consensus and trying to bulldoze changes to get your own way. Cambial — foliar❧18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=icon}
