Talk:WikiLeaks - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kylu (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 2 December 2010 (→Not to be confused with...: ...I could only wish.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:32, 2 December 2010 by Kylu (talk | contribs) (→Not to be confused with...: ...I could only wish.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Top‑importance

	Journalism portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture High‑importance

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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Libraries Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cryptography: Computer science

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

How does one access the normal documents?

Is wikileaks devoted to the warlogs now? There does not seem to be an archive to look at the old documents anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, given that the current main page of http://www.wikileaks.org/ is devoted entirely to the Iraq War Logs. The older archive material is still at http://mirror.wikileaks.info/, perhaps the article should mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The URL you provided is not a real mirror. You cannot search nor browse categories, nor does the document links work. It seams like there is no way to access the old documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder--though this is called a "talk page," Misplaced Pages is not a forum for general discussion of a topic. This page is only for discussing improvements to the article itself. Also, in case this wasn't clear, Wikileaks and Misplaced Pages are not at all related other than the first four letters of their names, so we don't necessarily have any clear insight. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that this had WP:NOTAFORUM issues. We don't know how WikiLeaks works here at Misplaced Pages, but since the article mentions plenty of things on WikiLeaks other than the Iraq War Logs, it is useful for the article to be able to cite them. At the moment, the main page of WikiLeaks mentions only the Logs, so it is hard to point readers at the material in the "Notable leaks" section.--♦IanMacM♦ 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm overreacting, because this page has often hosted more chatter than work on the article...but even if you're right, I it's not really our "job" to point people to the other material. By analogy, we don't point out the pages numbers in books where various plot points happen in our summaries. Particularly since the original questioner was an unsigned IP, I figured the person may be unfamiliar with our policies, so better to stop now than before it got more extensive. 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

DERP. I was not arguing as if this was a forum, nor did I think wikipedia was affiliated with wikileaks. It is you who turned a legit concern I had to your canned response about this not being a forum. Get off your high horse and make yourself useful instead. I concern was regarding the article refering to stuff that is no longer available or describing the website in an inaccurate way since the site has completely changed and no longer holds leaked documents other than the war logs. If you dont have anything of value to add it is better if you don't jump in to stir up stuff. What I say still stand, the majority of the article refers to something that is no longer there, and it speaks of the site as it was, not as it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.207.170 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a worrying number of dead links from wikileaks.org in the article at the moment, so it is an article related issue. These citations are clearly not going to work while the site is devoted to the Logs, so it needs to be addressed. For example, although the Loveparade is mentioned on the mirror site, the link to download the documents produces a 404 error. While Misplaced Pages is not responsible for other sites, it does need to ensure that the article reflects the up to date situation. Many of the older pages and document downloads seem to be unavailable at the moment, so they cannot be used as citations.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming?

I am curious, why is there a section in this article entitled "Upcoming"? How is it encyclopedic to include something that may or may not happen? Hammersbach (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We are not stating whether they will occur or not, only that the announcements have been made, which is past tense. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the heading should be changes to reflect this. I have changes it to "announcements of upcoming leaks" Gregcaletta (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't answer the question of how it is encyclopedic? How is it WP:NOTNEWS? How is it not WP:CRYSTALBALL? It is something that may or may not occur. If it is just an annoucement why should it be in an encyclopedia? We are not here to shill WikiLeaks possibilities, are we? Hammersbach (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Hammersback here. We wouldn't list every press release that a regular company made about upcoming products. If the announcement itself somehow generated a lot of press (like how the announcement about the Iraq War Logs was a notable, widely publicized story even before the actual leak), then I could see including it. But we shouldn't be repeating here each announcement of impending releases. Heck, we shouldn't even be discussing actual releases themselves unless they were notable (not necessarily in a "stand-alone article" sense, but at least in a "more important than average" sense). We're not here to document every moment of their history, just the most "encyclopedic" moments. I'm inclined to remove that whole section unless someone presents a cogent rejection. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"If the announcement itself somehow generated a lot of press" - the would-be 7x-bigger leak announced to come out soon is getting to the top of google news right now, and the US government seems to be engaging in a huge damage-limitation program, including getting the UK government to issue a voluntary censorship alert, DA-Notices, to UK press. Anyway, the fact is that the US govt is making a huge fuss about this expected leak. It presumably has inside info from NYT/Guardian/Der Spiegel/Le Monde confirming the nature of the leak, unless it's so stupid that it's going to embarrass itself about a leak that will turn out to be... about Russia. Boud (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Section: Relation with the Wikimedia Foundation

It's already established that Wikileaks is owned by the Sunshine Press, not Wikimedia. Disclaiming it in the article is not necessary. "Wiki" is not a trademark as far as I can tell. It's like having to say a product called ITRANS is not owned by Apple Inc.

Srsly. CompuHacker (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying to myself here: I read the source for that section, and I think that any reference to Wikimedia should be removed, and it should be reiterated that Wikileaks is not actually collaborative in nature. CompuHacker (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

i think the motivation is that despite Misplaced Pages.org being one of the world's most popular websites, probably a huge percentage of the same people have no idea that Misplaced Pages is a wiki,<ref>subjective extrapolation based on my own personal experience</ref> they think of it just a brand name. After all, among the Wikimedia foundation wikis, there is Misplaced Pages, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc., and Wikitravel is totally independent of Wikimedia Foundation, but has a similar look and feel. So saying that Wikileaks is not collaborative (apparently it was a wiki early on, but the people+wiki system became too heavy to manage for the moment) would not help explain things, since many readers would not realise that Misplaced Pages is a wiki-collaborative effort.

So a better analogy would be e.g. explaining that Segleaks has nothing to do with Segway, the maker of two-wheeled inverted-pendulum-based feedback systems. Some people might guess that both are made by someone called Seg or a company that chose Seg as a brandname.

If you don't like the section, then maybe the best thing would be a disambiguation-related template at the top of the page. Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/General#Disambiguation_and_redirection to find a good one.

Maybe:

{{ about|topic|other topic|location }}
{{ distinguish|topic }}
{{ distinguish2|topic }}

e.g.

{{distinguish2| ] ]s such as the ] or other ] or non-Wikimedia Foundation websites}}

Any objections to removing the Wikimedia Foundation section and replacing it by this template? (Edit and preview without saving to see what the effect would be.)

Boud (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone already removed the section, so i'm going to WP:Be bold and put in the template without waiting further. Someone can improve it if s/he is not happy. Boud (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This certainly should be removed as it is not encyclopedic, but rather something political between Wikileaks and Misplaced Pages. I didn't check the history, but it is not currently removed from the introductory section. It should be.Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Animated Heatmap of WikiLeaks Report Intensity in Afghanistan - should it be linked to?

I came across this fine animation of the wikileaks report on Afghanistan: http://www.r-bloggers.com/animated-heatmap-of-wikileaks-report-intensity-in-afghanistan/

I am not sure if it should be added to the article or not. What do you think?

Talgalili (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

There's been enough criticism of Wikileaks from all sides, from those opposed to leaks to those (i.e. John Young) alleging some nefarious intent behind Wikileaks, that it seems a short and compact section on 'Criticism' might be warranted. Felixhonecker (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am shocked at the positive language of this article, there is not a word about the criticism voiced against this wacko by governments around the world. The article reads as if it's talking about a youth club! This is a quite controversial organization. Also, there is no mentioning - as far as I saw - of the Swedish international arrest warrant against Assange, something that would be mentioned on the article about any other organization, like it or not. This page reads like an advertisement. I am completely shocked at the lack of neutrality here. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree! The article reads more like it was written by WikiLeaks advocates/cheerleaders than it does like an entry in an encyclopedia. The article barely mentions the dangers to peoples' lives and the dangers to diplomacy that WikiLeaks creates by releasing secret documents. It also fails to mention the legal consequences that contributors could face. The introduction states "WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces..." which is about one tenth of the whole story--one NPOV tenth (two civilians were non-Iraqi reporters who were embedded with Iraqi insurgents, two other civilians were children in a van (not visible to the pilot) that was struck while providing support to the insurgents. Why have that in the introduction? Either give it a NPOV approach (which would be lengthy), or take it out of the intro... Just My Suggestions. --72.47.85.102 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit. What sourced material would you like to add? HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, I'd strongly disagree that information on the Swedish arrest warrant should be included here. I do think that John Young's assertions that Wikileaks is a COINTELPRO operation should be included, as they have been noted in WP:SOURCE acceptable outlets (e.g. WIRED, cnet.com, etc.). I think there's much more that could be included but I also think an edit of this nature has the potential to open the doors of abuse for everyone with an axe to grind with wikileaks that a discussion is warranted before an "anyone can edit" approach is taken. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The "anyone can edit" comment is simply stating a truth of WIkipedia. But I agree with you. Discussion here is a great idea. Let's give others some time to repsond. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The arrest warrant concerns Assange's private life, not WikiLeaks (or at least it does if it isn't an attempt to intimidate him, which has been suggested, but we'd need WP:RS for that). It has no bearing on the article topic. I'd be more inclined to take comments about the lack of neutrality of the article from people who don't describe Assange as a 'wacko'. I'd also suggest that a look at the broad range of 'leaks' released by WikiLeaks makes the any possible 'nefarious intent' difficult to reconcile with the obvious interests of any agency or pressure group: though again WP:RS to the contrary would change things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree the arrest warrant should in no case be included in this entry. To the other point, analyzing the broad range of leaks and making a conclusion that they don't support a 'nefarious intent' is original research and beyond an editor's scope of operation. Simply reporting on various allegations that have been made by reputable sources (a former WL board member and the domain name's original registrant, John Young) and reported on by WP:RS acceptable outlets should meet all standards of significance. To wit:

- http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets

- http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574462119793480.html

Felixhonecker (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section called "Criticism" which I feel is important for reasons stated previously. However, I do think it is a little lopsided without any itemization of the public support it has received from other notables like Daniel Ellsberg, etc. Does anyone have thoughts about changing this to a section called "Reception" or something similar with a sub-section called "Support" and a sub-section called "Criticism"? Felixhonecker (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Word

Under 'Diplomatic Cables Relase', there is a sentence which says "On 28 November, Wikileaks announced it was undergoing a massive Distributed Denial-of-service attack attack". Note the repeated use of the word 'attack'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt0chew (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...

What's this "Not to be confused with other websites such as the Misplaced Pages or other Wikimedia Foundation or non-Wikimedia Foundation websites that use wiki software and culture"?

I don't recognise that from other disambiguation messages. This sounds more like a pr comment on behalf of the WMF, and implicitly judgmental given the implication of wikipedia choosing to distance itself from this particular web site but not from say meatball wiki or wikianswers, rather than something you'd expect in an encyclopedia promoting a neutral point of view. 92.39.205.102 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair. Wikileaks is in the news a lot. There are probably a lot of people who think they're related.

On the flip side, there are probably some bozos out there who've given money to the Wikimedia fundraising drive because they think they're supporting Wikileaks.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Look up on this talk page. It used to be a section by itself, but I noted that it sounded exactly like what you say; PR. I wanted to remove it altogether. CompuHacker (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it from a silly 'this is nothing to do with us' disclaimer abuse of 'see also' into something more closely resembling a genuine attempt at reducing confusion. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is worth investigating, but considering Mr. Jimmy Wales funding drive it may be worthwile. Specifically, I draw attention to the idea that I am regularly correcting people letting them know that Wikileaks is not part of the Wikimedia group. I think that the negative publicity that Wikileaks is receiving on an escalating level may be harmful, even slightly perhaps, to Wikimedia. There is far to much hard work in Misplaced Pages and related sites to allow any undue negative publicity to go unchecked. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a strict WP:NODISCLAIMERS policy which means pages can contain offensive, harmful or illegal content (depending on jurisdiction), and there is to be NO warning. This policy should be respected.

Also note that anybody who has enough knowledge that they have even heard of the Wikimedia Foundation is likely to understand that that Wikileaks is not a part of it. OTOH, Misplaced Pages itself is much better known than the Wikimedia Foundation and there is a genuine chance of confusion. Therefore 'not to be confused with Misplaced Pages' is more than sufficient. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A peek on m:Foundation wiki feedback on any given day is going to show that a lot of folk manage to find their way to Meta from the fundraising page and give ... ah, feedback ... on that page quite often. Kylu (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MikeBaun, 28 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please include the information that Wikileaks is a facilitated by spy agencies of foreign governments and has possible terrorism links. My last request for edit was not taken seriously and removed. This is a series matter for actual discussion.

MikeBaun (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If not, it doesn't go in the article. Reach Out to the Truth 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm untranscluding the request. If MikeBaun has sources, then we can review and consider adding them.

This is a global encyclopaedia edited by people from all over the world. What do you mean by "foreign governments"? Foreign to whom? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isnt a place for original research WP:OR Wims (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Add Muckraker? (For example, per http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/25/wikileaks.review/ )

Add Muckraker? (For example, per http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/25/wikileaks.review/ ) 99.102.179.121 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Why is the climate research email leak referred to as "illegally obtained", but nothing else is. By definition, everything on Wikileaks is illegally obtained. That's why they are called leaks. Either call every leak illegal, or none of them illegal. Calling some illegal and others not simply reveals the writer's bias (it reads like anything that supports a liberal agenda is a good leak and anything that hurts the liberal agenda (i.e. CRU emails) is a bad leak). I would fix the article myself but access to this particular page seems to be restricted to the more "wise" among us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.136 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that term with "leaked' per your suggestion.--agr (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Not everything 'leaked' against the wishes of those who keep it secret is necessarily 'illegally obtained'. Commercial information obtained from a whistleblower for instance may be perfectly legally obtained, even in the cases where the leaking is possibly a breach of contract. Furthermore, it is entirely possible the climate research emails weren't 'leaked' at all, but hacked into by an outsider unconnected with the research. On that basis, I'm restoring "illegally obtained". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe leaked is not the best word, but we don't normally declare a particular incident to be illegal absent some court judgement. Presumably everyone whose material winds up on wikileaks believes it was obtained illegally. Singling out one incident seems POV.--agr (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Presumably everyone whose material winds up on wikileaks believes it was obtained illegally". Not necessarily true, and even then 'believing' something to be illegally obtained isn't the same thing as proving it. I'd say there may possibly be a POV problem in the article, but less so in this case, where the statement about how it was allegedly obtained is sourced, than in many others, where it isn't. Having said that, I see your point about court judgement, and I'll revise it to avoid making any definitivestatement on the legality of the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.52.149.174, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the paragraph:

In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review. In October, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations.

The last word "organisations" is misspelled and should read "organizations"

68.52.149.174 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just the UK spelling. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There has been a low-level war going on for years between those who use US spelling, and those who know how to do it properly... Only kidding, the rule seems to be that we try to be consistent in a single article: If the subject is specifically about US-related subjects , we use US spelling, if it is UK-related we use UK spelling, but otherwise we are supposed to use whatever was first used in an article. Unfortunately this tends to become difficult to figure out if not done consistently from the start, and in an article like this, which changes rapidly, you're bound to see inconsistencies. One of the joys of an open, international project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Julian Assange is Australian, can I insist on Australian spelling? For those unaware it's mostly like UK English. That would mean "organisation". HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically there is no real consensus in UK when to use ize and ise though. talks about this. OED seems to prefer ize. They state "There is no reason why in English the special French spelling (iser) should ever be followed," referring to words that have derived from Greek and Latin. Nymf _hideliho! 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My copy of the OED clearly states in the introduction (from memory, as I don't have it to hand) that they use ize simply out of convenience, and both spellings are correct in UK English.71.106.173.131 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is WikiLeaks based? Which spelling do they use? Do we really need to worry about this right now? I'd say note that there is an inconsistency, and fix it when the article settles down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Their servers are based in Sweden, but I agree - I don't think a change is necessary at the moment either. Nymf _hideliho! 03:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: No consensus for the change, and AndyTheGrump's suggestion is very sensible. For what it's worth, http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html states, "WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation." Adrian J. Hunter 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikileaks and/or it's suppliers of information whistleblowers according to the Whistleblower Protection Act?

Dunno. Reads like a US-centric question to me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Any answer would be original research and couldn't be added to the article without a reliable source. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 is right; question is narrowly focused on U.S. federal civilian -- not military -- employees covered by that act, though the need for disclosures to be 'lawful' is also required under the separate Military Whistleblower Protection Act. The only covers civilians uploading to WikiLeaks. This communication to WikiLeaks was made by a soldier. WikiLeaks itself would have to be under U.S. jurisdiction to be covered by U.S. law, but even then, there is no specific law protection a general corporate whistleblower (assuming the communications was 'lawful' to begin with). I do not think an answer to this runs afoul of the no original research provision; there is plenty collected on the internet addressing the topic. One of the best is Senator Akaka's statement, just scroll down to the top of Page S5971. Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Censorship in Iran

Warlogs are also censored in Iran!09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.168.184 (talk)

Endangering people's lives

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/30/2010-11-30_daring_doc_fears_for_his_family.html They are revealing information that might cause the Iranian government to hurt people's families. Have any of their past leaks endangered anyone's safety? Got to balance things with the negative aspects of what they are doing also. Dream Focus 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Ellsberg said no to the BBC today. Per that BBC clip "the Pentagon has admitted they have not been able to identify a single person harmed" from the August release. This is referenced in the Criticism section. Felixhonecker (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus - you ask "Have any of their past leaks endangered anyone's safety?" I ask "Have any of the secrets now being revealed endangered anyone's safety?" HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ellsberg isn't impartial. He has a personal interest in making leaks look like a good thing. Nobody is dead yet that we know of. That's not the same thing as saying that no one had to pack their bags and run. It will take time to know how this will play out.

Consider that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved because of a secret deal. Wikileaks and its supporters have decided that deals like that are now off the table. Whether or not that would have endangered the lives of Cubans and Floridians, we can't know.

BTW: I'm not saying Ellsberg can't be used for a quote in the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You said, "Ellsberg isn't impartial. He has a personal interest in making leaks look like a good thing." For that matter, the USG isn't impartial. It has an institutional interest in making leaks look like a bad thing. I'm unaware of any WP guideline that mandates anyone referenced by an otherwise acceptable source be "impartial." If I'm wrong, however, and there is such a rule or guideline, I would welcome correction.

As for the point about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's an editorial analysis and, as original research, outside the scope of this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not impartial at all, but there's a huge difference. Any government's position has the stamp of authority and responsibility that speaks for more than just one person, group, or movement. It may have the force of law behind it.

In this specific case, we're talking about Ellsberg's interpretation of what the Pentagon said. Ellsberg's opinions clearly mean something to a lot of critics of the U.S., and it's worth remembering where he claims to stand. But he shouldn't be a filter for where the Pentagon claims to stand.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed where someone was suggesting to use him in that context in this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

diplomatic cables not whistle blowing

I think there has been a large increase in negative opinion of wikileaks following the leak of the cables. Mainly because they are seen as an attempt at disrupting the diplomatic process, and not constituting whistle blowing. It should also be noted that they don't really contain any shocking information. source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/wikileaks-is-gossip-not-whistleblowing/article1817502/ the fact that embarrassing is used, and the only investigation launched as a result is into wikileaks and its sources, seems to indicate that this latest release hurt wikileaks reputation more than those mentioned in the documents. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a favourite team and you're keeping score. Your opinion is not really relevant to improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for the general discussion of WikiLeaks. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tapiwagwatidzo, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} wikileaks site switched off by amazon.com, their host, probably because of pressure from us govt.

Tapiwa Gwatidzo (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done

Please look at the template to phrase your change request.
Assuming that line is what you want to incorporate, it appears to be dubious and unsourced anyway - Amog | 20:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have added this information to the article, after having found reliable sources - Amog | 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk Cleanup

Since we are going to bombarded with all kinds of WP:NOTFORUM, is it okay if we can clean up the talk page? Phearson (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Please. Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Per second motion by Sushilover2000 I have gone ahead and cleaned up some stuff. Although there seems to be a lot of mixed in forum quibbling in legitimate article discussion. Will clean more as it develops. It's good to keep talk pages short. Phearson (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have replaced the hatnote at the top of the article and tweaked it to make clear there is no association between Misplaced Pages and Wikileaks. OTRS has gotten over 50 emails about wikileaks in the three days this has been on the In the news section on the main page. Some have been simply confused, but others have been quite angry. A clear hatnote is good editorial practice.--Chaser (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's narcissism that places undue coat-rack-y weight on a comparatively minor issue. We should not add distraction to the article solely in the name of our non-objective personal/community views of the distinction's importance; to do that is to editorialize. Also, hatnotes are supposed to be disambiguatory; this one isn't, it doesn't involve page titles being confused. It's legitimate article content which is now covered in the lede anyway. Unless one is such a pessimist that they don't think readers even read the freaking lede, the hatnote is duplicative and unnecessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've just replaced the hatnote. This talk page is getting abusive comments from people who don't seem to understand the distinction. Fact. I'd call that a clear enough justification for 'disambiguation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of inappropriate talkpage use to article content / hatnotes. By that reasoning, a whole crap-ton of articles which people frequently post to the talkpage asking questions about would need FAQ "hatnotes"; this not being the case, I don't a see policy/guideline/best-practice-based reason supporting having the "hatnote". --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, ask yourselves this: Would Citizendium's "WikiLeaks" article have such a hatnote? Why? If the answer is No, then I argue we're violating WP:NPOV. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what NPOV has to do with correcting a common misunderstanding? In any case, Misplaced Pages does lots of things to encourage users to edit in the correct place. How is this any different? If people think they are addressing WikiLeaks when contacting or editing Misplaced Pages, are we not permitted to point out they aren't? The similar names are clearly causing confusion, and where confusion is likely, we disambiguate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers. Yes, normally we would not refer to Misplaced Pages, but in this case it is extremely helpful to explain a very common misunderstanding, so the "Wikileaks is not related to Misplaced Pages" hat note should be at the top of the article. There is no NPOV problem: we're not claiming that "wiki" implies "Misplaced Pages", and we're not presenting a view about WikiLeaks or Misplaced Pages: it's just a simple fact that many readers are confused about the point, and the hat note is helpful. We don't have a bureaucratic set of rules that prevent helpful text. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cybercobra. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Get rid of it.Sushilover2000 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Citizendium argument is really right. The problem is, a reader here could think that because this is Misplaced Pages, and if Misplaced Pages were connected with Wikileaks, it might not cover the article completely or fairly due to some internal conflict of interest or for other reasons. To illustrate this in a different context, consider that the Misplaced Pages article also has a hatnote, "For Misplaced Pages's non-encyclopedic visitor introduction, see Misplaced Pages:About." Yes, Misplaced Pages wants to present all content neutrally and without intruding itself into the process, but there are times when it is necessary to do so in order to prevent doing so. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apt analogy to Misplaced Pages's selfref note; I won't dispute that selfref note's existence further. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Samizdat

Please add a link to the article about Samizdat movement in the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.53.134 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? What did they have to do with the article? Phearson (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange Arrest Warrant

Why hasn't the article mentioned that Assange is on the run and that people want to assassinate him? I read this article on msn :Lawyer condemns call to assassinate Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen C Wells (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aduckett, 2 December 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at WikiLeaks. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please change this dead link: |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/tcetoday/NewsDetail.aspx?nid=12188 to this new live link: |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/trafigura

Aduckett (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories: