Jump to content

Talk:WikiLeaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thymefromti (talk | contribs) at 11:55, 19 October 2016 (→‎Allegations of Russian influence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on WikiLeaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

upcoming leaks section?

It seems to me that this section needs a rewrite or maybe even deleted, as it seems to be rather outdated containing only annoucement from the 2009 to 2011.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these upcoming leaks leaks that were promised and never delivered, or leaks that were announced and have since been posted? I agree that this section is confusing. If these leaks were promised but never delivered, it seems relevant to include that clarifying information. Sterilizedusername (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be wary of WP:CRYSTALBALL here - but that's just me. GABgab 00:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no-outing editors policy and WikiLeaks

UGH. So would it violate the WP:HARRASS to say something? Horrified by the DNC Wikileaks and what it says about editing WP. Can I say that? If-so, I'll accept the ban. And I'm on the record here as being pro-no-outing with no exceptions.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the harassment policy, but it might be ok to post non-specific info about it. Perhaps it's best to ask an admin about this. Pinging Bbb23, an admin, for help with this. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? What has Wikileaks to do with editing WP? and what exactly is horrible now? And outing what or who?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just wondering if linking offsite to info. about editors...I think it is "outing", but if it is not explicitly connected to a real person/and editor, then it probably is OK, but if a Wikileak identified an editor by that editor's name, it would be outing-right?TeeVeeed (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like this for instance, it exposes someone with intent to manipulate their article, but not an editor named exactly, so this would be OK-right? https://wikileaks.org/hackingteam/emails/emailid/21723 TeeVeeed (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what's going on here, but if thinks there is an outing problem with an edit or multiple edits, they should contact the oversight team or an individual oversighter. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False information in Announcements of Upcoming Leaks

In re. to the following entry...

"In July 2016, shortly after the leaking of almost 20,000 DNC emails, Assange said in an interview with ITV News that he was planning on releasing more emails in relation to Hillary Clinton, and vowed that this new batch of emails would "ensure Hillary's arrest."[232]"

The interview linked in the reference occurred on June 12th, prior to the leak of the DNC emails, *not* after. "ensure Hillary's arrest" is presented as a quote from Assange, but this is a mistake of the reference. The quote never occurs in the interview. The future leak that was announced in the interview was actually the DNC emails. With respect to an indictment of Clinton, Assange was referring to the private server emails WikiLeaks had already made available, not a new leak. This information can be verified by watching the linked interview.

Requesting removal of the entry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.173.179 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.173.179 (talk)

Articles for deletion - Murder of Seth Rich (Second nomination)

Currently, there is a second nomination for deletion at a discussion - (an AfD) - pertaining to this article, taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this post is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016

I am looking at this edit and do not think it provided a correct summary of something that RS tell, for example here. In fact what she said was criticism of Wall Street, if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DAK

Does anyone know ? If there has been an update on dead man switch released by Assange? Decryption attempts? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks Shutdown

I made an edit to reflect the shutdown of the site. It was removed for no reason.

What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.164.8 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ferret removed your edit for a very good reason and said what that reason was in their edit summary when they removed it. Your edit was unsourced. You did not provide any kind of source for the claim that unknown state elements shut down the website. -- GB fan 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy question?

Is there any information on the accuracy of the Wikileak uploads or of the statements of Assange? Nothing concerning "Yes! Accurate!" or "No! Alterations identified!" is mentioned in the article. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Russian influence

This subsection, which is currently titled "Allegation 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiLeaks&oldid=745128169"