Talk:WikiLeaks

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”. [1]

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

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 [2]

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

[3] 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 Wikipedia: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)