Talk:David Leigh (journalist)

Untitled
Was he not also author of "The Wilson Plot"? RobinCarmody, 4 December 2006, 0403 GMT
 * Looks like he was. Found info on the net and added that to the article.  This is what's good about Wikipedia.  Somebody comes along and says something to make an article better. :-) --Oakshade 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Leigh on phone hacking (etc.) in 2006
Scandal on tap by David Leigh -- an interesting article on questionable practices in journalism:


 * I've used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. ... There is certainly a voyeuristic thrill in hearing another person's private messages...

Looks like there might be some material here to add to his article. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Password controversy
Last September, I added this quote, which was removed by an IP address for reasons unclear to me. I won't revert it, but perhaps somebody else should.

Striken text: ''Assessing the fiasco the Economist magazine stated, "Mr Assange’s file management looks sloppy, but Mr Leigh’s blunder seems bigger: since digital data is easily copied, safeguarding passwords is more important than secreting files." They noted that the files contain names that were redacted in previously published accounts, which could bring have consequences to those residing in police states that spoke with American diplomats. ''

As it exists, I think the wiki article papers over the controversy. The Economist certainly has a more neutral view on the matter than Mr. Leigh's employer or myself for that matter. I can't think of a good reason to publish a password and once files are posted on the internet, they can't be magically retracted from people's hard drives. Also, this error had serious consequences which deserve to be listed. Measure for Measure (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Added facts about previous BitTorrent distribution from Der Speigel article. Measure for Measure (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Measure for Measure (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Stratfor Wikileaks release
To create a record of it here [hopefully in a way which conforms with BLP policies], it is being alleged that the Wikileaks release on Stratfor shows that Leigh conspired with Haaretz journalist Yossi Melman "to secretly, and in violation of WikiLeaks' contract with the Guardian, move WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables to Israel" (perhaps the suggestion that Stratfor is akin to a private CIA is a bit overblown, though). A note of what was being alleged in the Wikileaks press release and of a response given by Melman is given in this Haaretz article.    ←   ZScarpia  17:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on David Leigh (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.city.ac.uk/citynews/archive/2006/09_september/27092006_1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/unredacted-us-embassy-cables-online
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907025639/http://www.publicintegrity.org/news/entry/2045/ to http://www.publicintegrity.org/news/entry/2045/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

'Agreement' with Wikileaks
In the article there are now three instances in one short paragraph about the bit where Leigh says Assange said he wuld remove some files shortly after giving a password to Leigh.
 * On 1 September 2011, according to the book and The Guardian, contrary to Leigh's agreement with Wikileaks, an encrypted version of WikiLeaks' archive of un-redacted US State Department cables had been available via BitTorrent for months.
 * The decryption password that had been published by Leigh and Harding in their book, after Leigh had been told that the encrypted files would no longer be accessbile online
 * The Guardian reported that they had been "told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours

There is no need for such repetition. And the first instance is particularly bad as it mixes things which happened at different times - it sounds like they made an agreement about or wrote a book after what happened on 1 September whereas the book was published long before. Anyway a mess. And there is no mention of an agreement I can see in any source. If you want to stick in the agreement signed by Alan Rusbridger fine by me if it has some relevance.

Also I don't see that we are entitled to remove attribution to the Guardian or their editors. The newspaper has a clear conflict of interest with Wikileaks and were involved in a legal dispute over this. The editors are fairly public and publish things have articles in Wikipedia and there is no straightforward BLP requirement here to make out they made no mistakes. NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The first doesnt fully overlap with the second two because theres no mention of the password, so its not fully repetition. Like I said in the edit history, youre welcome to add clarity to the sentence - its definitely less work than this post wouldve been.
 * The second two are similar but also say very different things.
 * "And there is no mention of an agreement I can see in any source." Did you read the Guardian article thats cited? I quoted the part about the agreement in my edit summary. Or are we talking about different things?
 * "Also I don't see that we are entitled to remove attribution to the Guardian or their editors." Agreed and I added that as in text citations as well, but thats not necessary as long as its cited.
 * "The newspaper has a clear conflict of interest" I hope youll add other appropriate sources that dont have a COI
 * If you have ideas on how to better rephrase the part you have issues with, all ears

Softlemonades (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * - This is unintelligibile. Please describe what you are trying to say here. SPECIFICOUser_talk:SPECIFICO | talk]] 18:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikileaks started litigation with the Guardian over this. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This post is necessary because trying to fix the problems just gets reverted.
 * Just because the second two mention the password doesn't mean the first is not repeating what they say. If a sentence says both then split it in two and then theres absolute repetition but the text should be made clear. At the moment the second paragraph is a mess. We can't just start repeating things just because there are combinations and permutations in how it is said.
 * I did read the Guardian article. And it talks about "it was agreed" which is very unspecific. But that should be attributed to the Guardian which has a conflict of interest. The book and what Leigh says in it is what should be used as being the best source. There is no mention of any formal agreement. Anyway my main problem is the mess of the second paragreph.
 * It is possible to say things without attribution if the other sources agree about it.
 * There are sources there already.
 * I would rewrite the entire paragraph to be in time order The book they wrote. In it Assange saying the file was on a server for only a short time and giving a password out. Leigh putting the password in the book with the understanding that Assange would do the business of gettng rid of the file. The file being found on Bittorrent months later due to mistakes by Wikileaks. The various cites that are there and maybe a link to United States diplomatic cables leak. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Rewriting the entire paragraph is preferable to revert warring. Please propose your article text on talk before starting up with content that may again have BLP or sourcing problems. If there are not other RS that can be used in addition to Wikileaks, we will need to consider the possiblilty that the whole incident is UNDUE and insignificant. I don't know enough about Leigh to comment on his Notabilty, but that may need to be considered as well. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have raised this business about BLP requirements at WP:BLPN NadVolum (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The simpler approach would be to survey RS reporting yourself and draft BLP-compliant article text here for discussion. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I propose we simply revert to the version by Softlemonades in . I was quite happy with that version and was not proposing to do anything to it. And Softlemonades did that edit so I guess they're reasonably happy with it. This was the version just before SPECIFICO edited it with the edit comment "Per cited Guardian source. The Guardian source was not written by Leigh. Attribution not needed. The previous version was a BLP violation. Further clarification and copyediting may be needed". I've explained why using the Guardian on its own as fact rather than attribution would be wrong unless it agreed with other sources. And the business of BLP violation has not been explained at all. Besides which it just simply does not read properly and is a repetitios mess at the moment. Then SPECIFICO can do smaller changes and give more specific reasons rather than the lot being put in as being necessary for BLP reasons. NadVolum (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. It was not in good condition then. Focus on solving the problem. Or the whole paragraph could be removed to the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 08:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * well what's there now is a complete mess. And you still have not explained the BLP problem with what was there before. NadVolum (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK good, we agree the current text has big problems. It can be removed from the article, where at best it is confusing and misleading our readers, an workshopped on the article talk page. The editors you've alerted at BLPN might help out on the talk page.It would be constructive if you would compile a list of RS that discuss the events you believe need to be covered in the re-worked paragraph and everyone can read them and see what they say. SPECIFICO talk 12:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not explanaining the BLP problem you saw in  which is what was there before you messed it up. NadVolum (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to what's on this page, it is stated here SPECIFICO talk 13:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sensitive BLP content moved from article to workshop here on talk
 SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion and suggestions
.My attempt to brin some order to the structuring In September 2011, it was found that the an encrypted version of WikiLeaks' archive of un-redacted US State Department cables were discovered to have been available via BitTorrent for months, which according to Leigh and the Guardian was against the agreement they had with WikiLeaks. The password for the encrypted file was previously published in a book Leigh co-wrote with Luke Harding called WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, and published by the Guardian. The Guardian published a statement saying that they had been told "told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours." The book would go on to be made into the 2014 movie, The Fifth Estate. All of the details would be covered by the references we already have. I'm not prissy about my writing, or my writing ability, so any suggestion (or outright rejection) are welcome. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We need more sources Then the content will become clear. SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this after I had written that. Something to balance the statement bbybthe the Guardian would be helpful (as there appears to be some disagreement that I'm not fully aware of). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of these tidbits are life and death issues to people who are followers of Assange and his narratives. But really, a password that was used a single time to see data that had previously been released then removed? So what?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another slightly more drastic option would be a sentence about the book, a comment that there was a controversial, and then the one about it being made into a film. We already have an article about the book with these details, and I'm betting they are mentioned at the assange article. Do we need to repeat them in depth again? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "was a controversy", not "was a controversial". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the uncited sentence you pointed out at the diplomatic cables article. NadVolum (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Copy of what I wrote at ANI i response to checking something by ActivelyDisinterested


 * Sorry another person put in the statement with Leigh and I just took it on face value. I've had a look into this now and it is very interesting. There are a number of sites saying Leigh said the password was temporary so that's why I had no problem with what was written. However Leigh in the book and in interviews like says Assange assured him the site would expire within a matter of hours, but says nothing about a temporary password that I can find. He says in the book and Der Spiegel confirms this interpretation that he and Assange together and noone else agreed the transfer after some hours of pushing by Leigh. As far as I can see yes it is the Guardian as a company and not Leigh who said they were assured the password was temporary and would epire in a matter of hours, and some other sources probably then misquoted what Leigh said as it was so similar. Assange says he never said the password was temporary, he said that would be like making the translation of a document temporary. A horrible mess and it will require some discussion at the talk page.
 * So thanks to him for pushing for better checking but this does make thinbgs more complicated. It looks ike we'd have to say both what the Guardian said and what Leigh said.
 * Also on another note it would be best to say that Wikileaks exposed the files due to mistakes by them. And chop down the statements in smaller chunks which are less likely to be read in an unintended way - I've learnt I shouldn't say misread. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Where do the sources support "which according to Leigh and the Guardian was against the agreement they had with WikiLeaks" about the exposure of the files? As far as I can see they just say that it was agreed to transfer files by putting them into a temporary place on a server. The text from the two Guardian cites is
 * "The Guardian book revealed the diplomatic files were placed by WikiLeaks on a secure online server in July 2010, which it was agreed would only be online for a matter of hours."
 * "The embassy cables were shared with the Guardian through a secure server for a period of hours, after which the server was taken offline and all files removed, as was previously agreed by both parties"
 * NadVolum (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You need more sources. Right now, it looks as if the content is UNDUE and should not be in the article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The last thing before your comment is asking for sources for a bit that you put in. Where are they? Or if you can't be bothered with that try and be a bit more specific about what you are referring to. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * if you wish to buy more detail in the article the WP:ONUS will be on you to references it. I'm tending more towards not including anything but basic details, as we're going to duplicate the details already at the book article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds correct. I think we should just leave the paragraph out of this article and move on to more significant parts of Leigh's life story. Now that I've learned a bit about him, I see that he does indeed deserve this WP page. He is a notable journalist.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is that to give all side proper weight we would have to spend so long talking about WikiLeaks, Assange, and the Guardian that it becomes undue for an article that's meant to be about Leigh. If we just say there was controversy and point poeple to the book article we avoid both problems. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've posted a notice on the WP:BLPN board to try and get involvement from any other interested editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * United States diplomatic cables leak covers the whole business in detail. The article about the book goes into an appropriate level but should mention Wikileaks part in the debacle in letting the file get on Bittorrent by mistake. It leans too far the other way from where this article was being pushed. I think the book article should point here as David Leigh was involved loFleighng after the book was published so it should be possible to find better sources here. The incident and what is being done about it is a topic of high importance for the media and freedom of speech, but it should be possible to get a basic factual account relevant to David Leigh here and direct to the cables article if anyone wants more depth. NadVolum (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need to suggest something concrete. If you can put something together that succinctly covers the details but doesn't stray to far from the subject, then I might back it's inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about something like

In September 2011, it was found that the an encrypted version of WikiLeaks' archive of un-redacted US State Department cables were discovered to have been available via BitTorrent for months. The file had been put on BitTorrent by mistake due to a series of problems at Wikileaks. The password for the encrypted file was previously published in a book Leigh co-wrote with Luke Harding called WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, and published by the Guardian. The book talks about the file being transferred via a temporary web site, and Leigh said in an interview that Assange assured him the site would expire within a matter of hours. The Guardian published a statement saying that they had been "told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours." The book would go on to be made into the 2014 movie, The Fifth Estate.


 * Some of the rest of what Leigh said in the interview could be put in and what the Guardian said taken out - it doesn't correspond with what Leigh said, it is just daft, it contradicts what Assange says, and it was in a conflict of interest situation, and it wasn't jourtnalism but a denial by the Guardian - as the byline said "Guardian denies allegation in WikiLeaks statement that journalist disclosed passwords to archive". It can be used with attribtion I think but can't be considered as especially reliable for facts. NadVolum (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a non-starter. The weasel "it was found" passive voice is one of the first things that was challenged in the version now removed. Is it necessary to keep repeating this: We need additional sources and we need to consider content that reflects the weight of all those sources.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The "it was found" is my fault as it mimics my version, and I tend to write in the passive voice (one of the reason I tend to stick to gnoming). I'd be strongly against this version, as everything from WikiLeaks/Assange is in wikivoice while everything about Leigh/The Guardian is quoted. Imagine how the weight would look if we transformed the second sentence into WikiLeaks claimed that the file had been put on BitTorrent by mistake due to a series of problems at Wikileaks. I fear we're not going to find a solution without the opinions of other editors, or new references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. Unfortunately all of our articles related to Assange and his orbit are dominated by POV weight that skews the narratives decisively by cobbling together UNDUE narratives from sourced content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to see that, I had a look at diplomatic cables article and it contains this unreferenced non-sentence It is not absolutely clear how or when the encrypted file itself was released inadvertent. I'm guessing it started as "It is not clear how or when the encrypted file was released" and has been editted into oblivion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It starts at the Julian Assange page, which in some sections reads more like a fandom site than an encyclopedia article. But then it extends to the ecosystem of everything linked and tangential to the Assange-persecuted-hero narratives, so there are many articles affected. Upon closer look, I discovered that David Leigh is actually a significant and respected investigative journalist. It does a disservice to him and others peripheral to the Assange mania when UNDUE content obscures the legitimate encyclopedic narratives of various pages. Thanks for your efforts on this.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you just stop with that business please, you've been warned by admins about it. Say how you'd change things and give your reasons. NadVolum (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but unless something is going to be done about it (and I don't have the energy for it) NadVolum is right we should drop it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to write Der Spiegel said Wikileaks released the file due to some other content you get from that article I don't think I'd have any problem with it. Or to attribute itto a source Der Spiegel said it used or whatever. I'm not sure though there is any way of phrasing it that will satisfy all objections. NadVolum (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have me back to front, we should be making statements in wikivoice not quoting so much. No weasel words, no equivocation. See my thoughts on "It is not absolutely clear how or when the encrypted file itself was released inadvertent" vs "It is not clear how or when the encrypted file was released". Both sentences contain the same information, all that the first one has extra is squirming about the issue.
 * But even if those issues were solved I still feel there's a due issue here. Most of what you wrote, most of my version, and most of the original version isn't about Leigh it's about the other parties in a controversy in which Leigh was involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well Leigh did say quite a bit more in the interview with Associated Press and I have absolutely no problems with any of that being included. Attributed to Leigh of course if no one else says it too without qualification. It would probably be okay to use any other article from the Guardian besides that one without attribution or something else as well from that one with attribution. NadVolum (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we remove the part that are not about Leigh from your version we're left with, He wrote a book, there was a controversy over a password being published in that book, and that book was made into a film. All of which we could say without having to attribute at all.
 * Your version with everything not about Leigh cut would be The password for the encrypted file was previously published in a book Leigh co-wrote with Luke Harding called WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, and published by the Guardian. The book talks about the file being transferred via a temporary web site, and Leigh said in an interview that Assange assured him the site would expire within a matter of hours. The book would go on to be made into the 2014 movie, The Fifth Estate.
 * This could be simply rewritten as In 2011, Leigh co-wrote a book with Luke Harding called WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, which was published by the Guardian. The book published a password that would later be a matter of controversy between Leigh and Assange. The book would go on to be made into the 2014 movie, The Fifth Estate.(or some such). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not more we need it's less, but I fear we're going round in circles. I'm wondering if posting to some wikiprojects might be a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is allowed to put in stuff that involves Leigh if the source has him involved in a non-trivial way and he was clearly linked in a non-trivial way by the Der Spiegel article and lots others or even the Guardian. And it was a major incident not just a matter of controversy. How about In 2011, Leigh co-wrote a book with Luke Harding called WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, which was published by the Guardian. The book published a password that would be involved in a a major incident the cause of which would be a matter of controversy between Leigh and Assange. The book would go on to be made into the 2014 movie, The Fifth Estate. NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel though it is just trying to ignore the sources, in particular it does not say anything about what Leigh said in the interview. With something from the interview it might be okay to leave fuller explanation to the other article. The leak wasn't just some trivial incident in his life. NadVolum (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Our NPOV policy does not assign DUE WEIGHT if a single or a small number of sources has him involved in a non-trivial way. We need to reflect the bulk of mainstream sources. That's why we need more sources in order to include any of this in the article. Otherwise our article on the book preserves the information (assuming that article is well-formed).<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPOVHOW "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone". That's what I felt was being violated. Try and state what you think is true about this without worrying about not being able to find sources and we very possibly can get somewhere towards that. It is possible though not so likely there is a reliable source that directly contradicts you and you have to revise your facts but we might still be able to get somewhere. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse "bias" with BLP violation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at WP:Who is a low-profile individual and David Leigh qualifies easily as high profile and therefore comes under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We can find multiple sources for everything so the the only business to fix I can see is "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." which we can do by putting in more of his interview.
 * BLP can't be used to justify leaving the whole incident out entirely, but I wouldn't mind too much a fudge where the article mainly just pointed to United States diplomatic cables leak and didn't go into any great detail and even left out anything from his interview like ActivelyDisinterested was thinking of. NadVolum (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review this thread more closely. Nobody said that it would be a BLP violation to publish well-cited, widely reported public information. The content is, however UNDUE and the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus to include it. As you've been told several times by many editors, the way to establish due weight is to present multiple high quality sources that treat the disputed content as significant and report it in some detail. It's up to you whether to attempt that, but there is no other way this will be reinstated in the article content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarifiation of your position. NadVolum (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "my" position, and I continue to advise you to re-read the thread and the associated policies so that you can present your case as effectively as you are able.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to clarify how many sources are needed to qualify as 'multiple'? NadVolum (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to bother. I'm looking through WP:RSP and confining myself to the sources markes as green. I've just looked through the A's so far and identified 5 out of 13, there seems to be about 130 marked green so I guess I should be able to find in the order of fifty reliable sources. I suppose a number will need to be eliminated on closer inspection but I'm pretty certain any 'multiple' requirement can be complied with. NadVolum (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It would probably help if you gave reasons for chopping out some. Here's one for each of the first five newspapers I found which had stuff about it:
 * It would probably help if you gave reasons for chopping out some. Here's one for each of the first five newspapers I found which had stuff about it:


 * Thanks. In those theres quite a bit of repetition. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In those theres quite a bit of repetition. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In those theres quite a bit of repetition. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In those theres quite a bit of repetition. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In those theres quite a bit of repetition. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In those theres quite a bit of repetition. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I can see no good basis for removing content on the basis of DUE or WEIGHT as the topic of the password has got very wide coverage. Counting the Guardians denial article as ordinary journalism and that what they said in it should be said without attribution wouldn't pass at NPOVN. There's no evidence of any agreement about between the Guardian or David Leigh with Wikileaks about further use or destruction of the file, only that the website used for transferring it to them would be deleted with a short time. As far as I can see editors here don't seem to be keen on saying what David Leigh himself said about it even though WP:PUBLICFIGURE says one should do that.

Therefore I'm putting a fairly minimal bit in the article about the password leak. as follows

In 2011, Leigh co-wrote a book with Luke Harding called WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, which was published by the Guardian. The book published a password that was later involved in the release of unredacted United States diplomatic cables. The book would go on to be made into the 2014 movie, The Fifth Estate.

If somebody decides putting in what leigh or the Guardian said about this, or that it caused a controversy between Leigh and |Assange, I don't think I'd have any problem with that. NadVolum (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would agree to that wording as a minimum place to start. More could be added as long as it didn't stray to far from the articles subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Without better sourcing -- broader and more recent, e.g. -- and mainstream narratives that anyone cares about this, I am not convinced it is DUE for the bio of this notable journalist. It should be removed until there's talk page consensus. It was removed for workshopping, not to assume that anything in particular or anything at all would end up in the BLP. Please remove it and