Talk:WhatsApp/Archive 1

Withdrawal from iTunes store
A few days ago WhatsApp was withdrawn from Apple iTunes store. WhatsApp says it's because of problems in the network and security concerns and will be back soon. I don't have enough information about the subject, so if someone has the references and follows it please add a new section in the article --Abderrahman (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

users must pay yearly
The last sentence of the following quote does not make any sense. If the app is free then users don't pay at all. Only if the app is not free, user might have to pay yearly. "WhatsApp is a paid application in iOS. In other platforms, the app is free, but users must pay yearly." After little investigation i found that it currently is about $1 for iOS to buy the license forever and couldn't find any fees for the other platforms. There is no need to pay anything yearly. Can someone correct this sentence, who understands it's purpose? 87.185.132.91 (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Answer:
 * On http://www.whatsapp.com/android/ it says the following:

"Please download the latest version of WhatsApp Messenger and enjoy our service free for 1 year! During, or after free trial period you can purchase service for $1.99 USD/year."


 * Hope that clarifies it for you. --42.98.234.44 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why isn't there a section about it? --Abderrahman (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that the company's sayings are misleading, and its business model is based on that. On platforms where the app has an yearly expiration date, the license gets automatically renewed for another 6 months on the expiration date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.234.10 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Status changer
It seems that the security hole was fixed, or at least I can't change a status from a PC on the same WAN as the phone (I used the cURL script, since the software's website is down). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.234.10 (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite
The current article's text is mainly written based on unacceptably unreliable sources. As proposed deletion was declined, may I be allowed to rewrite this article against the reliable sources now added to the article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Company and Application Name
I know I'm nitpicking, but the lead section currently states "WhatsApp Messenger is a proprietary, [...] The company by the same name [...]", which is incorrect. Not sure how to best solve this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

please provide the whatsapp messenger to normal phones which are not android
please provide whatsapp to normal phones.some of the people did not have money to buy android phones.they will want to use whatsapp but the app is not supported for their phones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.245.37.216 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

i like to know this 203.143.42.220 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * define 'normal' ?
 * you could try contacting the developers, rather than bleating here !
 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not available in U.S. iTunes Store
I get "Item Not Available" from the U.S. iTunes Store with this link. Can anyone please help me narrow down the cause and scope of this issue? Thanks. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   13:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

haloooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.37.238 (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Last seen..." timetsamp privacy issue
I didn't find any reference regarding the aforementioned issue. While it's true that iPhone users can hide this, Android user can't so, in itself, that is a privacy issue. Wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.172.253 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

spying
am i missing something here? what is the business model? $1/year can't account for the expenses... so who is funding this company? is this just a coverup for data collection? 178.148.232.89 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * -- Um, why not? With half a billion users, even if only half of them pays you make $250 million US... Yeah... surely not enough for a company with only a few employees and software that uses hardly any server resources apart from traffic. I feel this "spying" entry on talk page should be removed. 178.85.42.130 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems they don't even actively charge the $1/year. They keep saying they will but never do. Has anyone actually met someone who technically had to either stop using WhatsApp or pay up? -79.181.168.199 (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Layout Issue?
Is anyone else experiencing a layout issue similar to this? It doesn't happen for me when the name field in the infobox is anything but "WhatsApp". It could be "WhatsAp" and the layout is fine. Omitting the field also causes the layout issue. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 12:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✓ Fixed it. 109.67.223.208 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Internet"
Shouldn't the intro or the technical description mention that WhatsApp is "internet-based" or something? Geke (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

They were just bought by Facebook for $16bn USD
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26266689 HOLY SHIT!
 * Why holy shit? User and their data can get you some money money money $$$$$$$$. =) 87.79.116.50 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

a mistake?
Koum visited Acton, who was still unemployed while managing the unsuccessful start up, and decided to join the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Google
Various reports about Google making offers before Facebook. Google offered $10 billion (LA Times). Might be good to add something about Google to give more context to the Facebook acquisition. -- 109.79.117.20 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> WhatsApp deal: Facebook’s future lies in investing in R&D>> Facebook Stock Falls 5% After Hours Following WhatsApp Purchase [Update: Now Down Only 2.64%]>> Mark Zuckerberg Says WhatsApp Worth More Than $19 Billion>> WhatsApp Shows How Phone Carriers Lost Out on $33 Billion>> BlackBerry CEO Would Consider BBM Sale, Spinoff in Future>> Facebook $19 Billion Deal Fuels Search for Next WhatsApp>> Mark Zuckerberg Talks Mobile Strategy in Barcelona[http://www.bloomberg.com/video/is-zuckerberg-right-on-whatsapp-value-for-facebook-t76720H4T_aqujrdntogWA.html >> Is Zuckerberg Right on WhatsApp Value for Facebook? ]>> Zuckerberg: Connecting Billions Is Long-Term Goal>> Zuckerberg: Why Facebook Wants to Connect Everyone>> Zuckerberg: WhatsApp Shares Facebook's Goals>> WhatsApp Plans Voice App for Devices From IPhone to Android>> WhatsApp Is Inexpensive Growth for Facebook: Wolf>> WhatsApp - is it worth it?>> Getting the messages(Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)).
 * What is the purpose of posting these links here? Expansion (WhatsApp)? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
WhatsApp is a frequent case study of networks that grow on top of the phone book. Messaging apps have gained rapid traction by using the native phone book network to grow rapidly.

The reference provided doesn't support the assertion, which I can't even parse with certainty. &mdash; MaxEnt 03:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No explanation of why WhatsApp is special
I never used or heard about WhatsApp before yesterday. Now I read about it here on this wikipedia page. From this page I can't understand why WhatsApp is so popular. Reading through the feature list I see all the same features that skype has. It looks like WhatsApp only works on mobile OSes, and skype, in addition, on desktop OSes as well. So why would it become so popular? What is the differentiation factor here? This article does nothing to explain this. From only reading of the article I am getting an impression that this is another IM, less feature rich than skype. But since it got so popular, and got bought for such a high amount, it should be something special one would think? Or maybe this is just random, and nobody really knows? Yurivict (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not alone. I've heard of WhatsApp, I've used it, but I can't figure out why people love it so much.  g s k  00:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is easy to explain:


 * 1) Whatsapp is used in peer groups who take a lot of pressure on other people to use it
 * 2) Whatsapp Inc. decided that their implement no independant protocol, so that users could not setup their own servers (which is e.g. possible with using E-Mail). 87.78.170.110 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 500 million users is like one in 12 people in the world, more than skype has. With this number of users the name becomes a household name. Reporters get on TV through skype, people say "skype me", etc. Nothing like this ever happened with WhatsApp. I think, the more plausible explanation is that Zuckerberg needed to transfer this large amount, and he did it through this acquisition for some tax/corporate/whatever reasons. And the user count is fake. With bot technologies, it is easy to make it appear that there are hundreds of millions of users, when in reality there are probably only tens of millions. 74.95.207.98 (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple Explanation - technical Background?
There is a simple usability advantage: WhatsApp combines the instantaneous arrival of a SMS with the functionality of e-mail, while being spam-free (so far) and working perfectly in places without wlan internet access, but no cell phone network (e.g. our university hospital - this was the original reason for using it in my case). So one can have both a delay-free chat (not possible with e-mail) and send Photos and the like (not possible via SMS) with one app, and without having to maintain an extra Addressbook. All that assosciated with some Profile Information about the People i am talking to, specifically pictures.

What I am missing: How is that realtime messaging done technically? Does my cellphone contnuously poll some server (seemingly not), or what else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.110.186 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: The Answer seemingly is BOSH. This should go somewhere in the Technical section, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.110.186 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out what makes WA such a different animal than YIM or Skype, either. Yahoo IM handles voice calls, video calls/video conferencing, instant messaging, sms'es, users jointly watching a video or listening to music in realtime, while talking or chatting. Many programs do this stuff. Okay, Whatsapp might work better in certain locations where it isn't easy to access good mobile broadband lines, but that sounds fairly marginal to me...these days web access is never very far away unless you're in the desert or out in a really remote part of the ocean. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WhatsApp is special because, WhatsApp is a kind of like BBM available on all smart phones including BlackBerry phones. It should put an end to this thread. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, that does not end the thread ;-) As an explanation: This is no veiled bashing of whatsapp. It is just that for IT experts, it is really hard to get what is so special about whatsapp. The protocol is not new. The technology isn't. The interface isn't. Maybe it is the integration of SMS (but they do not do dumb/"feature" phones) and the exploit of the SMS pricing scheme. Maybe it is the marketing that created more awareness than similar products did. Maybe it was placed better within a certain age group. Maybe the novelty compared to Skype helped. But trust me, for IT people, this thing is a conundrum, as it is not a technical innovation of any kind. 80.145.10.8 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

History
the history sections starts in the middle of the history. Kotz (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remove "Jeroen eet poep" from paragraph two.
Not sure how to do it. The article is in English, this is Dutch for 'Jeroen eats poo.' It has nothing to do with the article, probably some kid thought it would be funny. Can someone remove this insert? Update: sorry, I found out how to do it! It's surprisingly easy, I expected it to be much more difficult. 168.224.160.14 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Move outdated details from intro to history section
Move the intro's third paragraph (with its refs):


 * In a December 2013 blog post, WhatsApp claimed that 400 million active users use the service each month.[5] As of 22 April 2014, WhatsApp had over 500 million monthly active users, 700 million photos and 100 million videos are shared each day, and the messaging system handles more than 10 billion messages each day.[6]

from the intro section to the end of the history section. Thanks 72.244.206.248 (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Camyoung54   talk  02:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014
Complete "Platform Support" section:

Unofficial WhatsApp applications have been made for unsupported platforms such as webOS (MojoWhatsup), MeeGo (Wazzup) and Firefox OS (ConnectA2).

Please consider adding Sailfish OS (Mitäkuuluu) and Maemo (Yappari)

2.241.195.23 (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2014
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Terminology Internet is capitalized. In the first sentence it is shown lowercase.

86.147.60.123 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The second sentence clearly says that it is often not capiatlized. Just to let you know, wikipedia cannot be used as a source. If you think otherwise, please provide a reliable source before re-opening this request. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Update final sale price to Facebook
Because FB's stock went between the time it signed the deal and it was approved, the final price was $21.8 billion. Source: Reuters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.185.104 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014
In the "Operating System" list, "Windows Phone" is listed twice. Please consider removing the second entry.

G09 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- TOW  15:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

End-to-end encryption?
Reminder: News from Open Whisper Systems about end-to-end encryption already working in last Whatsapp Android release are still unconfirmed by Whatsapp as of november, 21, 2014. Article says "For now, the encryption includes only the latest version" - should remark allegedly. -IgnacioAgulló


 * Fixed. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Picture
I suggest to remove the WhatsApp screenshot from the page, and simply leave the whatsapp logo. It is first and foremost not fair to have the screenshot for only one platform, and it might even look like there are interests behind keep reverting changes to that picture, and second it does not really add much. What does a list of contacts tell us about the application? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolosampras (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to insist on this topic, since the author of the screenshot keeps reverting changes to it without any proper reason, like "it has been there for quite some time", and "it shows the interface" (but only on one platform). Could somebody comment on this to reach consensus whether it's better to leave the logo, add a collage of screenshots on all platforms, or select only a representative platform for a screenshot? --Paolosampras (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be little value in this article having that screenshot of the interface. There would be even less value in adding a collage of screenshots. Logo only is fine here. As a solution while this is being discussed, I've set the screenshot to be collapsible. This de-clutters the infobox while allowing for someone to expand to see a screenshot. I still believe there is no need for a screenshot of a basic list of users in a chat app. Stesmo (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I then suggest to wait one or two weeks, and if nobody will comment on this, or come up with a valid reason why to keep a screenshot, and why that specific one, to remove the screenshot. --Paolosampras (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since nobody objected, I will remove the screenshot next week (allowing still some days for objections) --Paolosampras (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

History is confusing, appears to begin after development of the app
The history section currently begins with this:
 * In June 2009, Apple launched push notifications, letting developers ping users when they were not using an app. Koum updated WhatsApp so that each time the user changed their statuses, it would ping everyone in the user's network. WhatsApp 2.0 was released with a messaging component and the active users suddenly swelled to 250,000. Koum visited Brian Acton, who was still unemployed while managing the unsuccessful start up, and decided to join the company.

Frappyjohn (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "to relieve themselves from work." ??? to make their savings last longer "However, early WhatsApp kept crashing or getting stuck and at a particular point Koum felt like giving up and start looking for a new job to which Acton would aid him to wait for a "few more months."" getting stuck = locking up "at a particular point": when to which Acton would aid him to wait for a "few more months."": he gave him money to keep going? "the user changed their statuses": single/plural "the active users suddenly swelled": the number of active users suddenly increased "Koum visited Brian Acton, who was still unemployed while managing the unsuccessful startup and decided to join the company." While managing the startup alone, Koum visited Brian Acton, who was still unemployed, and asked him to join the company. "After months at beta stage,": (1) when did beta testing start? (2) above it is already version 2.0 with 250,000 users "to avoid growing too fast": ??? that's an odd reason, maybe "because running costs were too high" "As of 22 April 2014" outdated etc etc QuentinUK (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the second sentence, where "Koam updated WhatsApp," implying he had already developed it. But there's no statement that he did so.
 * Note the fourth sentence: "Koum visited Brian Acton, who was still unemployed while managing the unsuccessful start up, and decided to join the company." This makes no sense.
 * 1) Someone managing an unsuccesful startup is not unemployed.
 * 2) Did Koam (who apparently developed WhatsApp) decide to join Acton, who was already at WhatsApp? I doubt it.
 * This article needs a complete rewrite. It needs a rewrite by editors familiar with English.

Snapchat
Hi. This page seems to be blocked. Could you please add a link to Snapchat in "See also" section. Cheers. --Cyrille37 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not making sense
This two sentences seem not to make any sense when read together: "In January 2015, WhatsApp was the most globally popular messaging app with more than 800 million active users. In April 2015, WhatsApp reached 800 million active users." Did it now have 800M users in January or not? Someone please clarify/fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.245.134 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What's App spoofing is a major spam factor
I have read that there is an extremely widespread What's App spoofing spam (which is also a scam), that is used solely to annoy people at the request of someone else.

Perhaps people ought to be warned that some communications that pretend to be What's App are really not What's App at all.Daqu (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://api.ithenticate.com/ithenticate_dv?lang=en_us&o=18795531. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC) I could not verify that Hackernews is CC-BY or open source.

Legal Status
The authoritarian UK is to ban WhatsApp over the next few weeks.

This should really be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.89.57 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the linked article, the bill hasn't been passed yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it has been passed, isn't the fact that it's been proposed worthy of inclusion? Jimw338 (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If by "inclusion" you mean "have its own article", see Draft Communications Data Bill. WhatsApp is mentioned in it, but only as an example. There is no mention of WhatsApp in the bill itself. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015
Copypaste of entire article removed

82.42.48.88 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request." This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-

WhatsApp Reaches 900 Million Users
WhatsApp has now hit 900 million active monthly users as of September 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnoremac (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015
Bansing kumbhar (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol declined.svg Declined No specific edit requested. Samsara 09:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015
A user does not need to send a friend request to send messages to another user. 

116.203.210.111 (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Thanks for the contribution. However, I'm not convinced that Kinda Desi is a reliable source - a quick review of its other content does not suggest so. As inserting an unreliable source in response to a cite needed request doesn't address the problem in a meaningful way, I haven't carried out the request. If you can find a reliable source, please let us know. Samsara 12:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015
Add the title parameter in the citation next to "As of September 2015, WhatsApp had a user base of up to 900 million. The title that should be added is: "Facebook's WhatsApp hits 900 million users, aims for 1 billion".

Outedexits (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015
106.192.55.65 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. a boat  that can float!   (happy holidays)  05:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016
Change: "On January 2016, the founder announced that the service will no longer change their users a $1 annual fee subscription as an effort to remove the barriers faced by some users who does not have a credit card to pay for the service." To: "On January 2016, the founder announced that the service will no longer charge their users a $1 annual fee subscription as an effort to remove the barriers faced by some users who does not have a credit card to pay for the service."

adamtatusko (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Both sentences are identical. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016
on Feb 2 2016 What'sapp announced 1 billion active users.

Sandeepdubey.in (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Update version numbers
Update version numbers to most recent on every platform. Versions displayed on it are too old now. Thanks, Babbark (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * yellow check.svg Y Partly done. I updated the Android version number. According to the sources, the BlackBerry, iOS, and Symbian version numbers haven't changed. It would be nice to have sources for the Nokia S40 and the Windows Phone version numbers. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of a sentence
How is specifically relevant to WhatsApp? The other app's use for criminal purposes is documented in the article about that app, and WhatsApp has also been used for criminal purposes (e.g. in Brazil), which is already documented in this article. I think providing a wikilink to the article about the other app is enough in this case. If, at some point, a reliable source writes about WhatsApp's use for criminal purposes and compares this to how another app is used for the same purposes, then it would probably be relevant to mention the other app's use for those purposes in that context. Otherwise, it is off-topic and doesn't provide any encyclopedic information about WhatsApp. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC) [edited 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)]


 * The use of Telegram for criminal purposes is relevant as law enforcement (the US FBI) expressed concern over the introduction of encryption by WhatsApp; the source mentions Telegram in this context. I had originally placed the criminal use of Telegram immediately after the FBI reaction. I will edit the article and add further sources to emphasise the relevance. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now made some changes which I think highlight the relevance (and specify the criminal activities). This may need firther change, but I think the connection is made between WhatsApp and Telegram (in the meantime the section has been moved from encryption to security; I don't have any strong feelings about this). I've removed the "relevance" tag, but please replace it if you think it still holds. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds OK. I moved that part to the Reception section, because it is mainly about third-party opinions regarding WhatsApp. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

History relevance?
The page currently contains, in the history section, a remark about filtering domains with the word "Telegram". Is this really relevant to the companies history...? The entire history section is about WhatsApp itself. How it started, how it grew, etc. That line seems completely out of place, and actually completely irrelevant towards the history of WhatsApp.

However, I couldn't really find a place in the article to move it to. Which made me wonder: is this even relevant at all to mention...? What's the point of having this information in the article? 86.86.21.130 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Android Telegram block - confusing phrase ..
.. well, it confused me, anyway! (I had to refer to the cited source to get a clear sense of the thing.)

66 It has been confirmed by multiple sources that WhatsApp is actively blocking domains with the word telegram in the source code of the Android app.[30]  99

- domains with the word telegram in the source code .. meaning that WhatsApp has the T-word in its code, and is actively blocking some domains? or that Whatsapp is actively, in its source code, blocking domains that have the T-word?

Actually both - and the conclusion is an important one. So I've tried to clarify the precise reasons leading to it - and to be slightly franker about the conclusion itself too: it seems anticompetitive in purpose (and the main cited source gives it pretty large on that point!) I've taken some care over legal risks there - re defamation.

(See also following Talk section, re muddled History, for where this paragraph about the Telegram block should go.)

If anything seems wrong here please be bold!

2.30.254.6 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

? Muddled History section - needs fixing
The 'Acquisition by Facebook': an episode in the narrative? Or a Great Divide, defining pre- and post-Acquisition eras? Doesn't matter which we choose .. but I think we have to choose!

And then sort out the History section. (We should probably refer to the separate Timeline article, along the way!)

What's been happening, I think (but I haven't checked the page history!) is that some editors add new events to the end of the main History sequence – but others add them at the end of the Acquisition section (cos they're since the Acquisition, obviously!)

When this is sorted, the paragraph on the Telegram block (see separate Talk section, preceding) can go in its correct place!

Events since the Acquisition itself all need to go at the end of the Acquisition subsection – or after it, in the main History section that contains it.

95.149.131.34 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

About updates of whatsap
Please tell us about the upcoming update... Johnny editor (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Future software versions aren't usually discussed in Wikipedia articles unless they have been the subject of reliable, third-party coverage. Has a news organization written about the upcoming update that you are referring to? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe he is talking about some new features that were leaked on a couple of sites, like GIF support and public groups... I fail to see how that's really relevant to put in the article whilst these features apparently can't be seen by the users. It can always be added when it's actually released in to the software. HarFord013 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

whatsapp messages hijacked
some one hijacking my whatsapp messages and distressing my privacy. How can I stop them. I dont know what method they using, but it s sure that someone hijack all communications in whataapp. please advice me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.85.160 (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No longer an option to opt-out of data sharing
However, users are given the choice to opt out of sharing this data with Facebook for advertisement purposes.[113]

The article is dated; there is no longer an option to opt out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.174.40 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

frend
zkre Youns Garde (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017
WhatsApp has been working hard on its privacy and security aspects from the very beginning. In its last move, it has developed end to end encryption techniques in 2016 which allow users to send encrypted messages to the receiver with surety that no one else can decrypt their messages in between. Now in its latest move in 2017, WhatsApp has added one more level to its security features known as 2 step verification process.

The step has been taken basically to protect your account and information. This is an optional feature as of now, however, they believe that you should go for it to make your account more secure. In 2 step verification process, you need to generate a 6 digit passcode which you need to enter in order to reinstall it on the same or any other device. WhatsApp will not re-verify your number if you don't enter the right passcode. WhatsApp will ask you to enter a recovery email address on which they can send you a mail to disable the 2 step verification in case you forget the passcode.

To help you remember your 6 digit passcode WhatsApp will periodically ask you for your passcode. There is no other option to disable this step once enabled. That’s why you should choose a recovery email id where you can get a link in case you forget the passcode. You can disable the feature first and then verify your number. If you have not chosen any email id and forget your passcode it will not allow you to re-verify your number for next 7 days. After 7 days of when you last used WhatsApp, they will allow you to re-verify your number but all the previously saved and pending messages and files will be lost. So go for it wisely, it will surely increase your security level.

TarunKumarUpadhyay (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you use your phone number as a password recovery Tunga Dube (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Intro
"WhatsApp Inc., based in Mountain View, California, was acquired by in February 2014 for approximately US$19.3 billion."

By whom?

Facebook Tunga Dube (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017
157.50.5.103 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017
whatsapp web Appsforsys123 (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —   IVORK  Discuss 05:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2017
Please change: The commissioned alleges that in 2014, when it acquired the messaging app,

To: The Commission alleged that in 2014, when Facebook acquired the messaging app,

Because: It reads better. 79.66.102.218 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017
Request: merge the "Criticism#Security" section into the "Technical" section.

Reason: there's a tag "Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material." on the top of the article. My proposed change can help to solve this matter, I think. 200.223.199.146 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This edit doesn't appear to be necessary, considering how the section in question is written. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing User: Calstudent123/ sandbox
"In December 2015, it was reported that Islamic State terrorists had been using WhatsApp to plot the November 2015 Paris attacks.[142] ISIL also uses WhatsApp to traffic sex slaves.[citation needed]"

This is not a reliable source. It comes from an article from CNN. There is no proof that ISIL used WhatsApp to traffic sex slaves or if it was used in the November 2015 Paris attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4AA:3130:89C4:BF9C:A4A3:2C98 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2017
The infobox notes that WhatsApp is written in Erlang and cites the article "Inside Erlang, The Rare Programming Language Behind WhatsApp's Success". However, the given URL now displays an error page. Please change the URL for this citation to: https://www.fastcompany.com/3026758/inside-erlang-the-rare-programming-language-behind-whatsapps-success Medwds (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Archived url.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though the programming language parameter has now disappeared from the infobox. I think that in the cite the archiveurl and archivedate parameters should be hyphenated, i.e. archive-url and archive-date. Medwds (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I just fulfilled the original request. If the archived version is preferable, that's fine, but this way just seemed a bit less complicated.  City O f  Silver  14:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

In all the social media websites, there must be login type added.
In all the social media websites, or the websites in which there is login, we must added proper description that how a user can login. like in some social media there is only login by phone number or in some email is only login or in some any of both are valid. There must be Login Type added in Infobox Software. Examples

Login Type - Only by Phone Number Login Type - Only by Email address(or Username) Login Type - Phone Number or Email address(or Username)(Any) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niharpatel123456 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018
I believe some of the info and timeline is cluttered, I want to edit this to make it look better Osnel1 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018
As of January 2018, WhatsApp has over 1.5 billion users globally sending 60 billion messages every day. Nirajpatel90 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: WhatsApp is legally GPL 3 licensed software, not freeware
According to Wikipedia, and to WhatsApp documents itself, they are using the free software, GPL version 3 licensed software by their proprietary application WhatsApp. They are thus bound to GPL 3 license, and shall be providing the source code. That is clearly violation of the GPL license terms. Each user is free to ask them for the source code, and free to distribute, sell, and have any freedoms as GPL 3 licensed software is allowing it.

This matter shall be clearly stated on Wikipedia page, that Whatsapp is violating the GPL 3 license from the Java Library they are using. More about that: https://github.com/signalapp/libsignal-protocol-java/issues/42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdrun (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy
As of March 2018, it appears to me that the criticism and controversy section is OK in terms of balance and NPOV by usual Wikipedia standards. The section includes both sides of the Guardian episode as well as examples both of blocking by governments and use by terrorists. Therefore I propose removing the tag.CharlesHBennett (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What the heck is WhatsApp???
"WhatsApp Messenger is a freeware and cross-platform instant messaging and Voice over IP (VoIP) service.[45] The application allows the sending of text messages and voice calls, as well as video calls, images and other media, documents, and user location."


 * I still wonder what the heck it is, since on an iPhone or Apple Watch, you can say, "Hey Siri, send a message to George." So how is WhatsApp different? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC))

"freeware and cross-platform" You answered your own question 99.159.28.37 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)