Talk:WhatsApp/Archive 2

Incomplete intro
"The application runs from a mobile device though it is also accessible from desktop computers; the service uses standard cellular mobile numbers" - This is true, but it should be clearer that the app cannot be used unless one gives a cellphone number. (Ive tried. I have no cellphone, and WhatsApp denied me access.) 5.34.22.17 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

pronunciation
I would think this app would be pronounced like what's followed by app, but I hear people pronounce it like what's followed by up. What is the correct pronunciation?5.34.22.17 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been corrected by American folks at the company when I pronounce it "What's up" or how people say it where I live, in Mexico, "whatsahp". However, I've heard Latin Americans who work for the company pronounce it "WhatsAhp" too. But it seems officially to be "What's APP" (app as in "apple"). Still... probably more users are in India than anywhere and we should ask them ;) Keizers (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
there is an "On May 2017" that should be "In May 2017" 2605:E000:9149:A600:EC65:ACCC:3622:D3AF (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! Also, I reworded that section a bit. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No mention of the lynchings going on based on false news?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/india-child-kidnap-abduction-video-rumours-killings-1.4737041 CBC discusses this. 174.0.48.147 (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I added something Keizers (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Define SMB
The second heading "SMB and Enterprise platforms" uses an acronym SMB which is not defined in the text. Can this heading be reworded to avoid using SMB or somehow defining the term SMB as Small and medium-sized businesses in the text?--Dobratzp --Dobratzp (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018
2405:205:C8C9:35B9:227:15FF:FE08:9746 (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ChamithN   (talk)  08:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
27.97.138.43 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  05:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018
In the WhatsApp Timeline area change Feb 4,2009 to Feb 24,2009. Vikas Sharma 110 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Correction made to Template:WhatsApp timeline. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019
190.63.254.123 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019
27.97.156.154 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Source of revenue?
Does anyone know how WhatsApp or where it gets its revenue from? With no information, it's easy to come up with theories. DBlomgren (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019
Whatsapp preview version is 2.19.296(October 17 2019) Visakh Vijayab (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ✔️ -, as far as I can tell, the preview version seems to already read as "2.19.296" in the infobox. I couldn't find a clashing appearance elsewhere in the article. If you can see otherwise, please let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Business model
What is WhatsApp's business model? --Error (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"WHO Health Alert", add?

 * Lily Hay Newman WhatsApp Is at the Center of Coronavirus Response; The World Health Organization is partnering with the messaging app to help ensure trustworthy information gets out 03.20.2020 wired.com

(in contrast to WhatsApp is a Petri Dish of Coronavirus Misinformation; Why it’s so hard to stop fake news on the giant messaging platform. March 20, 2020 motherjones.com)

X1\ (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Erm..
Could we possibly have an annotated screenshot detailing WhatsApps functions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest version for Windows Phone?
The version is listed as 2.18.112 as of right now but my Windows Phone have 2.18.346. I have been unable to find a definitive source of what the actual latest version is. This is a concern re the security breach. (The Wiki edit history indicates that the above unsigned edit was made May 14 2019 by an IP editor))

Android Kopano lepota (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Android Kopano lepota (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pegasus gate
Since the main victims of the Pegasus program were WhatsApp's clients and since this is was a wide attack on many WhatsApp users, I think it should be mention here. At least as a subsection in the security section or better to have a full section only about this.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/13/phone-of-top-catalan-politician-targeted-by-government-grade-spyware https://www.ynetnews.com/article/BkPTEQ06U https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/nso-spyware-used-against-moroccan-journalist/ https://scroll.in/article/942378/whatsapp-spyware-how-many-people-have-been-targeted-by-the-pegasus-hack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.204.125 (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

mrjangoon says: I agree lets merge with fake news in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Never jangoon again (talk • contribs) 04:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WhatsApp University into WhatsApp
very small topic, relevant to WhatsApp and not required outside the main article. Needs pruning and merging Fiddle   Faddle  10:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC) *Oppose any kind of merge I am the author of this article. Merge to WhatsApp is not appropriate because the topic WhatsApp University deals with fake news, hate speech etc, in India spreading on Whatsapp, facebook and other social media messages. Similarly a Merge to Fake news in India is not appropriate because the topic WhatsApp University deals with not just fake news but also hate speech, islamophobia, misinformation, unsubstantiatiated claims etc. WhatsApp University does have some overlapp with these 2 articles but it is not entirely a subset of either. So I suggest it remain independendent as the topic is notable on its own right. --Guy Foxx (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC) *:Thanks for understanding my rationale Fiddle. Before starting the new article I had strongly considered both the locations but finally I felt that this is best served in a different standalone article. So the best fit would be to let the article remain at its current location. I started it today and I plan to expand this article. --Guy Foxx (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC) *:::Thank you, Fiddle. Guy Foxx (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about merging it to Fake news in India instead? Whatsapp University is a trendy term used on social media and sometimes by some TV anchors. It is not well defined and is largely related to the phenomenon of unverified WhatsApp forwards which propagate fake news.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Davey 2010''' Talk 11:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As proposer of the merge I see the creating editor's rationale. I understand it though I am not in agreement with them. I believe that it may have a better home in Fake news in India, with a summary segment here in the WhatsApp article. I understand the hate speech element. Might a better fit be elsewhere? Fiddle   Faddle  12:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , As usual we all work away and the community judges our work. I wish you joy and success. I will offer no further opinions in this consensus building exercise. If you can build a good stand alone article I am sure your rationale will prevail. Fiddle   Faddle  15:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

By making overly simplistic comment claiming "all content already there", you are very conveniently glossing over several topics, that are part of WhatsApp University, yet do not fall under "Fake news". If you are not aware, you must know that hate speech, islamophobia, Anti-Dalit, Anti-communist, Anti-Congress, Anti-TMC, Anti-Shiv Sena etc etc (basically anything that is not pro RSS/BJP) content are not included in Fake News in India, even though these topics are part of WhatsApp University. Guy Foxx (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tag with G5 once Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt has been concluded as successful. Otherwise redirect to Fake news in India since all content already exists there. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge The article has enough content cited by several sources which makes it deserve its own article per WP:GNG. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Events have overtaken this discussion, which may be closed by anyone desiring to. The candidate for merge has been deleted, G5. Fiddle   Faddle  21:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Clean-up
Considering the label that is now gracing the top of this article, a good round of sweeping is needed, I presume. However, giving the article a cursory look, it seems like it doesn't have too much outright PR passages. What it does have is plenty of redundant info about unofficial apps (far as I know WhatsApp speficially bans those who use them) and the NSO incident is mentioned both in History and Reception sections. Considering that there have been quite a few other scandals regarding exploits and snooping on the app, I wonder if having that one take up two "slots" is worth it. I'd relegate it to the History section with its own subsection (its current state there, basically) while expanding the Reception section with more coverage and splitting stuff like Bans to a separate category. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template (courtesy ping .) There's no argument that this shouldn't exist, and while I'm all for alerting readers about commissioned articles, this isn't that. Net effect is that the template casts doubt on the reliability of one of our more important tech articles for the reader, when that isn’t really justified in this case. Since it’s not a net-positive to the reader, we shouldn’t have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on looking again, I have to agree, . Apologies for the trouble. On a more substantive note about the clean-up mentioned by : Does it make sense to have a dedicated "SMB and Enterprise platforms" section (especially relatively high up in the article)? I can't really put my finger on why, but something about it feels a little clunky to me. Blablubbs | talk 10:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WhatsApp itself is putting focus on these platforms as, I assume, they're the only official moneymakers for the app. But, for a Wiki page, it's a bit too high up for the average user, in my opinion. Things like platform availability, technical specs and security issues are a bit more important. It could go above User Statistics, perhaps? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @ASpacemanFalls works for me. I think it may also need a new heading: "SMB" isn't all that accessible to a casual reader (I, for one, have no idea what it means) – maybe just rename it to "products" or similar? Blablubbs | talk 13:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

security breach section
In Telegram, we have a section about security breaches of telegram.

There were also security breaches of WhatsApp as well. At least by NSO. So I think we should have a dedicated section for this as well. just in order to be consist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5906:BE00:8197:62BF:BC4E:E733 (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

7 years 2014-2021 of autonomous control then moved to FB control
It's always 7 years of freedom after acquisition then it's transferred to the parent company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkyw (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition

 * The addition we are debating about is:

the original cited sources says nothing about 40 million downloads. 'Possibly not unrelated' sounds like speculation. There is no MOS-compliant reason for your use of italics. If there is a reliable secondary source to support this, please cite it, and consider whether it would be better to use in-line attribution. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  11:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The original cited sources show exactly what the statement was stated, but maybe you are not familiar with GPlay or the Wayback Machine, so I apologise for my assumptions. I have created a screenshot and marked the information; this have been also mentioned in numerous (secondary) sources, which you can easily read by entering "signal 40 million" in google search (like RT, Android Police, Tech Crunch (paywall/adblockblock), mentions in Reuters and I am sure more can be found with some efforts). I would appreciate if you would revert your revert first, then you may pick any source you deem appropriate from this list. Thank you for your efforts in advance! --grin ✎ 11:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, forgot to ping you. --grin ✎ 11:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , to support the statement you added, you would need a reliable secondary source directly linking the postponement of the policy update to those 40 million downloads. The currently-used CNBC source mentions a surge in downloads for rival services, but it says nothing to imply that is the reason for the delay to the policy roll-out. You need a source that makes the link if you want to add anything like that to the article. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand what you ask for. You mean that you expect the company to make a press release about pulling back their policy change since they have realised that they may have lost 40 million users within days? There never will be such a release from any companies. (What else could be the reason for pulling back, anyway, apart from keeping their userbase, which is their only asset? I wonder what you might suggest here.) Nor can anyone realistically expect 40 million users making statements about why they have downloaded the rival messenger platforms, nor can anyone prove connection it, apart from the unmistakable correlation between facebook policy change, the backlash in possibly all social and other media and the 40+ million new downloads the same week (and also probably same magnitude for Telegram, but I do not have the numbers nor am I interested). I kindly contest your judgement here since in my opinion the strict coincidence of these events unmistakeably show (but obviosuly cannot prove) the connection. I would prefer you to revert your change unless other editors agree with your opinion. Thank you! --grin ✎ 12:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , what you are indulging in here is original research. We don't need a press release (which would be a primary source anyway), we need a reliable secondary source making the connection. If there is a reliable secondary source that speculates that the 40 million downloads was a contributory factor to the decision, then we could add something to the article with inline attribution (eg John Smith, writing in Foo Weekly, suggested that the large number of downloads was likely a contributory factor in the decision to...). What we cannot do is indulge in such speculatation ourselves, in Wikipedia's voice. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me quote verbatim:


 * Isn't this specifically the source you are describing? If not, could you specify what would, in your opinion, describe it better than these? --grin ✎ 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , OK, first things first - Russia today has been formally deprecated as an unreliable source - don't use it. See WP:RSP for links to the RfCs. I have no view on the reliability or otherwise of Android Police.
 * However, what is more important is that neither of these make any statement that would support the assertion that the decision to delay the policy was due to the surge in popularity of these apps. They seem to imply that the surges were due to the change in policy, but neither of them say anything about whether that surge in popularity led to the WhatsApp decision to delay. You can't read between the lines, you can't use common sense or draw inferences - you summarise what the source says. They don't say it, we don't say it. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  14:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you have a weird feeling that whenever you ask something it takes approximately 5 seconds to find a response? :-/


 * So, would you consider The Verge, FT or Fortune as a reliable source, and would you consider the quotes fitting what you have described? I have given you sources telling policy change as the reason for the outflow of users, I have given you sources telling that policy callback was caused by the outflow of the users, I really wonder what else do you expect to justify a sentence which contained that it is possible that the events are related. Also I would like to share the feeling that you do not want to see that sentence - and the mention of Signal / Telegram - in the WhatsApp article, for some yet unknown reason, that's why you ask rock hard proof for a mildly phrased [and obvious for the causal reader] sentence. (Sidenote: while I don't usually quote RT I must comment that it's not wise to reject it blindly: while its policial articles are usually fake I can't say the same for common topic articles.) --grin ✎ 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , your WP:ASPERSIONS about my motivations are inappropriate for an article talk page - if you want to comment on my motives, you should do so on my user talk page, or at a noticeboard like WP:COIN or WP:AN.
 * You added a vaguely worded (and non-MOS compliant) parenthetical clause to a sentence that already existed about the pushback and postponement - to be frank, as an uninterested observer (this page only came to my attention because of people posting spam links), your addition looked more like in-article commentary rather than an encyclopaedic contribution. I have no qualms about the FT or The Verge as sources (no view on Fortune), so if you want to add something that has an appropriate tone, and which is directly supported by assertions in the body of those articles (not their WP:HEADLINEs), I have no concerns about the article mentioning Signal and/or Telegram.
 * (Sidenote: I have not said that it is wise to reject RT blindly, I don't know their content well enough to have a personal view on the matter, but a recent consensus was established for it to be WP:DEPRECATEd - that's the position that we're in.) Girth Summit  (blether)  16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned your motivations since I cannot really explain why you so assertively insist your unflexible rules on this specific topic where it feels inappropriately harsh. You are fighting against everything I reply and you come up more and more restrictive stipulations by every reply. I gladly hear that you have no general objction the addition we discuss about, so there is a hope that at some point we can reach the state which is acceptable to you, too.
 * Anyway. Please link what MOS compliance is since I am not familar with the term. Again I disagree with your opinion that the addition would be irrelevant, since it is probably the biggest motivation (as the quantitative measurement of user disapproval; among other already mentioned or listed factors) behind the callback, and definitely carry information relevant to the article and the topic. However I cannot comply with your request as to use "a tone you find appropriate" and phrase it that "you accept that it is directly supported by the asertions in the body of the articles" (and notice emphasis on the parts you, again, additionally came up with, seemingly ignoring the linked guideline which is clearly about headlines unrelated to the article body and not headlines summarizing the content), partly since English is not my mother tongue, so I would appreciate if you'd either phrased it appropriately and with the wished direct connections, and either you or myself could then insert this perfectly source-reflected (and visibly obvious and possibly pretty hard to debate) fact into the article.
 * Thank you for your time. --grin ✎ 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, one thing at a time, in random order.
 * MOS-compliant means compliant with the WP:MOS - we don't use italics for emphasis on the way that you did. (MOS:ITALIC, to be specific). The construction 'possibly not unconnected' is also unhelpfully speculative, to the point of sounding like irony - not the tone called for by the MOS.
 * I understand why you mentioned my motivations - I'm not particularly bothered about it, I was just letting you know that it was inappropriate. So long as you understand that, all is well.
 * I mentioned WP:HEADLINE because the quotes you put further up were just that. Headlines are not considered reliable sources of information, unless they themselves are clearly supported by the content of the articles they're attached to - hence why I said that that anything added to the page should be supported by the body of the source. This isn't my rule, these are general editing guidelines that apply to all of us.
 * 'Probably one of the biggest motivations' sounds like speculation again, which we don't do. When I look at those sources, I don't see them making a direct connection between the number of downloads and the decision, as you did. I agree with you that there very likely to be a connection, but we cannot join those dots. If you wanted to add a factual clause simply saying that competitors saw increased downloads, and attach some numbers to it, I'd be unconcerned. Don't explicitly link the decision to the numbers themselves unless the sources do.
 * Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realise that you asked me to proposed an appropriate wording. This could probably do with some word-smithing, but I wouldn't be worried if the whole sentence were to be replaced with something along the lines of Concerns about its privacy policy update led to a backlash, with competitors such as Signal and Telegram gaining tens of millions of new users. WhatsApp responded by posting a revised FAQ on its website, and postponing the implementation of the privacy policy update scheduled from February 8 2021 to May 15 2021. I based that on the The Verve source, which gives a figure of 25 million for Telegram, and states that that is less than Signal without giving a figure; if one of the other sources gives a figure for both then I'd be unconcerned about giving numbers for both. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  19:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Lawsuit to 'Reception and Criticism'?
It sticks out in the history section, especially having its own subsection, perhaps it would make sense to shift it down to R&C, where all the other security issues are addressed? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Lack of 'Features' section
Just now realized that the page lacks a section specifically dedicated to describing WhatsApp's core features, which means a lot of stuff about them goes into the 'History' section. The competing messengers mostly have such sections so it seems like a good idea to create one here. If nobody's against it, I can lay the foundation. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021
37.239.214.7 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eevee01(talk) 06:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 Android beta update
The reference cited has a hyperlink to a WhatsApp's announcement. Perhaps that would that be better than the current reference or maybe it should be added. Edit if you agree. Mcljlm (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

funny enough, in the early 1990's
There was free IP phone for Win95. There was no middle man: the two caller's computer's communicted directly by IP (which is the normal and simple way). Worked perfectly, no portability issues, and was COMPLETELY FREE fine but didn't catch on. It worked on any IP device with a speaker - there was no need for specific device support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:480:a4c0:4ecc:6aff:fe8e:47d (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-free edit request on 24 October 2021
Beginning November 1, WhatsApp will stop supporting Android phones running versions before Android 4.1. https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/whatsapp-to-stop-supporting-older-android-ios-phones-from-november-1/lite/ Testemailfordg2 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Beginning November 1, WhatsApp will stop supporting Android phones running versions before Android 4.1. Testemailfordg2 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-pr8 of janaryotected edit request on 26 October 2021
190.80.24.224 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021
I suggest that you add secondary sources to the info about Symbian end-of-support in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#Platform_support

Here are some possible sources:

(for support ending in 2016)
 * https://www.allaboutsymbian.com/flow/item/21554_Whatsapp_to_stop_working_on_Sy.php
 * https://www.gsmarena.com/whatsapp_drops_support_for_symbian_app_to_stop_working_on_dec_31-blog-19328.php

(for support extended to 2017)
 * https://nokiapoweruser.com/whatsapp-support-for-nokia-s40-symbian-s60-windows-phone-7-1-ends-by-2016/ Ashune (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In this sentence:

On February 26, 2016, WhatsApp announced they would cease support for BlackBerry (including BlackBerry 10), Series 40, and Symbian S60,[a][b] as well as older versions of Android (2.2), Windows Phone (7.0), and iOS (6), by the end of 2016.[145] BlackBerry, Series 40, and Symbian support was then extended to June 30, 2017.[146][c]

Add the first two links as sources in the positions marked with [a] and [b], and the third link as a source in the position [c]. Ashune (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ✅ Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 13:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Using WABetaInfo as a source
Just saw a section referencing that blog was deleted and wanted to raise the issue. While the blog seems to be run by an amateur, it's been highlighted by WhatsApp's current heads as a legitimate source of info and they specifically cited it as a reliable outlet. However, in my mind that just makes it even less of a good source since it's: a) still an amateur and anonymous blog; b) promoted by WhatsApp for its favorable coverage of the app. Any other thoughts on the matter? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Alleged hack by BJP
Can someone add a brief line (under security/privacy) about the alleged ability of the BJP Indian political party to hack WhatsApp accounts via Tek Fog in order to mass message contacts with propaganda? This seems really serious to me - The Wire says that a whistleblower with access to the app was able to hack a test account "within minutes" 2601:641:400:B2A:68B4:E136:84E3:A0CF (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

E.g. - sample line to add at the bottom of the security/privacy session.

An investigation by The Wire found that the Indian BJP political party allegedly created an app called Tek Fog which was capable of hacking WhatsApp accounts en masse in order to mass message their contacts with propaganda. According to the Wire, a whistleblower with app access was able to hack a test WhatsApp account controlled by reporters "within minutes." WhatsApp has not commented on the story.

Feel free to edit/etc. of course. 2601:641:400:B2A:68B4:E136:84E3:A0CF (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @2601:641:400:B2A:68B4:E136:84E3:A0CF I have added it along with the reference. If you WP:create an account you will be able to add it yourself. Venkat TL (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatsApp - not intended to be an instant messaging app?
In section History/2009-2014, is written,


 * In January 2009, after purchasing an iPhone and realizing the potential of the app industry on the App Store, Koum and Acton began visiting Koum's friend Alex Fishman in West San Jose to discuss a new type of messaging app that would show "statuses next to individual names of the people".

I just read the reference (currently 60 - the Forbes article "Exclusive: The Rags-To-Riches Tale Of How Jan Koum Built WhatsApp Into Facebook's New $19 Billion Baby" by Parmy Olson)

It seems to present a different view of Koum's original vision.


 * Keen to jump into what he saw as a multi-million dollar industry about to burgeon, Koum came up with an idea for an app to provide dynamic information about the people listed in your address book:


 * “Jan was showing me his address book,” recalls [Alex] Fishman. “His thinking was it would be really cool to have statuses next to individual names of the people.” The statuses would show if you were on a call, your battery was low, or you were at the gym.


 * (This actually seems to me to make much more sense of the name Koum chose for his baby - WhatsApp =~ What's up => what's my status at this moment, so you know if you can call me right now.)


 * It wasn't until four to five months after he'd incorporated WhatsApp and distributed the app to a few of his Russian speaking mates (impliedly, to not much applause or enthusiasm), when Apple launched push notifications in June 2009, that Koum updated WhatsApp so that users could 'ping' their current status, such as “Can’t talk, I’m at the gym” to the other WhatsApp users who were not currently using the App. The way the facility was used, (impliedly) took Koum a little by surprise when they began "ping[ing] each other with jokey custom statuses like, “I woke up late,” or “I’m on my way.” "


 * Suddenly a new kind of instant messaging facility was born out of the chance capability that users found far, far more useful than the app's intended purpose:


 * “At some point it sort of became instant messaging,” says Fishman. “We started using it as ‘Hey how are you?’ And then someone would reply.” Jan watched the changing statuses on a Mac Mini at his town house in Santa Clara, and realized he’d inadvertently created a messaging service.


 * The next release of WhatsApp, 2.0, came along in August 2009 "with a messaging component" deliberately built in.

That, at least, is the impression I get from Parmy Olson's Forbes piece.

If anyone knows different, please signify here, in the meantime, I'll try to contact Olson to ask if I've misunderstood the intention of her 2014 article.

If anyone happens to be in contact with Koum or any of the other original WhatsApp developers and could confirm with them directly, that, of course, would be ideal.

Failing that, and given that there is no contention showing up here in the next week or so, and I get none back from Olson, I'll update the History section based upon the above indented paragraphs to give a more accurate idea of how WhatsApp was born. Hedles (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC). . . edited by Hedles (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please paraphrase the following text you added to the article: “At some point it sort of became instant messaging,” says Fishman. “We started using it as ‘Hey how are you?’ And then someone would reply.” Jan watched the changing statuses on a Mac Mini at his town house in Santa Clara, and realized he’d inadvertently created a messaging service. The fact, that this is a very long quote from the rags reference, is not clear to the reader. Also, the three-level nesting of quotes is not pretty. Dexxor (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Instant messaging, or telecommunications?
Skype is described as a "telecommunications application" in the opening sentence; WhatsApp as "instant messaging". What criteria are used to determine the distinction? The two applications basically provide the same functions, so why the distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtranslates (talk • contribs) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit notice
I'm guessing that the ongoing "hi" messages posted on this talk page are from people who google for WhatsApp, open the Wikipedia article and hit the "talk" tab believing that they're now using WhatsApp. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 13:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, except Editnotices don't (yet) display on mobile so we're still getting these. There's maybe been an uptick since the last thread archive, which would make sense given how comically blank talk pages otherwise are on mobile. I'll drag some archived threads back to make it look more like an active forum than a blank "Add topic" page, which seems to be the only way to display any kind of talk page message to mobile users. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

edit request: please add wikilink to "Jeff Bezos phone hacking incident"
Below this section: WhatsApp

Please add this link:

Thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Dexxor (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022
88.236.102.146 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — hako9 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022 (2)
42.201.253.170 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022
103.78.252.14 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Best regards, Vukky TalkGuestbook 21:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022
Change alleges to alleged. (Typo) 67.71.210.90 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#128156; melecie   talk  - 23:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022
I propose to change this:

WhatsApp was founded by

to this:

WhatsApp was founded in February 2009 by

Thank you in advance.

--MartinPict (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022
GB WhatsApp GB WhatsApp It is common knowledge that WhatsApp is a messaging application that makes use of the data from our internet connection and enables users to communicate with one another through free voice and video conversations, as well as the transmission of text messages. However, there are also certain restrictions to consider. Because WhatsApp is restricted in the services it can offer, we have developed an alternative that goes by the name GB WhatsApp.

GB WhatsApp 110.39.163.163 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We're not promoting your alternative site here. Cannolis (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022
remove (formerly Facebook) followed by Meta platform. Meooowiki (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ RealAspects (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Change product definition from "service" to "app".
If you're on the internet, and you read the Wikipedia, you know what an app is. The word "App" should be considered common tongue. So I propose changing the product definition from "service" to "app".

The internet service categorie that exist today are already confusing enough. We have stuff like _serverless servers_ (https://www.google.com/search?q=serverless) and _command line apps_ (https://charm.sh/). WhatsApp is clearly an App - (it says so in the name).

WhatsApp can be installed on some platforms with a terminal like `winget.exe install whatsapp.whatsapp` on Windows. But mostly WhatsApp is pulled from an App-store. I am also _quite sure_ that the web version of WhatsApp will be replaced with a _Progressive Web App_ in the foreseeable future. Which is an App distribution format that web browsers recognize. Junaga1 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding about need some changes on this whatsapp wikipedia page
Hi very pleasant good day, can you change the new logo icon on the wikipedia page please... why the old logo icon still there... 190.83.224.42 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023
In the sidebar it states the following:

"Operating system: Android, iOS, KaiOS (There are also Mac OS, Windows and web app clients that work only when connected to the mobile app client.)"

It's not true anymore that desktop clients can't function anymore without being connected to the mobile client. They can function independently now after being verified one time. Firebird55 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ In general, please remember to request edits in a clear "change X to Y" format. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor tidy needed
The Scholia template should be in ext links and the Commons template should be a RH box instead of inline. 43.249.196.218 (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Tek Fog- changes needed?
In the section concerning the use of tek fog it states the following:

"In January 2022, an investigation by The Wire found that BJP, an Indian political party allegedly used an app called Tek Fog which was capable of hacking inactive WhatsApp accounts en masse in order to mass message their contacts with propaganda. According to the Wire, a whistleblower with app access was able to hack a test WhatsApp account controlled by reporters "within minutes."

However, following up the story by reading the Tek Fog page states that:

Tek Fog was a hoax news story reported by Indian news and opinion website The Wire. Tek Fog was supposedly an application used by the India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). After various experts and journalists raised questions about the authenticity of the story, The Wire suspended, and later formally retracted it, due to cooked up evidence and alleged discrepancies in the material used. The Wire also issued a formal apology to its readers and asked for a formal donation.

Shouldn't the text within the whatsapp page disclose the fact the story was untrue as well, considering that it was made up and currently causes inconsistencies within the wiki? Black magic2w2 (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023
Mrkiran87281 (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ We're not spamming the article with links to other apps. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023 - Update and improve information on chatbots and their impact in the e-commerce industry
Change:

In August 2022, WhatsApp launched an integration with JioMart, available only to users in India. Local users can text special numbers in the app to launch an in-app shopping process, where they can order groceries.

To:

In May 19, 2022, Meta announced the global public availability of the cloud-based platform, enabling businesses of all sizes worldwide to directly connect with WhatsApp through the WhatsApp Cloud API. Chatbots on WhatsApp have emerged as a prominent reference channel for consumers, establishing themselves as an integral part of the omnichannel e-commerce experience.

In August 2022, WhatsApp launched an integration with JioMart, available only to users in India. Local users can text special numbers in the app to launch an in-app shopping process, where they can order groceries. Cesarcas1994 (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Inappropriate promotional tone, see WP:NPOV. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"WApp" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WApp&redirect=no WApp] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Silcox (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)