Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 5

New Section: title?
I want to include a new section, because I was researching something unrelated online and discovered that a outside of the United States and Europe it is a common/mainstream belief that wikileaks is not what it purports to be or an intelligence front of some sort. I don't want to make this into a section discussing whether wikileaks is or not, just citations of different countries with that opinion and some polls about the belief of people within those countries. Any suggestions? As this represents a significant belief in the world, not mainstream within America and Europe, but in other parts, I am not quite sure how to treat it. And I don't want to characterize it EMbargo145 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give us a few sources for this? Unless this issue has itself been discussed in the media, it would seem questionable whether we could include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is of course understandable: here are articles that discuss the existence of this theory:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-row-putin-reaction-batman-robin Russia's Putin states that leaks are occurring deliberately
 * http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581189,00.html#ixzz18iUwHz9i Time article from 2007 discusses the existence of this theory ".....That is, of course, as long as you don't accept any of the conspiracy theories brewing that Wikileaks.org could be a front for the CIA or some other intelligence agency....Yet the speculation that Wikileaks might a front for an intelligence agency is understandable, considering the recent arrival of "Intellipedia" — an internal wiki system used by 16 U.S. spy agencies."
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733060,00.html Iran claims that the United States is deliberately leaking the documents
 * http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100065816/is-wikileaks-a-front-for-the-cia-or-mossad/
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574462119793480.html John Young, founder of Cryptome.org and ex-affiliate of Wikileaks, quits ::wikileaks claiming that it pimps out secrets for money, leaks wikileaks' emails online
 * http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wikileaks-cables-deliberately-published-by/730328/ Gallup poll in Pakistan finds majority of people believe US published the documents themselves
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7914003/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-former-Pakistani-general-blames-US-for-war-leak.html ex-chief of the ISI says leaks are being put fourth by the United States.
 * http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks-secrets a discussion of John Young's of Cryptome.org's accusation against Wikileaks
 * http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/758/wikileaks-a-deliberate-accident/ An article from Pakistan's tribune questions whether the leak is deliberate


 * Unfortunately, most of the rest of my sources are from international newspaper print articles or TV transcripts - most of the world lacks the internet - but I can access them via LexisNexis and can cite them and make them available online if necessary. I have some from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Kenya, Thailand, and others

"Primary interest"?
The article currently states: WikiLeaks states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations."

Are there any statistics about what percentage of WikiLeaks' posted documents come from particular countries/governments? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to 5 movies to be made about Wikileaks and a play is happening at the moment.
Wanted to add this but wasn't exactly sure where to do so. Perhaps we can make a new culture section or in popular culture (or maybe add it in the reception section?) (film ref),  (play ref).Calaka (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

'Wikileaks is an international nonprofit organization"
I believe that we must remove the "nonprofit" from the first sentence; being a nonprofit organization requires being registered as a nonprofit organization, which wikileaks is not. The only source for it being a nonprofit is Wikileaks' own statement, which is a primary source. In Britain, Wikileaks Community is classified as a "public limited company" (incorporate in 2006) http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-250k.pdf and Sunshine Press, founded in 2010 by Julian Assage, is listed as a limited private company. http://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIONS-EHF-FOR-PROFIT-LIMITED-COMPANY-DOCUMENTS. I don't think we should omit whether it is or is not a non-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMbargo145 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find references to this point in WP:RS, concluding through your own investigations that WikiLeaks isn't 'nonprofit' might be WP:OR - there are certainly sources that refer it it as being nonprofit'.
 * Although apparently bogged down, I think it's an important point. On May 11, NewStatesman published an article (here) giving facts and reasons why WikiLeaks can be seen as a de facto commercial enterprise. Someone tried to involve the outcome of that article with this move, which was immediately reverted. No wonder, while changing 'white' to 'black' in the definition of an organization is at least daring. But the comment with the revert was that the claim was 'unsourced'. Which is also suggestive, while NewStatesman is a source. Of course we're moving into WP:RS here, because the NS article is based on an internal WikiLeaks document of which we cannot determine the originality as we see it in the PDF linked there. But isn't that the problem with publications on documents leaked to WL in the first place? Note that we have assured lines in our article like "This allowed every death in Iraq, and across the border in Iran, to be mapped", which are considered to be reliably sourced. Yes, sure, this is a point. If WL indeed maintains policies like the suggested one, it must have influence on the claim that WL is a nonprofit organization. Apdency (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "international" is being ignored here. I don't believe there is any way of "registering" an "international nonprofit organization", so to demand registration is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's also a good point. Apdency (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting the burden of proof on WP editors to show that WL is NOT a non-profit organisation is wrong, as well as stating that an editor is engaging in OR when they find no RS stating that is non-profit a "for profit" company. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC) ...also, if "international nonprofit organization" is, in fact, essentially a meaningless statement why is it the 5th word in the article? If WL was registered in ANY one country as non-profit, that would give some weight to the fact that it is meeting some legal standard (somewhere) as to purpose. It, AFAIK, is not, and putting "non-profit" in the 1st sentence of the lead is completely weasely. Define WL in the lead by RS, not by their own self-definition. For example:
 * |"WikiLeaks is a whistle-blowing Web site that became the focus of a global debate over its role in the release of thousands of confidential messages about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the conduct of American diplomacy around the world."
 * is roughly the general opening definition I see in the news media. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Organization, not organisation. Is this the British spelling? I've tried to change this, but the site will not let me. I assume this is because organisation, with an 's' is the correct way to spell in Britian. In America we spell this with a 'z'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.18.178 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. This article is written in British English - see the note at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Insurance file passkey.
The key for the insurance file is widely reported as being  According to various sources this seems to decrypt the file and decrypted versions have been appearing on various torrent sites all through the day. Is it worth mentioning?--Lead holder (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not until it is referred to by mainstream reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Register is proper enough right? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/01/cablegate_leak_row/ --Lead holder (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also of course anyone who has access to the book mentioned can confirm I'm sure (Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by David Leigh) --Lead holder (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Guardian has itself written on this - though given the circumstances, they seem to be rather too closely involved to be used as WP:RS. The BBC have reported on this too: ], and I think this is likely to be preferable. The same story is on the Huffington Post website, and on an ABC one , so there is probably enough coverage to merit a paragraph about this - but based on the mainstream media, not on blogs (i.e. no password, links to Torrent etc, and most definitely no material supposedly from the decrypted files - we have no way to know if they are genuine, apart from any other issues). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The CSV files that are now downloadable certainly look legit.--Lead holder (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether they 'look legit' is beside the point - they aren't published in WP:RS, and until they are, nothing from them is relevant to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the content of the files that are hanging around online right now. There is no doubt that the key has been leaked and that an encrypted "insurance" file is now decryptable. As your links showed, these facts are as confirmed as they can be. Would you say that deserves a mention in the "Insurance file" section of the article? I think it is unlikely that any serious media outlet will be publishing anything from the so-called unredacted file itself so all we can really expect is what we have: the facts of the leaked key and the ability to decrypt a specific file. It is surely deserving of mention.
 * https://rapidshare.com/files/2992019334/insurance.aes256-decrypted.7z and http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SHC0593Z appear to be links to the unencrypted file. There are a lot of entries several which match existing releases and although not really encyclopedia material it will be interesting to compare them to the file wikileaks eventually releases when they get round to it. Exciting times maybe.--Lead holder (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it was not the Insurance file's password, but a encrypted file that was mistakenly placed on a torrent used for mirroring the wikileaks website around the time of the dos attacks and domain highjacking was going on. ref1, ref2.81.231.140.240 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would make sense given the size of the insurance file. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Indian corruption
Dear Sir/Madam,

the history is back on course when Indian Independence opened gate for the mighty,powerful & influential people to loot assets,money & wealth of billion people.The thought itself is astonishing as Tax payers in the form of Citizen paying through RED Tape ..the money collected through this channel is almost hidden & never disclosed..even after RTI act (Right to Information)..the government & CAG (Comptroller Audit Governing body) failed to come clean in this matter.The growing sentimental among strong Indian Middle class wants to know ..where India stands in collective tax filing ..because for example 1 Liter petrol costs in India is Rs.16 but Government pricing is Rs.70/- inclusive of Central & State Tax. The Auto industry has the same story ..according to legend Adam Smith ..economies of scale. 1.3 billion people including worlds largest strong middle class & largest democracy ..the obvious result is ASTRONOMICALLY HIDDEN from the world????

this is the most important channel which has its myth ? RED TAPE????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.237.255 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Section headed "Bank of America"
[Article quoted:] ...

Late in 2010, Bank of America approached the law firm of Hunton & Williams to put a stop to WikiLeaks. Hunton & Williams assembled a group of security specialists, HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies. They decided upon a campaign that included the use of "false documents, disinformation, and sabotage."

During 5 and 6 February 2011, Anonymous hacked HBGary's web site, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account in revenge. Some of the documents taken by Anonymous show HBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of America to respond to WikiLeaks' planned release of the bank's internal documents. Emails detailed a supposed business proposal by HBGary to assist Bank of America's law firm, Hunton & Williams, and revealed that the companies were willing to break the law to bring down WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

"CEO Aaron Barr thought he'd uncovered the hackers' identities and like rats, they'd scurry for cover. If he could nail them, he could cover up the crimes H&W, HBGary, and BoA planned, bring down WikiLeaks, decapitate Anonymous, and place his opponents in prison while collecting a cool fee. He thought he was 88% right; he was 88% wrong."[241]

[End quote]

The first two of these paragraphs have no citations, so at very least the objectivity can be questioned. (The information stated may be quite accurate, but there is nothing to confirm that.) The quotation that makes up the last paragraph, though providing a citation, is inexplicably tacked on the end with out context.

Wayne aus (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Financing
When credit card companies began blocking payments to WikiLeaks, micropayment site/system Flattr was one way supporters could finance WLs. WLs can be "flattred" on their profile and on leaks. Noting Flattr should be included in the article, but is it useful to list how many times some of the leaks have been flattred? Is there an incentive/points for comparison there?

Also, from my understanding there is no sure way to find out what WLs is using the money for. Should this point be stated? Should one suggest that lack of traceable funds can be seen as a conflict of WLs over-arching concept of transparency for institutions/persons/government with power?

Can "Funding" and "Financing" be consolidated? Is there a reason for separation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

John Young & Cryptome
Under the section "Founding" it begins with "The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified," however Cryptome posted mailing list conversations between John Young and Julian Assange showing Young was an early supporter. http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

According to these conversations Young registered the .org domain. Third conversation in the list is the registration of "wikileaks.org" which shows John Young as the registrant but when one looks up "wikileaks.org" (http://www.whois.net/whois/wikileaks.org) John Shipton (Assange's father) is shown as the registrant. Because of this the reliability of the mailing list conversations is not too strong, but he was someone that Assange was in regular contact with during the formation of WLs.

I think Young has a place in the article but how should he be added? --Nobly untruthful 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs)


 * The Cryptome website is unlikely to be regarded by Wikipedia as a reliable source, and drawing such conclusions from the source will in any case constitute original research - unless the same conclusion is arrived at in published mainstream sources, it cannot be added to our article. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand now. I will refresh myself on research/sourcing. Thank you for your patient answer. --Nobly untruthful 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs)

Defections
Added the missing parts about the removed then deleted documents after the defection, but there was also software (and hardware?) that was removed in the process. This need to be researched and added so events and claims get properly sourced. Belorn (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The anti-Wikileaks project
Interesting overview: Yug (talk)  22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/10/the-return-of-aaron-barr-victim-of-embarrassing-hacking-now-cybersecurity-chief-at-large-federal-con.html

The Spy files
Just a heads up of a new release that came out from WikiLeaks and its associated partners:

They had a press conference recently but some of the above links are from a few days earlier. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ***
 * ***
 * Edit: Note that WSJ had this story a week or so ago but today seems the day when the actual documents are being released? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A few more:, , , , Calaka (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collaborating for GA?
Interested? Does anyone want to try to get this to GA/FA status? I've done a few GAs and FAs, but not ones related to the Internet or journalism, but I'm willing to give it a go. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support
 * Yeah I think it would be an interesting exercise. The easy aspect about this topic is that there are a lot of articles about it available on the web (maybe too much available!).Calaka (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True There is a lot of perspective, so it would be difficult for me to get a grip on it... I've never worked on an article about journalism or a website before, so it would be challenging, but I think rewarding. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks' history to be included?
As I remember, at past, wikileaks use wiki to construct its site as shown in http://web.archive.org/web/20071130203851/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks, and in this article, this is not mentioned, would it be better to also include this part as its history? p.s. I can't remember much about wikileaks at that time and unable to search for info of wikileaks at that time... C933103 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Breach of NPOV?
I apologize if I am doing this wrong, but it's my first time trying this. I think the last part of the first paragraph of the Wikileaks article may not be neutral in tone. 24.246.11.219 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "Hrafnsson is also a member of the company Sunshine Press Productions along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason and Gavin MacFadyen"? Belorn (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was refering to "The Guardian argued that WikiLeaks was to blame since they gave the impression that the decryption key was temporal (something not possible for a file decryption key)", but that too, I suppose. 24.246.11.219 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It says "Der Spiegel reported a more complex story involving errors on both sides" straight afterwards which is a pretty neutral way to report something - we're simply stating that different sources say different things. I'm going to remove the template seeming as it has been ~50 days and no changes. SmartSE (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Graham Nash song
sorry if i upset the ppls of wiki, (thanks to HiLo48 for directing me here) I am unsure why a song about the alleged file leaker of wiki leaks, Bradley Manning, would be seen as unneccessary. but to make my arguement, the song is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD0t4gNGx-8 and if you needed additional confirmation the song exists and is about Manning you can find it at Nash's site http://grahamnash.com/almost-gone hope this clears everything up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.70.190 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The song's significance in the context of WikiLeaks as a whole (as opposed to the context of Mr. Manning) is somewhat questionable. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Currently Mr Manning is the sole accused in leaking the files. Which I beleive, until the trial is finished, makes him for all intents and purposes the face of WikiLeaks. A song about Manning is synonymous with WikiLeaks until the trial linking him to WikiLeaks absolves, or condemns, him of his alleged crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.70.190 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree to adding it on the Bradley Manning article, but it is a bit of a stretch to add it here too since the song is about the actions of Bradley Manning, not about the publishing website. Belorn (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Belorn. The song is specific to Manning, more so than to WikiLeaks, so it belongs in the Manning article, but not in this one.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

site being active?
It seems like most files on the site, if not all of them, are unavailable form the site. --Namaste@ ? 05:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

wiki leaks relation
i think it should be mad more obvious to readers that wiki leaks is in no way associated with wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.121.207 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How? There's already a line at the top of the article that says "WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation." What else would you suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding additional information to clarify an ill conceived statement about Journalistic Privilege
I am trying to add information to this wiki based on the insertion under the “Potential criminal prosecution” heading that "The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[65][67]” entry.

I want to include a clarification regarding journalistic privilege. I believe that the entry is slightly misleading and wanted to address it with fact.

The entry I am trying to insert is:

Journalists are afforded no special legal protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution beyond what all citizens enjoy. As of 2011, 49 states have passed laws that provide special protections to journalists who promise to keep the identity of sources confidential. Also known as "Shield Laws", these laws vary between states.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court while deciding Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), Justice White, while delivering the opinion of the court said, “Thus, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a [journalist’s] agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it”.

How can I appropriately include this information so that the post is more accurate?Louiscelli (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To assert the 1972 decision has any influence on the Wikileaks case would be WP:OR (or perhaps more like WP:SYNTH) unless you have some reliable secondary sources (legal commantators, reporters or others) that makes this connection to the present case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Be aware that there is an implied term to any Westminster system of Parliamentary Democracy and its Constitution where the Press in general may be seen as a fourth arm and check and balance to the others and to Government in general. For this reason alone Courts are reluctant to reign in rights like Freedom of speech and Freedom of assembly. This is the crux of arguments for a common law right to publish otherwise confidential government correspondence in the public interests of trasnparency and review. 122.148.41.172 (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-date information?
As of the moment this message is written, there is a messagebox in the end of the Administration section saying that the article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. What part of the article does this refer to? Just the part regarding the software used by Wikileaks, or the article as a whole? Thanks! Ilias K., Greece 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaniardGR (talk • contribs)
 * I have found the edit in the article history where the "Out of date" tag was added. User:IRWolfie- added the tag to . I will contact IRWolfie- to see why they added the "Out of date" tag. Matt (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just the part about the software, that's why I put the tag at that section. It is that wikileaks used to use mediawiki for their format but then they changed style. I've changed article to section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have revised the section to clarify that WikiLeaks was implemented on MediaWiki software between 2006 and October 2010. I also removed the "Out of date" tag. I quickly checked for sources regarding Freenet, Tor and PGP and found only a source for Tor. I found discussion (but not reliable sources) implying that WikiLeaks does not use Freenet, so I removed that claim from the article. I have put a "citation needed" tag on PGP, considering that I have found old sources of a WikiLeak policy of not using PGP. Matt (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO
Made this addition a few weeks back, but one editor didn't like it; he said to discuss in talk.
 * In February 2012, Wikileaks was banned from a UNESCO conference on Wikileaks, Assange charging that the UN agency had "made itself an international human rights joke".
 * cite news |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2900422.ece |title=Assange protests UNESCO conference 'ban' |author=Hasan Suroor |date=16 February 2012 |newspaper=The Hindu |accessdate=22 February 2012 |quote=Describing it as "an intolerable abuse" of the United Nations organisation, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange demanded an immediate investigation and said it was "time to occupy UNESCO".

What is wrong with what I wrote? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem was that your addition asserted as fact that WikiLeaks had been banned, whereas the source you cited made clear that this was disputed. I'd suggest that you might also like to read a report on the issue from The Independent, which says "WikiLeaks claimed it had been banned from the event, organised by the World Press Freedom Committee. Yet key speakers yesterday included Mr Assange's lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, who delivered a passionate defence of the website in a 15-minute speech, while Unesco pointed to emails in which it had encouraged the website to "attend the Conference and take part of the debate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading the source, I only find minor differences with your text and the source. It might be better to say "Wikileaks speakers was banned from a UNESCO conference about Wikileaks impact on professional journalism". Other than that, the source looks to fully support your edit.
 * Update: Given the other news article, for article balance the different view points should be added. A second solution could be to rewrite it to a short summery of the event and then use both sources. Belorn (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks' bid for radical transparency failed
SAGE Publications (2012, March 23). Why Wikileaks' bid for radical transparency failed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 24, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120323001244.htm


 * For consideration by active editors of this article. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual paper is here. I fixed the link you gave as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query about page view statistics
I am rather puzzled by the page view statistics. When one goes to "history" and then clicks on that, we get told that the figure with which this has been viewed is somewhere between 115, 000 and 116, 000, then we get told that this ranked eighth on wiki.org. However, the article on Wikipedia, which has been viewed over 900, 000 times, we are told ranked 31 - and the article wiki, which has actually been viewed over two million, two hundred thousand times, we are told was ranked nine. Can some explain these anomalities? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't specific to this article, so questions about http://stats.grok.se are probably best asked at Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool. I suspect the answer to the anomaly you have noticed is that the rankings are based on the December 2010 figures shown at http://stats.grok.se/en/top, while the total at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/WikiLeaks is supposedly for the last 30 days.  There's a comment about delays in updating the rankings at User talk:Henrik, but it looks to me like Henrik is not actively maintaining the stats at the moment. --Cedderstk 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation
WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.:

Is this really important, we never said that of WikiHow, WikiAnswers or Wikia --''TheChampionMan1234 08:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was some confusion about this in the media when WikiLeaks got its first stories out, but by now it probably can be removed. --Conti|✉ 08:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm not so sure. There's a lot of members of the public with limited knowledge of both Wikileaks and Wikipedia, who will inevitably think they're related, unless we tell them otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Any example from media (Any news story will do) of this happening in the last 3 years? Like always, burden of evidence lies with the editors wanting to keep the material. If there is no source of this actually happening in the recent 3 years, the disclaimer do not look to be relevant to the article. Belorn (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem wasn't the media. The problem was our readers - I suggest you look through the archives for previous discussions (see in particular). This was debated extensively, and the clear consensus was that far too many of our readers didn't understand the (non)relationship - and many of them were making this misunderstanding clear not just on this talk page but elsewhere, and in rather objectionable terms. In particular, the Volunteer response team were having to field an extraordinary amount of misplaced flak over the issue. I see no reason to put them through it again, as may well happen the next time Wikileaks attracts media attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen a number of such cases arising in various desks as of late, so its probably worth keeping it for now. extra 999  ( talk ) 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

wikileaks-wiki
Would it be appropriate to add the wikileaks-wiki to the external links of the article?

MattisManzel (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks Credibility Questioned
Hi, I would like to know why the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has been removed, being all the footnotes with the articles been reported in the section. The editor (eddy the grump) wrote "Highly dubious sources". Could you please explain why the sources are dubious if there are published articles (by Atlantic Free Press (Nederland), Diario El Peso(Argentina) American Chronicle (USA) which to be credible just have to report "the question of the credibility"? In addition the articles I cited in the Wikileaks Credibility Questioned have been adopted by the last International Communication Association Conference that was held in Phoenix last May 24. The Conference material is available On-line on the ICA website and on www.academia.edu. Here's the paper presented at the ICA, the article by Gianluca D'Agostino is cited at page 8 and it's the starting point for the paper thesis about Wikileaks credibility:

http://www.academia.edu/1477222/A_Theoretical_Model_for_the_Wikileaks_Phenomenon.

http://www.icavirtual.com/2012/04/22/conference-paper-a-theoretical-model-for-the-wikileaks-phenomenon/

Besides all the articles are by Gianluca D'Agostino who used to be a CNN and Associated Press journalist, so the sources cannot be dubious under any circumstance. Please restore the section or put it under Media Response. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it because (a) it seems to be the opinion of a single journalist, (b) it has not been published in a mainstream source, and (c) in that it seems to be claiming that either Bradley Manning does not exist, or that he is behind some sort of conspiracy to present disinformation - and this appears to violate WP:BLP policy. We do not include every opinion of every journalist in this article (or any other) - see WP:WEIGHT. If you have evidence that mainstream credible published third-party sources have discussed D'Agostino's claims, please provide them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Third Party is the International Communication Association which adopted the article in one of its top papers presented at their last conference in Phoenix. The paper content revolves specifically around Wikileaks Credibility and it's even more credible than an average "mainstream" media source being the ICA an Academic and a scientific institution specifically focused on the subject of Communication and the ICA only publishes articles from Scientists and Scholars, so it's way more credible than any media source. Behindthewall (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the article does not claim that Bradley Manning does not exist, it just takes it as an example in an ironic way to question Wikileaks credibility so the journalist does not even try to affirm anything, quiet the contrary, indeed the article is a sort of fact-checking story about Wikileaks by posing the reader a number of questions regarding the credibility source of Wikileaks. I think is a useful instrument for the reader to keep posing question in today's reality.

The important contribution of the article by D'Agostino is the fact-checking analysis. An analysis that hasn't been done by any major media, because the mainstream media just took Wikileaks war-logs for granted without questioning their legitimacy. The article is a major contribution to develop today's reader awareness about the complexity of media and the difficult to recognize what's real and what's not. Behindthewall (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't here to 'pose questions' for readers, or to encourage them to 'question the legitimacy of the mainstream media' - we aren't here to put the world to rights. Unless and until material is published in mainstream sources which directly discusses D'Agostino's claims in depth, per WP:WEIGHT there seems little reason to include them in the article. That his claims have been discussed at an academic conference is in itself no evidence that they have been taken seriously - and from a quick look at the academic paper you cite, it seems that D'Agostino is merely one of many sources referenced in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what you wrote? "the fact that D'Agostino's assertions have been discussed at an academic conference is no evidence that have been taken seriously" Go read page 8 of the paper, the article by D'Agostino represents the STARTING POINT upon which Nebraska University Researcher Rebecca Pop has based all her article about Wikileaks credibility. You re claiming that the International Communication Association, an Academic body that only publishes Scientific articles only by Scholars and Scientists isn't a reliable source? Please!

Besides the ICA isn't the third party that published D'Agostino's work, it's the fourth party because the article published by Diario El Peso is a re-publishing of D'Agostino's article and Diario El Peso is an Argentinian mainstream newspaper in which D'Agostino has never written a story. Behindthewall (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The piece in Diario El Peso is written by D'Agostino - it is not a third-party source for anything. As for the academic paper, if you wish to suggest that the fact that an academic quotes a brief passage from D'Agostino somehow establishes that the International Communication Association as a whole considers him an authority on Wikileaks, I suggest you raise the matter at Reliable sources/Noticeboard - though I doubt that you will get much support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, I don't know what's your experience with academic papers but the reference on the paper even just the mention of the article on the bibliography it means the paper considers D'Agostino's article as a scientific reliable source to demonstrate its theory on Wikileaks. I understand you are not very familiar with scientific articles and academic bodies because of this sentence:"the fact that an academic quotes a brief passage from D'Agostino somehow establishes that the International Communication Association as a whole considers him an authority on Wikileaks" If you were familiar with academic matters you would had never wrote such a nonsense sentence as this. Because the answer is yes dear Andythegrump, the moment a paper enters within an official academic discussion, conference, seminar, that same moment becomes part of that Academic body. I am sorry if you had not the chance to attend an University or an Academic institution but that doesn't mean you have to feel resentment towards academic institutions and their products. The section "Wikileaks Credibility Questioned" will be restored, that you want it or not because homo sapiens cannot revert to monkeys just because you are against scientific evolution dear andy the grump.Behindthewall (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As it happens I have a first-class honours degree in a social science from one of Britain's leading universities, which I would think qualifies me well enough to suggest that you are talking utter bollocks. If you want to suggest otherwise, raise it at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where you will no doubt be told the same thing. Otherwise, find a credible third-party source that actually discusses D'Agostino's claims in depth, rather than just quoting him in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyThGrump, being this the case, I wouldn't go around telling the world I have a honours degree in Social Science if you ignore what are the Academic traditional practices. Now this thing about Wikileaks Credibility Questioned section has become a matter of pride and maybe you won't be able to step back even if you find out it's not the way you think, but if I were you I would have checked this matter with some official/professor from my University to see if it's true that once a reference gets inside an official academic environment it automatically becomes part of that environment. Good Luck with your Social Science! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behindthewall (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you have failed to do as I suggested, and provide the sources necessary to establish that D'Agostino's claims are of any significance, this topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andythegump,

D'Agostino's claims are of no significance, in fact they have not being taken as the main reference and as the starting point upon which the whole project research "A Theoretical Model for the Wikileaks Phenomenon"  presented at the International Communication Association Conference held in Phoenix on May 24 2012 was based on. However I report here the link of the Fundacion Gedisos where the article by D'Agostino was presented too as a critical analysis on the credibility of Wikileaks. Here's the link to the Fundacion Gedisos, which is also a scientific institution (but it's not accountable because it's not mainstream) with the introduction to D'Agostino's article that is defined as an "análisis crítico del fenómeno Wikileak centrado en la fundamental cuestión de la credibilidad"

http://www.fundaciongedisos.org/index_mas.php?id=4128

It's a real shame that at the Social Science faculty they don't teach Spanish, or the day they taught it you weren't there. However you can try with Google translations! Good Luck with your career within Wikipedia and as a Wikileaks guardian, Julian Assange says thank you. Hope you are not the exclusive guardian to the development and the completeness of Wikipedia, otherwise if the world had to depend upon Wikipedia's knowledge we were going to revert to monkeys. Luckly for the goodness of Wikipedia's completeness and consequently of humankind, this talk between the reason and the ignorance is a public talk and it's going to be read by everyone including people who have the common sense, the knowledge and the authority to restore the world to right by recovering the Wikipedia Credibility Questioned section that I wrote. Behindthewall (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-open previous section with a suggestion
I just saw the above exchange ("Wikileaks Credibility Questioned") and am re-opening the conversation to suggest perhaps we can step away from the personalizing and just look at this objectively - I wonder if there may be some middle ground here. I agree that the added section was being given much too much weight in this piece, but I note that other journalists' opinions are included in the article, and it seems clear that D'Agostino's work has been quoted in a valid third-party academic paper as well as having been published in several venues. Perhaps this would work if it were boiled down to a sentence at the end of the "Reception" section, something like this:
 * Italian journalist Gianluca D'Agostino questioned WikiLeaks' credibility validity, claiming that much of the material was Pentagon-leaked information that favored the Pentagon's views, and speculating on Manning's veracity.

to this reference, since the other reference is outdated and doesn't work anymore.

173.73.227.128 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ - DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Can somebody re-add the access date " " to the said reference I wanted to add? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Source(s): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=753626842&oldid=753626643
 * Yes check.svg Done Modified to correct format (drop the 0) -  --  Dane  talk  01:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Russian influence
This subsection, which is currently titled "Allegations of Russian influence", should remain so. Most (if not all) WP:RS that have reported on the issue do not refer to it as a conspiracy theory. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Allegation Russian agents have Infiltrated WikiLeaks is a conspiracy theory by definition.
 * Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist
 * No one has yet verified Russia was involved.--Thymefromti (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you understand what an "allegation" is? The sources support these allegations so there is no violation of WP:NOR. If you want to go through each source, aside from the one in German, I'm willing to do that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you understand what a conspiracy theory is? It does not have exclusivity to allegations being made against western governments conspiring against the people. Conspiracy theories can involve Russians conspiring too. When you theorise agents are conspiring you are forming a conspiracy theory.--Thymefromti (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Show me the sources supporting it's a conspiracy theory. Have a look at this article demonstrating what a conspiracy theory looks like. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Straight forward logic does not need a reference. A policy against original research does not imply there is a policy against using an original combination of words. It is straight forward logic that a theory that involves a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. The definition of a conspiracy theory does not require the theory to be labelled--Thymefromti (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Then we'll have to agree to disagree. At the moment you don't have consensus so I advise you to leave the current header in place. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Opinion does not trump logic but I am unsure this is even your opinion. Do you actually believe this is not a theory about a conspiracy?--Thymefromti (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you search you will find Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Russia Today and others have labelled the theory of Russians being behind the DNC leaks a "conspiracy theory". So not only does this theory fit the definition, it is labelled one too.--Thymefromti (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't reach consensus by having the numbers. Wikipedia makes it clear polling is not a substitute for discussion. To reach consensus reasonable arguments must be madeThymefromti (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC).


 * @Somedifferentstuff. Yes, sure, agree with all your changes. BTW, one man was already arrested. According to some experts, next stage will be putting virus into voting machines in US. But that is probably indeed a pure speculation right now. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw there was an arrest of a Russian hacker in Czech Republic, but it's in regards to the LinkedIn hacking from 2012 -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * More on this . My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's a conspiracy theory, then it'd be a conspiracy theory that got more gas in its tank from no less than the New York Times. A conspiracy theory holds that if you are clever enough, you can figure out what is really going on. That's not what we have here. There's no great mystery here that gets explained when you connect the all the dots in some insightful way that the establishment/mainstream media refuses to consider. We have straightforward allegations that Wikileaks gets fed material by persons sympathetic to or connected to the Kremlin. Maybe those allegations are true and maybe they aren't, but we do not have a basis to go beyond reporting them to claiming they constitute a conspiracy theory given that you need a conspiracy theorist to generated a conspiracy theory and the sources here are not conspiracy theorists.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * total oppose the header Infiltrated by Russian agents conspiracy theory - apparent anti Russia bias without any reliable reporting as ever. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed a sentence about this in the lead, which said that "many leaks" are provided by Russia to influence US elections. The content was supported by a single CNN article. It was too broad, saying "many" without elaboration, and did not specify which elections are allegedly being influenced. Roches (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't the Guardian since retracted a line in the article they published on December 24 about Julian Assange being in league with Putin? And would it be important to add that the whole article itself has been questioned for fabricating what Julian Assange actually said in the interview that they're quoting him from? VasOling(talk) 11:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They have, and hence I have removed that line from the article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on WikiLeaks. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.info/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://twitter.com/wikileaks
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wikileaks.org/About.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifla.org/publications/what-is-the-effect-of-wikileaks-for-freedom-of-information
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38606166/ns/us_news-security/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783778,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wlcentral.org/node/1572
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/27854791764
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8178457/WikiLeaks-website-disconnected-as-US-company-withdraws-support.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/02/eveningnews/main7111845.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/172396949700476928
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wlstorage.net/torrent/wikileaks-insurance-20120222.tar.bz2.aes.torrent
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-blockade/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419221950/https://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman to https://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Serious_nuclear_accident_may_lay_behind_Iranian_nuke_chief%27s_mystery_resignation/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/29/10/1796-memos-us-embassy-manila-wikileaks-cablegate
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.org/tpp/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/2/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/04/winners-of-index-on-censorship-freedom-of-expression-award-announced/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://filmguide.sundance.org/film/13040/we_steal_secrets_the_story_of_wikileaks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange's statement on Podesta's password
I have recently removed a statement by Assange from the "Conspiracy theory" section. For one thing, it's not a "conspiracy theory" as much as it's false or misguided information. For another thing, Assange wasn't making a statement on behalf of WikiLeaks, he was making his own statement. This actually belongs somewhere in the Julian Assange article. FallingGravity 02:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The section can be re-named 'Criticism of Wikileaks' promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods'. I don't see how the statements by the editor-in-chief and director of Wikileaks about the contents on Wikileaks are irrelevant to this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I think of it, if Jimbo Wales made a false statement about Wikipedia, would that statement go in Criticism of Wikipedia as an example of false information spread by Wikipedia? I would try to keep that statement in the autobiographical article because of WP:WEIGHT. That's why I think this should go somewhere in Julian Assange's article. FallingGravity 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017
The last two edits scream of gaslighting. Most glaringly, they declare that President Obama mentioned Wikileaks in a speech, with no citation. I checked his farewell address and found no mention of Wikileaks. ColdFury (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Reverted —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qfl2xKr7tE

Video of Obama stating that wikileaks was not substantively linked to Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.138.138 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake News and US election
The US election generated a lot of Fake News articles that were quickly exposed but are now being cited as references.

WikiLeaks did NOT promote conspiracy theories, they simply promoted and contextualized the content of their leaks. For example, it was reasonable to explain to readers what "Spirit Cooking" meant.

It's true that WikiLeaks has been criticized for not criticizing Russia. But go to wikileaks.org and search for e.g. "Putin". There is lots of information there! As Assange explained, WikiLeaks is predominantly an anglo-speaking resource and nobody has given them leaks about Russia. Same goes for Trump's tax returns etc - they cannot leak them if they do not have them!

And the stuff about WikiLeaks exposing people's credit cards etc is also FAKE NEWS. Citing a hundred sources (who were all wrong) does not make it true. A security analyst named Michael Short admitted that he was the person who posted that information.

In any case all the above issues do not belong in the introduction section of the page.

If WikiPedia is going to become a source for Fake News then it is in serious danger of losing credibility.

Please check these frequently distorted facts: https://wikileaks.org/10years/distorted-facts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

gazo65 24 Jan Gazo65 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As you are well past 3RR now, please stop reverting and gain consensus for your changes here. I'm open to adjusting the wording for the lede's criticism paragraph, but like others who have reverted you, am opposed to its complete removal. I'm also opposed to your addition of "President Obama admitted in his farewell speech that there was no evidence linking WikiLeaks with Russia" as it is a misleading and NPOV statement that doesn't belong in the lede of this article. gobonobo  + c 03:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gobonobo, I originally moved the "criticism" text down the page to a more appropriate section where such criticism is presented. I think it is fine to discuss such criticism but surely (a) it doesn't belong in the intro (b) text should include WikiLeaks response to criticism and (c) criticism that is just plain wrong is not worth mentioning.

Similarly, if you are going to state that US intelligence were "highly confident" WikiLeaks emails were supplied by Russia then you need to add that (a) WikiLeaks denied this and (b) no proof was ever provided. Then let people make up their own mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing an important point about Wikipedia. What goes in the article is not capital-T Truth or fairness, but a representation of what the body of reliable sources say about a subject, including all significant viewpoints (not based on what editors say are significant, but what the literature indicates are significant). New York Times is a reliable source, for example, and simply calling it "fake news" does not make it so. Can they be wrong? Sure, but if the majority of mainstream sources take a particular perspective and are wrong about it, Wikipedia will also be wrong. Thankfully, reliable sources are partly defined by checking errors and issuing corrections, so the record tends to be corrected (and more often than not -- which is not to say always -- it's the minority of unreliable or primary sources which have it wrong). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am appalled to hear a Wikipedia editor tell me that this site is not supposed to represent "capital-T Truth". In fact that is what Wikipedia should always be striving for. Of course sometimes there is debate, which is why I have moved the offensive text to the appropriate section and characterized it as debate. Whatever you think of WikiLeaks, there is no way to justify this text in the introduction section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazo65 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiLeaks revelations in 2017
I apologize if I am doing this wrong, please include a new section "2017" and this information to article, the front pages of Le Monde, Libération, Mediapart, La Repubblica are all talking about this:

WikiLeaks released the CIA espionage orders for 2012 French presidential election. The United States meddle the 2012 Election Against the French People using CIA's human (HUMINT) and electronic (SIGINT) in the seven months leading up to France's 2012 presidential election. The documents reveal that all major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the spies. The CIA showed particular interest to the presidential candidates positions on the European economic crisis and specifically to the issue of the Greek debt crisis.


 * http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/wikileaks-releases-documents-on-alleged-cia-spying-on-french-presidential-candidates
 * http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-16/wikileaks-exposes-cia-involvement-french-2012-presidential-election
 * http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/wikileaks-cia-plotted-to-infiltrate-every-major-french-political-party
 * https://sputniknews.com/science/201702161050765286-cia-french-parties-wikileaks
 * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-releases-secret-cia-spy-orders-exposing-surveillance-french-election-1607011
 * http://www.ibtimes.com/wikileaks-latest-documents-cia-spied-french-presidents-political-parties-2012-2493301
 * http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2017/02/16/comment-la-cia-a-espionne-la-presidentielle-francaise-de-2012_1548921
 * http://greece.greekreporter.com/2017/02/17/wikilealks-cia-was-monitoring-french-political-parties-and-their-stance-on-greek-crisis
 * http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/02/16/la-cia-s-est-interessee-de-pres-a-la-campagne-presidentielle-francaise-de-2012_5080891_4408996.html
 * http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/02/16/news/wikileaks_cia_hollande_le_pen_sarkozy-158477960/?ref=HRER1-1
 * https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/160217/les-elections-francaises-de-2012-etaient-sous-surveillance-de-la-cia --87.156.239.86 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Rephrased for WP:IMPARTIAL, added wikilinks and minor tweaks, only used the most relevant sources. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * French: Front page news for top papers
 * Russian: "Nuclear bomb shell"
 * US: "standard intelligence-gathering" -


 * That AP newswire by David Satter's son playing it down "the orders seemed to represent standard intelligence-gathering" is audacious! US media becoming national embarrassment.

thumb|Images of DSK's [[perp walk were condemned in France, where it is illegal to publish such photos before the subject is convicted.]]


 * The operation began seven months before the elections on November 21, 2011 and lasted until three months after the elections. It ended on September 29, 2012 a total duration of ten months. The operation targeted the Union for a Popular Movement, the French Socialist Party and the National Front, along with current leading presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, current President Francois Hollande, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy, Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry and... then Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and leading contender to unseat Sarkozy as president of France Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK)!


 * But DSK was trapped and humiliated in a bizarr 'oral-sex offender' scandal in a Hotel in Manhattan. He was immediately tracked down, escorted off a plane just before its departure, and arrested. High-ranking detectives, not lowly officers, were dispatched to the crime scene. The DNA evidence was sequenced within hours, not the normal eight or nine days. By the end of the day’s news cycle, New York City police spokespeople had made uncharacteristic and shockingly premature statements supporting the credibility of the victim’s narrative — before an investigation was complete. He was handcuffed and escorted before television cameras — a New York tradition known as a “perp walk.” The suspect was photographed naked, which is also unusual, initially denied bail and held in solitary confinement. The Police Commissioner has boasted to the press that DSK is strip-searched multiple times a day — also unheard-of.


 * It was thea “killer blow” for the potential Socialist challenger for the 2012 presidential election. He had been left “discredited as a candidate” for the highest office of the state. With that scandal the Washington consensus prevailed. The application of IMF economic medicine had already been applied in several EU countries including Greece and Portugal during DSK’s mandate, he wanted change. But in the course of the following years, it reached new heights. Drastic austerity measures triggered unprecedented levels of unemployment. The entire European social landscape was in crisis. In many regards the DSK scandal was a watershed in the evolution of EU-US relations, with European governments becoming increasingly subservient to Washington’s demands. It was "Regime Change at the IMF". As DSK stood for a strong Europe and a strong Euro, he was not really welcome by many people in the US. The Obama administration had demanded DSK’s replacement by a more compliant individual. In retrospect, the framing of Strauss Kahn and the appointment of Lagarde had an impact not only on EU economic restructuring including the crisis in Greece, but also on the State structures of the French Republic. The “Honey Trap” is a powerful instrument. Had DSK not been framed, Francois Hollande — who largely serves US interests – would no doubt not have been elected president of the French Republic and Christine Lagarde would not have acceded to the positon of Managing Director if the IMF.


 * There was no firm evidence against Strauss-Kahn. The New York Court ruling which completely exonerated DSK on the basis of lack of evidence. Have a splendid day! --87.159.122.128 (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: If you wish to request a modification to the article, please provide the exact contents you wish to add/remove. Concerning your comment, if you want to add any of its contents - mention of bias, mention of front page coverage, mention of DSK story - you need to provide a reliable source for it. It can be in French if you can't find one in English. Per WP:OR we can't add it without it. See also WP:FLAT. The best I can do with what has been provided is add the Libération story - which mentions DSK and doesn't play it down to routine investigation - to the list of references (it is the original and most comprehensive publication after all). I do not speak Italian so I didn't check the Italian sources. It's worth mentioning that the LeMonde link from the original post also mentions it may be seen as routine investigation. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)