Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 7

RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute
This RFC is to discuss about Version A and Version B below and whether Version B should be implemented. Aviartm (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A is the text before my edit(s): A and this is current content: Current (They are exact except the 2nd to last citation.)

Version B is my most recent edit prior to revert: B This is the original edit that first got reverted: B2

Here are the paragraph comparisons:

Old: WikiLeaks has promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich. Unfounded conspiracy theories, spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets, hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

Proposed: WikiLeaks has promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich. Right-wing figures and media outlets hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. In a July 2016 interview with Megyn Kelly, Julian Assange did not confirm or deny the source behind the DNC emails. Assange elaborated by saying; "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." WikiLeaks offered a reward of $20,000 for information regarding Rich's death. Assange later spoke about sources bringing information to WikiLeaks in the context of Seth Rich, in an interview with Nieuwsuur, and stated that whistleblowers are at risk. When suggested that Rich died as a result of "just a robbery", Assange said "No. There's no finding." When the interviewer inquired "Why make the suggestion [referring to Rich]?", Assange replied "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States."

(It is highly recommended from me that if you wish to participate here, please read both Talk Pages linked below to catch up in pace with the discussions and issues at hand.

Notice: Much of the recent discussions have been taking place on the WikiLeaks talk page despite the original Talk Page inquiry being at the Julian Assange talk page. So the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks talk pages are really one and the same but in two different Talk Pages. --Aviartm (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The filer of the RfC has posted RfC notifications on the talk pages of editors who have previously voiced support for to the filer's preferred version (and none of the editors who voiced opposition to the filer's preferred version). This can be construed as WP:CANVASSING. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I notified them because they wanted an RFC and they wanted me to create it. That's it. E: "Appropriate notification - Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; so this is completely allowed. Aviartm (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This response is deceptive. You solely notified the editors who had expressed a preference for your version. You did not notify other editors (i.e. those who expressed opposition to your version) until after I warned you that you were canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read the page on WP:CANVASSING and am entirely sure the notes fall under the "appropriate notification" category. 84percent (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not matter. As the rule I posted earlier, even if I did not notify the others after you said something, jumping to conclusions, it is allowed under "appropriate notification". Aviartm (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed part of A because it was a copyright violation.  SashiRolls t ·  c 02:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What was that specifically? Aviartm (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Snoogans plagiarised the BBC on 26 October 2017 (here). I've found this sort of practice before when looking into pages they have primarily authored. I removed the long-standing copyvio here; Snoogans restored a close paraphrase without attribution in the following edit. SashiRolls t ·  c 07:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A Why would it ever be appropriate to rely on the director of WikiLeaks as the source for information about a conspiracy theory promoted by WikiLeaks? Am I missing something? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles also rely on the director of WikiLeaks. The quotes are the same source material that those articles rely on. The question is whether we should include the original words, or an opinionated third-party interpretation of those same words from critics. 84percent (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What articles? The sources I see are just interviews with Assange.  And what about secondary sources who are not "critics"?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version B because it presents a WP:NPOV; the current text presents a slanted view that WikiLeaks "fuelled" conspiracy theories and "hinted" that Rich may have been the source, however the sourced quotes don't establish that. I've already debated in the talk pages, however I'll say this again: How can it be that adding additional factual context and including the original quote is somehow less neutral? I wholeheartedly agree with that it is better to stick closely to what Assange said, rather than how their critics characterize what they said. 84percent (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do the secondary sources say? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's like saying we should just quote from the manifesto of a murder suspect instead of quoting secondary sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment for observers: I know what you're getting at -- our discussion on another talk page, which I won't mention because it'll derail the Rfc towards a debate about another page. Happy to discuss that topic or its relevance over at your talk page or mine, but not within this Rfc. WikiLeaks nor Assange are murder suspects, their press conferences are coherent, and their mental health is not at question, etc. I won't reply further to this thread to stay on topic, and I respectfully ask that you do the same. 84percent (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are happy to discuss that topic then please answer my simple questions on your talk page without being manipulative. You have not as of yet answered the last question.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A. There are four reasons why this is the better version: (1) A large number of reliable sources say verbatim that Assange "suggested"/"implied"/"hinted" that Seth Rich was the leaker: NBC News, Boston Globe, ABC News, USA Today, PolitiFact, NY Mag and Hollywood Reporter. No RS have been presented that rebut these RS. (2) A large number of reliable sources say that Assange "fueled" or "carefully nurtured" the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the leaker: This Oxford University Press book (p.25), Washington Post, LA Times, NBC News and BBC News. No RS have been presented that rebut these RS. (3) The extensive meandering quotes in Version B don't add anything and just obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories. (4) The assertion "Julian Assange did not confirm or deny the source behind the DNC emails" in Version B is entirely unsupported by RS, contradicts a large number of RS and is just an editor's interpretation of Assange's remarks (it's WP:OR). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your argument is literally that directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he said. That doesn't make any sense. You're simply pushing to replace what he actually said with a paraphrase of approximately equal length that gives an opinion on what he said. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't address anything User:Snooganssnoogans just said. I'm coming into this fresh, but all I'm hearing on the B side is unsupported declarations.  Convince me by actually addressing the arguments and providing evidence of your own.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response to User:Snooganssnoogans's (4)th argument is especially hypocritical. You're arguing against A by saying we shouldn't use paraphrasing by secondary sources, while supporting paraphrasing by editors?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I addressed the statement that directly quoting someone "obfuscates" what they said. I find that assertion incredible, and obviously wrong on its face. The issue here is whether to quote a living person directly, or whether to insert a paraphrase of approximately equal length. Quoting them directly will obviously give a more accurate representation of what they said. This is a BLP issue, so quoting the source directly is safest, especially given that the direct quote is not long.
 * As for the two versions of the text, I don't support either of them (I don't know why you assumed I hypocritically supported paraphrasing by editors, since I haven't endorsed either version - you should consider that I may not think what you're projecting onto me). Assange's statement about Seth Rich is an incredibly minor part of the history of Wikileaks, and doesn't need an entire paragraph. There is a clear effort here to use this article as a coatrack for Russiagate, just as many articles tangentially related to the subject have been similarly co-opted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon rereading User:Snooganssnoogans's argument I see that you've misrepresented them.  They argued that the quotes "obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories".  They did not argue that "directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he said."  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411, I apologize, I thought that first comment was from 84percent who had voted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A. The direct quotes in version B just clutter up the text and give WP:UNDUE attention to WP:FRINGE views, while adding nothing of positive value. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it WP:UNDUE when both comments from Assange are there in full detail with the quotes? The quotes are absolutely necessary to minimize misconstruing the material. And it is not WP:FRINGE per these citations: (Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F; and G. It is impossible for it the be WP:FRINGE when it is not a "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views" per the citations before. No one can argue WP:FRINGE. Aviartm (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone can read exactly what Assange said and see what he meant. Quoting him directly doesn't obfuscate his meaning. That's the argument that Snooganssnoogans is advancing. All this is irrelevant, though, since this article is about WikiLeaks, not Russiagate, and such a long description of this narrow issue is undue. As I've said, there is an attempt to coatrack Russiagate into many articles (including the Julian Assange article, where a very similar, long-winded description of Assange's interview response about Seth Rich is also being pushed into the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is this comment being moved around? I wrote it in response to User:Thucydides411's 04:25, 18 April 2019 edit: I don't think so. Snooganssnoogans argued that the quotes "obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories". They did not argue that directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he said or what he meant. If I said "the cat got out of the house", quoting me directly would not obfuscate my meaning, but it might obfuscate that I was manipulating you into going outside so I could eat all the cookies while you were away. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The way that Assange was supposedly pushing this conspiracy theory was through the quote in question. If directly quoting Assange "obfuscates" his supposed support for the conspiracy theory, then that means he didn't actually clearly support it. In any case, quoting him is the clearest way to say what he meant. But both versions give wildly undue weight to Seth Rich and Russiagate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not just that he's being directly quoted, the language "fueled" a conspiracy theory is removed. That may precisely be the point.  His quote clearly promoted the conspiracy theory, but a reader wouldn't know that unless being told.  Similar to how quoting a lie is clearly quoting a lie, but for a reader with no information it is not known to be a lie.  This isn't a great analogy but it may be the same point.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment on Point 2 down below; it addresses the "fueled" fallacy. And which comment by Assange "clearly promoted the conspiracy theory"? Because my proposed paragraph addresses what you might be pointing out but I am not sure what you are pointing. Aviartm (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , how are the D.C. police fueling a conspiracy theory by offering a reward for information related to Rich's death? It's their job to investigate his death; they're not contributing to the conspiracy theory.  Assange's actions and statements fuel the conspiracy theory, we can't just repeat his statements which fuel a conspiracy theory without stating that they fuel a conspiracy theory.  Which secondary sources state that the DC police fueled the conspiracy theory?  Your sources say Assange fueled the conspiracy theory.    --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the point. My question was rhetorical. And I agree that his statements "fueled" but not the donation. Aviartm (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you suggested that the D.C. police fueled the conspiracy theory. How could the D.C. police have fueled the conspiracy theory by offering a reward?  Which secondary sources can we cite which state this?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read my reply prior to this one to find your answer. Aviartm (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * it sounds like you're unwilling to answer the question. To present your argument clearly, please state it here as if I have no other knowledge.  As of now, all I have heard is that the D.C. police fueled the conspiracy by offering a greater reward than Assange.  That makes no sense.  It is the police's job to investigate the murder, not Assange's.  --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the police's job to investigate. And for clarification on the rhetorical point of "D.C. police "fueled" the conspiracy theories, read my comments right below this comment. Read most of Point 2 and you will see hopefully. Aviartm (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have read everything related to the D.C. police. I am asking for a clear, brief, complete argument.  But it appears that there is no argument.  --Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The D.C. Police is more rhetorical than an argument. Aviartm (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you were using the D.C. police to support an argument, but you have repeatedly avoided describing the argument. The only conclusion I can make is that you have no case.  Your main argument seems to be that we should just report what Assange says because we do not have a "crystal ball".  There is no reason to report what Assange says.  We rely on secondary sources.  The secondary sources describe Assange's statements as fueling a conspiracy theory.  The exact quotes are irrelevent.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you pay attention to what I said, it was never an argument. It was rhetorical. "There is no reason to report what Assange says. We rely on secondary sources." We have already established, me and you, that the sources said that. Exactly, we do. That is why there are way more secondary sources in Version B than A. And if the sources say that Assange's comments "fueled", which me and you have already established,, mention the quotations instead of taking a journalistic bent to it. Aviartm (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Assange quotes are primary sources; we must include the "journalistic bent" from the secondary sources. It would be better if you discussed specific sentences you would like to include along with your reasoning.  We're just going back and forth because it is all so abstract, and we are discussing large changes all at once.  The first change you propose is to remove the word "unfounded conspiracy theories".  Why would you remove an opinion supported by secondary sources?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You already have my reasonings regarding the quotations. For "unfounded conspiracy theories", as PraiseVivec said: "I find the distinction between "Unfounded conspiracy theories, spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets, hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks" and "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications" to be quite important." This is huge. We have secondary and primary sources that confirm this.
 * , well that certainly was a non-answer. I asked you why you wanted to remove the phrase "unfounded conspiracy theories" and your response was that "the distinction between [them is] quite important".  I feel like you're continuing your pattern of providing no information.  Suit yourself.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Originally, it was removed because the current citations by the sentence do not mention what the sentence says. Not say it is untrue. It is true, however, add the correct citations to it. As you can see here, go to my response in my conversation with Neutrality for further contexts. Aviartm (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , The title of the cited source is "How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staffer Fueled Conspiracy Theories". The text includes the word "unfounded" as well.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PLEASE STOP WP:BLUDGEONING. STOP THIS BEHAVIOR NOW. You can shout at each other on one of your talk pages if you want. You are both being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Version B – Because it contains both the direct-comment and the "suggested"/"implied"/"hinted" shown here – "in an interview with Nieuwsuur, and stated that whistleblowers are at risk. When suggested that Rich died as a result of "just a robbery", Assange said "No. There's no finding." When the interviewer inquired "Why make the suggestion [referring to Rich]?", Assange replied "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States."   ." Further, as mentioned in the WikiLeaks talk page: "Despite Citations 260, 262, and 263 mentioning the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview. 3 out of 4 currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview.; all I did was add quotations of this interview and Fox News' interview with Assange." So I am not sure how can argue Point 1 because "verbatim that Assange "suggested"/"implied"/"hinted" when the current paragraph has no quotations from Assange yet my proposal does.

For Point 2; This is a fallacy because Correlation does not imply causation. This is heavily biased in saying WikiLeaks solely fueled conspiracy theories, despite D.C. Police offering a $25,000 reward for information and D.C. attorney Jack Burkman offered $100,000+ reward for information as well, yet the page does not entertain that idea. Yet, the dates of these rewards are: D.C. Police - August 1st, 2016 (1, 2), WikiLeaks - August 9th, 2016 (1, 2), and Burkman - November 2016. All of this can be confirmed here, the Rewards section of Murder of Seth Rich. And if you look at the current state of the Conspiracy Theories section for WikiLeaks statements on the same page, and compare it with what my edits were prior to being reverted, they are identical in nature and in information. This intentional Stonewalling of my edits despite identical information existing on the Murder of Seth Rich page is alarming.

For Point 3; As mentions, how does adding quotations from reliable sources "obfuscate" anything?

Lastly, Point 4: It is not WP:OR when reliable sources report on the matter and Assange's quotations. Is this a double standard? Quote from Assange "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." 1, 2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is not in our capacity assume whether Seth Rich is the source or not. That is why it is best to use Assange's comments on the matter with reliable sources, which I have done since the beginning. And to further clarify my comment just now in case of anything, the WikiLeaks lead already contains that Assange and WikiLeaks "denied their source was Russia or any other state.[18 ]" Says the same thing in the Julian Assange lead: "Assange consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks." Aviartm (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither version. Devoting an entire paragraph to this subject would give it undue weight. There's been an attempt to coatrack as much Russiagate-related material as possible into this article and the Julian Assange article, seriously distorting both articles. By my count, this article spends over 2100 discussing Russiagate, versus just over 300 words on the US diplomatic cable leaks. In fact, both proposed versions would have us devoting approximately equal space to this one statement about Seth Rich as we devote to the "Collateral Murder" video, which may be the single leak that WikiLeaks is best known for. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there has to be something there. And with the Murder of Seth Rich - WikiLeaks statements section mentioning the very details that I am proposing to add should not be WP:UNDUE. What is your proposal? Aviartm (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Some mention should probably be made in the entry of the fact that the British government denied Assange safe passage for medical care while in the Ecuadorian embassy and that a doctor following his case has said that his imprisonment in the embassy without trial had long-term physical and psychological effects 1, 2 (this second article is by James Risen). While it does not excuse the trolling concerning SR (if that is indeed what it was), it does help to put them into perspective. Of course, this would need to be done in a way that does not involve WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Agree with Thucydides411 that this is a problem of weight, coatracking, and recentism which is not solved by making the text about the statement longer while ignoring the context. SashiRolls t · c 08:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, this would need to be done in a way that does not involve WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. 
 * Too late, you already did. In fact, your whole schtick strikes me as EXACTLY an attempt to WP:SYNTH up an excuse for Assanges's actions and looking for cover to do it. --Calton &#124; Talk 09:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * lol, are you telling me to "drop the schtick"? Good to see you again, Calton. SashiRolls t ·  c 09:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, how does adding Assange's own quotations with already-existing citations within the page qualify as "WP:OR"? And how is the proposed paragraph WP:SYNTH? From my understanding, there is no two different citations trying to make a new conclusion. The two interviews that are proposed to be added are explicitly separate and do not "mingle". Do you have a different proposed paragraph? Aviartm (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood me because I wasn't entirely clear. Assange, holed up in the embassy, typed and said all sorts of provocative stuff.  I don't think someone who wasn't a man hidden out in a tiny bedroom to avoid facing a rape charge / extradition, and someone who wasn't poring over stolen emails from the DNC, after poring over cablegate before that, would have been likely to speak in such a brash provocative manner (e.g. "asking me to choose between cholera & gonorrhea", "sadistic sociopath", "blood, sperm & breastmilk", etc.) However, this was a larger question than the narrow one being posed in the RfC
 * A version C which would be neutral without quoting would be something like version A but without the close paraphrasing/copyright violation and—obviously—without repeating the money phrase "conspiracy theories" three times in three sentences like a cockatiel doddering in its cage: e.g. very roughly... After the Washington DC police department offered $25,000 on 1 August 2016 for information about the death of former DNC employee Seth Rich, many right-wing outlets speculated that Rich may have been killed because he was the source of the DNC leaks. Via Twitter, Wikileaks announced that it would offer $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of the murderer, thereby bringing undue media attention to evidence-less claims of a link between Rich and the leaks. same citations as version A.


 * ps for the peanut gallery (Snoog / Neutrality / Calton): there is a conspiracy theory circulating that Wikipedians are doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories". We should try to correct that image we're giving of ourselves as doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories".  SashiRolls t ·  c 19:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A We rely on what reliable sources say about a subject, not how the subject tries to spin things. If, as here, the reliable sources call out a subject as being intentionally misleading about something, we need to call that out explicitly rather than bend over backwards to reinforce the misleading statements. At the end of the day, our articles are shaped by how reliable sources portray the subject, and the role of wikileaks in conspiracy theories is an important part in how reliable sources portray Wikileaks. We can't cover that up, and we need to reflect how the reliable sources portray it.Just a Rube (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How does adding a subject's own quotations with reliable sources, "spin things"? The proposal is adding quotations from interviews that are already cited within the page. Such information also exist on other pages already as previously mentioned. Aviartm (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version B I agree that it is a lot of space to give to a minor part of the Wikileaks story but as has been mentioned something needs to be said. However, it should not distract us from detailing the important information that Wikileaks has published. Burrobert (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A Which is an accurate summary of RS, though even that is flawed (what is an "unfounded conspiracy theory" - is it like a "dishonest lie"?) and may be overlong. Version B simply 'muddies the waters' and is barely coherent. The extended discussions above and on the Assange page are simply inventing increasingly convoluted arguments for creditting analysis of what JA said (ie, WP:OR), rather than simply summarising what RS have already said. RS almost universally think that JA 'fuelled' the conspiracy theory. Editors here are perfectly entitled to think that RS have misunderstood or misrepresented what JA said, they aren't entitled to insert those doubts into the article so as to 're-present' the evidence. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify how it is "barely coherent" and how using a subject's own quotations, which is done all the time on Wikipedia, with reliable sources, is WP:OR? Aviartm (talk) 16:24, April 18, 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Of course it is not inherently WP:OR to include quotes, however it is definitely OR to use quotes to come to conclusions, or to imply significance which is not stated explicitly in RS. The OR here includes attaching significance to 'JA neither confirmed nor denied'. Of course he didn't, 'imply' means suggest/hint/insinuate, therefore it goes without saying that he neither said 'yes he was' nor 'no he wasn't'. Including the 'neither yes nor no' conclusion, apart from being OR, 'muddies the waters', because why would we focus on what was NOT said, rather than what WAS, when RS do not do so. We might as well say that JA neither confirmed or denied having had eggs for breakfast! Inclusion serves to obfuscate how RS interpreted his words, words which were interpreted as implying SRich, and his death were connected to the leak. Words which JA had ample opportunity within the interview and afterwards to clarify if he felt they were being misinterpreted. BTW, I don't see anybody in this discussion arguing against the use of quotes per se, they argue against using them instead of accurate, brief summary of how RS interpreted the words. I would support including a link to the original interview text, precisely in order that readers could judge for themselves whether RS interpreted JA accurately and fairly.Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A. Version A accurately summarizes sources, and I agree with Snoogs, Hob Gadling, Just a Rube, and others' points above. Avoids undue weight to Assange's fringe implications (and yes, lengthy quotations from an article subject are one example of how content can be undue and, at worst, fringe-promotional). And please, spare me the incessant badgering about this comment. Neutralitytalk 14:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with adding quotations from the currently-live citations? And as I have told others, Murder of Seth Rich's WikiLeaks statements mentions the details that I am proposing. Why have one page be lopsided? Aviartm (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole sub-section. This is verified by passing mentions in many reliable sources. So what? It is WP:UNDUE. The second paragraph is even worse than version 2, as it is solely based on quotes. No matter how much US media hate journalists in other countries, this article needn't two WP:CSECTIONs. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  15:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A - accurately summarizes sources. B relies too much on essentially primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please expound on "primary sources"? I know what they mean obviously but can you explain what you are implying in this context? I'm sure you have read the discussion and if you noticed a previous comment of mine, 3 out of 4 of the currently-live citations mention the interviews where the quotations come from. And those 3 citations include the quotations that are being proposed. I still don't see the problem of adding Assange's quotations to expand on context, especially something controversial. Aviartm (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll respond here since you haven't addressed my arguments above. Assange's quotes fuel the conspiracy theory.  We rely on secondary sources which explain that Assange's statements fueled the conspiracy theory.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. And my question was rhetorical. His statements "fueled" but not the donations. And it's an inconsistent procedure of the media to say "THIS donation fuels the conspiracy theories, but this donation that is larger DOES NOT fuel the conspiracy theories." It's inconsistent. Aviartm (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , We rely on secondary sources not primary sources. The offer of the reward fueled the conspiracy theory, as the secondary sources state.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I already know which kinds of sources are used and in which situation. If you check the proposed article's citations, every single one of them are secondary sources. And as previously mentioned, 3 out of 4 of the currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview. Aviartm (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're not addressing my point. I am not discussing "citations", I am discussing the actual text that is included in the article which is sourced from the citations.  The secondary sources state that Assange's statements fueled the conspiracy theory.  We must include the analysis of the secondary sources, not just include the quotes of Assange.  --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem mentioning that Assange's stated "fueled" if that is what the citations say. But if we are to say that, we ought to include the quotations that are being proposed in Version B. Aviartm (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any reason to add them, but if you want to start a new section to work on a new proposal we can do that. This RfC however, should not support version B.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the whole point of this RFC. To discuss about the additions. And what are your reasons for not adding the quotations? Aviartm (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , the point of this RfC is to choose between the two proposals. It's not practical to add a third or fourth option halfway through, but you're free to try.  It's not my responsibility to provide a reason.  I prefer the status quo.  You have offered no sensible arguments for the change, and your responses to arguments against the change have felt evasive.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Never said that I was going to propose another variant. Others have. So you are just going to WP:STONEWALL. I see. And my responses have not be evasive; they have been straightforward. If you read what I say, again, and go to my initial vote, you will see my comment on all the arguments against Version B. Stop repeatedly asking for content that has already been answered. Aviartm (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have repeatedly read what you wrote, but it is very unclear. You yourself said that point 2 was merely rhetoric, even though you are clearly arguing a point.  It sounds like you need to restate your arguments because they are so unclear.  Now you are arguing against Version B?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * An argumentative point can be rhetorically intrinsically. I do not have to restate my viewpoints. They are clear as day. Again, if you would like clarify, please read Point 2 on my initial vote. Aviartm (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PLEASE STOP WP:BLUDGEONING. STOP THIS BEHAVIOR NOW. You can shout at each other on one of your talk pages if you want. You are both being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Version A - Which reflects the preponderance of sources. Quoting Assange gives far to much prominence to his "unique" point of view. I agree with the points made by other in the A camp, particularly Pincrete and Neutrality.- MrX 🖋 02:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point? To lay out someone/something's comments while using reliable sources? Earlier, the argument was that "adding Assange's own comments obfuscates what he said," and that obviously makes no sense when 3 out of 4 of the currently-live citations for the section mention the quotations and interview that are being proposed to be added. Thucydides411's comments on the matter mentions this contradictory. Murder of Seth Rich – WikiLeaks statements has identical information that is being proposed. Why not have the consistency? Aviartm (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is a misrepresentation of the argument. The argument is that the quotes "obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories". The argument was not that directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he "said" or what he "meant".   The language in the Murder of Seth Rich article is not at all identical to what is being proposed here.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree that his statements did. That is the point of the proposal. The Dutch Nieuwsuur interview is the part that is considered to have "fueled". Yet, currently, the page does not mention this. And I want it to. And I did not say "language...identical." I said "identical information." Does this clarify things? Aviartm (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , The Murder of Seth Rich article does not have identical information. You have not clarified things at all.  You said that it makes no sense to say adding Assange's own comments obfuscates what he said.  Adding Assange's statements without stating that his statements fueled the conspiracy theory is obfuscating that his statements fueled the conspiracy theory.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We both have already established that Assange's statements "fueled". And yes the MOSR article does. 2/3rds of the first paragraph is about the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview. Look at the proposed article. It mentions the Nieuwsuur interview. Aviartm (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the point of writing encyclopedic content is to capture the important information that gives readers a general understanding of the subject. Version B goes beyond that by awkwardly elevating some of Assange's words to make his conspiracy theory seem reasonable. That flies in the face of neutrality, and it's poor writing style as well.- MrX 🖋 12:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whereas, repeating "conspiracy theories" 14 times in the article is "quality writing". Few'll fail to notice that one word has now been repeated 42 times on this page; and few'll be convinced by the POV in the entry ("conspira" repeated 14 times in wiki-text). Bad writers cost Clinton the 2016 election with their crowing. One does wonder why the raving loony war center party continues with tactics that are a proven failure., could you explain how Version A could possibly be better than Version C, please? I'm calling upon you to be a voice of reason since everyone seems to be replying to you here. :)  SashiRolls t ·  c 12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no version C. I don't know what "Bad writers cost Clinton the 2016 election with their crowing." refers to, but I always favor good writing style.- MrX 🖋 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I saw that. I was impressed with the "flies in the face" bit above, which is excellent rhetorical flourish.  It reminded me that the collective name for crows was a conspiracy.  I've added an anchor to version C (already pixeled turquoise) so that you can find it without your spectacles: (§). I agree with Aviartm that we should at least link to the Nieuwsuur interview that all the sources seem to point to (just as we should probably link the tweet).  I disagree about quoting from it in extenso−tldr;, etc.−though I also disagree with the "paternalistic" idea that we should be protecting people from much-talked about primary sources (interviews). SashiRolls t ·  c 22:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , You have not addressed my statement. The argument is that adding Assange's statements without stating that his statements fueled the conspiracy theory obfuscates what we both agree on, that his statements fueled the conspiracy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Statements "fueled" but does not obfuscate anything. It makes no sense that clarifying something "obfuscates" it. Aviartm (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , it sounds like you still haven't addressed my statement. The point is that if you quote Assange's manipulative statements, the reader is more likely to be manipulated by them.  This obfuscates the truth.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding a subject's quotations through RS is not obfuscating anything. Our role as editors of Wikipedia is not to judge whether someone's comment is factually correct or not. Our role is to produce clarity and context through RS. Aviartm (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , of course adding a manipulative quotation is obfuscating the truth. The secondary sources judge Assange's statements as manipulative and we report what the secondary sources say.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the third time, we have already established that the sources say that Assange's comments fueled. And you say we should include what secondary sources say; why not corroborate those claims with quotations then? Aviartm (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , As you have been repeatedly told, because adding manipulative quotations obfuscates the truth. Maybe you should explain that argument back to me and I'll let you know if you understand it.  You can't justify a change if you don't understand the opposition.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do understand the opposition and I am willing to clarify things. I just think that since I have already laid out my views in extensive detail, minus well go read my points again. I agree that we should include the "fueled" part of Assange' comments. However, we should include the quotations that "fueled" so the reader can see what caused the "fueling". Aviartm (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your position is contradictory. On the one hand, you're arguing for including a paraphrase of what Assange said. On the other hand, you're arguing against including what Assange literally said because you think the content of his statement is "manipulative" and "obfuscating the truth." If the content of Assange's statement is "manipulative" and "obfuscate[s] the truth," then how is accurately paraphrasing it any better than repeating it verbatim? If it's the content of what Assange was saying that you have a problem with, then that's an argument against including these quotations in any accurate form, including as a paraphrase. This is a BLP, so not only are we obligated to be very carefully to accurately quote Assange, we are also supposed to be very careful about how we discuss them on the talk page, and your comments are straddling the line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * my position has less to do with whether we are quoting or paraphrasing and more to do with the difference between Version B versus Version A. But what do you want to see here in the article?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Both version A and B give undue weight to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. WikiLeaks has leaked many important documents, with significant coverage of each release, yet the Russiagate issue is coming to unduly dominate the article. It gets nearly 10x the coverage (by word count) in this article as the diplomatic cables, for example. Both version A and B would give the Seth Rich conspiracy theory about equal weight in this article as the diplomatic cables, which is insane. At most, the Seth Rich conspiracy theory should get a single clause (e.g., "Critics have accused WikiLeaks of helping spread conspiracy theories, such as X, Y, the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and Z."). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can't speak to how much weight this should be given, but I find the words "critics" and "accused" in your suggestion to be questionable. I think it would be better to neutrally state that sources A, B, C, etc., state that WikiLeaks helped spread conspiracy theories.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your vote should take into account due weight, since there's a massive imbalance in the article. I think my wording is accurate (with "critics" and "accused"), but you can suggest a different wording. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you feel that wording is accurate you should find a source which uses those terms. It's not for us to editorialize.  --Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PLEASE STOP WP:BLUDGEONING. STOP THIS BEHAVIOR NOW. You can shout at each other on one of your talk pages if you want. You (Aviartm and Kolya Butternut, not Thucydides411) are both being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Version B - I find the distinction between "Unfounded conspiracy theories, spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets, hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks" and "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications" to be quite important. The second version gives better context, correctly presents the Wikileaks position and their ransom as having more to do with wanting to appear as protective of their sources, rather than actually believing that Rich was killed because he was a source. These distinctions are not present in the first version, which just makes the whole thing seem like some loopy conspiracy theory. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an invalid rationale, because reliable sources don't see this as "having more to do with wanting to appear as protective of their sources", they blame Wikileaks for "smearing" Seth Rich. For example: "Even as he was ruthlessly framing Rich to protect himself, the GRU, or both, Assange was privately communicating with his real sources to arrange the transfer of the second election leak, material the GRU stole from John Podesta’s Gmail account." . Plenty of other sources on this exist, search for Seth Rich in Google News and you can take your pick. Your interpretation, that this is about protecting potential WL sources, is OR. Geogene (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Far from me to try and defend Wikileaks or Assange or anything of the sort, but those "reliable sources" take a complex statement and turn it into "Wikileaks hold that Rich was killed because of his work with Wikileaks", which is not exactly what the statement by Assange says. How can it be OR to read a statement and see that it doesn't fit with what the media reported that statement to be? Is experiencing reality OR? PraiseVivec (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is not an accurate representation.  The text does not say that WikiLeaks held that Rich was killed for working with WikiLeaks, it says that right wing commentators and media outlets held that Rich was killed for his work with WikiLeaks.
 * Yes, such articles could be linked too, even if they are from the IAC's Daily Beast. (Chelsea Clinton is on the BoD of IAC, so that does in my experience with the source sometimes−but not always−colour their perspective).  Mueller calls the stunt "dissembling", I would say "trolling from his bedroom" (OR), because I don't have to write up a fancy report for Colbert to riff off of.  SashiRolls t ·   c 23:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Question -- For clarity, the source in question seems to be the news hour (niews uur) of a Dutch taxpayer-paid (public) TV network cited 1500+ times on en.wp (§)? Why wouldn't we link to that source? SashiRolls t ·  c 23:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1,500 citations isn't particularly high, many other popular media are cited 50,000 times or more. The nieuwsuur source is just an interview.  We should rely on secondary sources here not primary sources.  I saw your proposed Version C.  I don't understand why the D.C. Police reward would be discussed.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For a foreign language paper, it's not bad. See further: § (news / Netherlands). With regard to primary sources, wp:policy is as follows:  "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So it can verify what Assange actually said, since that is what is at issue. SashiRolls t ·  c 23:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand we can use primary sources to quote Assange, but the secondary sources include both actual quotes and analysis, so I don't know what we need the interviews for. But adding a link to the interview seems like a good idea.  So what do you actually want this section to say?  Like I said, I don't understand your Version C proposal.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to see the three uses of the term "conspiracy theories" in the first three sentences of the "conspiracy theories" section reduced to a maximum of one. My suggestion, with the DC Police announcement, is to restore the chronology. First came the call for help from the DC police, then Wikileaks pledged $20,000 too (in my, possibly wrong, opinion to pay forward their image/brand as "dangerous", "potent", "victimized", etc.) after seeing the conspiracy theories, or evidence-less speculation, surface from the US political magma. I just would like to see it properly written, really. Can you give a second draft of version C a whirl based on the input you've received? SashiRolls t · c 00:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , maybe replace "unfounded conspiracy theories" with "unfounded allegations". Two uses of the term is much better than three... I don't see the D.C. police offer is being important. Version A seems ok to me... it seems concise and accurate.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A, because it's consistent with reliable sources. Version B is a misleading use of apophasis. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is literally not a point to contest. Both Versions have reliable sources; Version B more so. And apophasis is redundant. Wikipedia documents the denial of topics all the time if it passes GNG, NPOV, with reliable sources. Aviartm (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B leans into the slimy rhetoric by giving undue weight to WL's denial. It's the kind of thing you'd expect to find a press release, not an encyclopedia. Version A is a much better summary of what reliable secondary sources say about this. Geogene (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reminder:Version A as listed above still contains Snooganssnoogans' copyvio of the BBC. I would ask to provide a version D containing the revisions discussed above, so that we can move forward with a concrete proposal more likely to gain consensus. Version A as listed above is not going back into the article per policy concerning intellectual property theft. SashiRolls t · c 01:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, The order of events in Version A may have been inaccurate? Rough draft: "WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories relating to the murder of Seth Rich when on August 9, 2016, Julian Assange seemed to have suggested that Rich may have been the source of leaked DNC emails. Wikileaks further fueled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer. Some right-wing figures and media outlets spread the unfounded allegations that Rich was the leak source and was killed for working with WikiLeaks.  No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks"  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

or..."WikiLeaks promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich which were spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets. On August 9, 2016, Julian Assange seemed to have suggested that Rich was the source of leaked DNC emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. Wikileaks further fueled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer.  No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks"   Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's getting better, I think. Thanks! How about:


 * WikiLeaks fueled conspiracy theories originally spread by right-wing figures and media outlets alleging that the death of Seth Rich was related to his work at the DNC. On August 9, 2016, Julian Assange seemed to be insinuating that Rich was the source of the leaked DNC emails in a television appearance (link to interview) and by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the conviction of Rich's killer. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.
 * Struck, KB is correct below that this inverses the order. My apologies for the mistake:  my memory of the intial reports stating that a DNC-staffer had been shot were apparently not yet conspiracy theories. SashiRolls t ·  c 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a little shorter than your 2nd version and contains the same more info than the original text A, though the last sentence is redundant. Looking back at the tweet I see WL spoke of a conviction, not just of capture. SashiRolls t ·  c 16:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "was related to his work"??? That's BS. It was clearly implied that it was because Rich was the source of the leaked emails. Are all those who worked for DNC suddenly in danger? No, Assange implied that Rich was targeted because he was a Wikileaks source, an unproven claim. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, hello. Secondly, "was related to his work" is a characterization of the diverse right-wing reactions. Thirdly, our proposal very clearly states that Assange implied Rich was involved in the leak without saying it. If you have a proposed improvement to Version D be my guest. SashiRolls t ·  c 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with BullRangifer here. You draft completely changes the meaning.  Also, you reversed the order to say that the "right-wing figures" originally started the conspiracy theory.  I haven't read many of the secondary sources, but from what I've read it sounds like Wikileaks started the conspiracy theory.  Also, I think that we should review the sources and give careful thought to which language we use to say that Assange "seemed to suggest", "insinuated", "implied", etc, that Rich was killed for being the leak.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what do you think of my suggestions? I tried to keep the same information as Version A while reducing redundancies.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A is accurate and preserves the widely documented fact that Assange did (and still does) imply that Rich was the source (the leaker) of the emails. Assange also denies the Russians were the source of the leaked emails. Assange is a deceptive primary source and must not be used too much (he is "unduly self-serving"), per our policies about using primary sources about themselves. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Then we need to remove all quotes from Assange in the article, including the forum remarks, the cholera & gonorrhea remarks, etc. Version A, again, will not be restored as it contains a copyright violation. SashiRolls t ·  c 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No...there are specific problems with Assange's quotes in this context. I haven't read his quotes in the rest of the article, but I'd have to hear a much stronger argument than "if we can't use his quotes here we can't use them anywhere".  My version removes what you've described as copyright violations while maintaining the same information (at least that was part of my intention).  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * for the sake of clarity concerning the copyvio:
 * BBC text: Wikileaks itself fuelled the conspiracy theory by offering a reward for the capture of Mr Rich's killer and hinting that he may have been the source of the emails.
 * Snoogans' text: WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails.


 * it is worth noting that the $20,000 is not in the source, which means that strictly speaking the source should not be used for what was added to mask the copyvio.
 * This is the full text from the same BBC source which seems to have led me astray on the order: "Following his death, some right-wing media suggested his killing was revenge by figures linked to the Hillary Clinton campaign for allegedly leaking embarrassing DNC emails to Wikileaks. Wikileaks itself fuelled the conspiracy theory by offering a reward for the capture of Mr Rich's killer and hinting that he may have been the source of the emails." (source: §)  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I feel like it's unnecessary to focus so much on copyright issues at this point. If we select Version A we can modify it to remove copyright violations (which appear minor).  The very next citations both mention the $20,000 reward; this can all be fixed very easily.  I feel like you may be creating some unnecessary conflict here.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for interjecting a thought without researching the background for the "copyright" dispute here, but we are allowed short quotations, as long as we attribute them with a source. There is, after all, a thing called fair use . In the real world, fair use can extend to exact copying of very large portions of content, if the public welfare demands it. In courts it is judged on a case-by-case basis. Sentences and short paragraphs are nearly always considered fair game. Just see how journalists quote sources in their articles. Yes, we try to paraphrase a lot, but we are not required to do it all the time, and we are allowed to quote verbatim. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but when quoting verbatim, quotation marks are required. Here that was not possible because 6 words were added to the BBC text, thereby masking the "borrowing".  And no, the public welfare does not depend upon Snoog's edits, the idea that it could is a bit outlandish, don't you think? I have followed the procedure outlined at WP:COPYVIO for dealing with this, so the discussion about this matter as at WP:ANI.  As such, it need not be discussed further here, the behavioral problem has been identified and will be dealt with in a way that will set precedent for future "borrowings" of the same nature. SashiRolls t ·  c 21:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not only "right-wing figures and media outlets" spread this conspiracy, some on the left pushed this conspiracy theory, apparently those who are anti-Hillary (pro-Bernie) and pro-Russia. I can't find good sources for this since it hasn't gotten much coverage, but it's all in the public record. FallingGravity 18:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see one tweet by a journalist at The Nation. There may be nothing to give weight to.  But are Assange's motivations discussed?  Did he want Trump to win so that the Left would get its act together?  Or is any discussion pure speculation?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that leftists played a big part in pushing these conspiracy theories (and have expressed the same sentiment on the Murder of Seth Rich talk page) but RS widely characterize these as right-wing conspiracy theories, so unfortunately we have to go with the RS characterization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Version B. I agree with 84percent and Thucydides411 that it is better to stick closely to what Assange said, rather than how his critics characterize what he said. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The "critics" in question are NBC News, Boston Globe, ABC News, USA Today, PolitiFact, NY Mag, Hollywood Reporter, Washington Post, LA Times, BBC News, and so on Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Version A - Concise, neutral, and best fits a rather large number of reliable sources. WP:RS (I’ll not be responding to any responses to this as I think every argument has already been presented (40 times).) O3000 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B (weak) - seems a better attitude re handling sources, sticking to sources, and DUE weight being the preponderance of coverage. I'm not liking the wordsmithing and not so sure about Nieuwsuur, but the approach seems a more solid one.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Version A, or as close to it as we can come given the copyvio concerns. B is a mass of "but he would say that, wouldn't he?" Pinkbeast (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * weak A I am not too happy with either, but it seems to me the less space we give to this the better, and seems to reflect what most sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Version A - Citing Assange's interviews directly is completely unnecessary. He's not a reliable source and as such should not be in an encyclopedia, Version A has (reliable) sources explaining the Wikileaks stance on the issue and, furthermore, does not give undue weight to a WP:FRINGE theory like Version B does.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Version A (via FRS) Version A more accurately matches RSes and the quotes in B make it hard to read. PublicWorld (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC) (fixed: StudiesWorld (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC))

Still functioning?
Is WikiLeaks still completely functioning? This article documents events up to 2017. WikiLeaks' own website has an "About" page which is dated 2015 and has no mention of Assange's arrest. Reference to Assange's arrest has only just been made on the "News" page. The last leak was last year.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The WikiLeaks main page, which you linked, prominently features their 30 January 2019 leak of documents from the Vatican. Saying that they're no longer operational would appear to be incorrect, not to mention original research. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, not last year, but January. This page certainly needs updating, in any case.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Needs updating" in what way? WikiLeaks appears to still be functioning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out, this page lists leaks up to 2017. It's now 2019. "Claims of upcoming leaks" is clearly out of date. "Administration" and "Financing" use an interview from 2010, and much of the information is from that time. "Potential criminal prosecution" is out of date. There is a brief mention of Assange's arrest in a weird section called "Ecuador" which is placed under "Reception". But there is no mention that he was convicted and is serving a prison sentence. There is no information on how this has affected WikiLeaks. In fact, though there are several mentions of Ecuador, there is no explanation why he was in the embassy. The whole page needs an overhaul.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

More developments on the Douma scandal
This hasn’t made its way to this article yet for some reason but is included in other articles that mention the Douma attack. There has been another development related to the OPCW’s handling of its Douma investigation. Most of the work that has been done in investigating the scandal is based on the documents released by Wikileaks so it is unusual that even a simple uncontroversial statement that Wikileaks published documents related to the OPCW is yet to be included here.

The opcw recently released a report targeting the two whistleblowers, Ian Henderson and “Alex”. A third whistleblower has now come forward to support the previous two. An email obtained by The Grayzone corroborates complaints by Henderson and his colleague about senior management’s suppression of evidence collected by the team that deployed to Syria. It also details an atmosphere of intimidation with opcw. The article discusses the evidence related to Henderson’s role in the organisation and concludes that it was more senior than the opcw had said in its report. The article goes over the timeline of events related to the douma investigation and reports, including what is known about the internal opcw discussions about what happened in douma and how the final report was created.

Former director general Jose Bustani, who himself was ousted from the organisation due to American pressure (as mentioned in the opcw wiki page), said that “The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani said after the session. “The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing.” Bustani added that he hoped the Douma revelations “will catalyse a process by which the [OPCW] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.”

Hope this helps give editors a perspective on what is happening. Perhaps it will get a mention here one day. Drop in on one of the other pages related to the Douma attack to see what is happening there.

Burrobert (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Where did all the money go?
This is an absolutely legitimate question that needs to be addressed even though some editors what to suppress this question. Wikileaks has received millions in donations, where are this money gone, financial transparency is essential.
 * See my comment on the Assange page: The WikiLeaks website asks for donation, but gives no indication of what its governance structure is or what it budget is. As mentioned above, its "About" page is dated 2015. There is "news" that Assange resigned as Editor-in-Chief in 2018, but that's about it. According to this article, in 2010, Assange said he was one of five full-time volunteers. We don't have very much current information. This is a problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Authenticity section
Specifically the way in which Eric Zorn's statement is used. The sentence "Columnist Eric Zorn wrote in 2016 that "it's possible, even likely, that every stolen email WikiLeaks has posted has been authentic."[271]" is not an accurate characterization of what is actually said in the source, but rather a cherry-picked snippet which is being used to support the exact opposite of what Zorn is actually saying. The citation is to a piece titled "The inherent peril in trusting whatever WikiLeaks dumps on us" and the quote in question actually says "So far, it's possible, even likely, that every stolen email WikiLeaks has posted has been authentic. Most of them have been routine, while others have contained somewhat embarrassing evidence of internal tiffs, cynical strategizing, unseemly coordination between the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign during primary season and so on. Firecrackers, not bombshells. Mainstream media outlets, by eagerly trafficking in these stolen goods and publishing excerpts with barely a nod to the notion that the documents might be doctored, have not only normalized the appalling criminality of those who hack private email accounts but also laid the groundwork for a history-changing scam..... The public has been softened up by the credulous and, I would argue, grossly unethical media coverage of relatively anodyne document dumps, and is now conditioned to believe what WikiLeaks presents, even though the foreign organization is known for cyber-skulduggery, is widely believed to be in league with Russia and is openly trying to influence the results of the American presidential election." (Emphasis added). The point of the article, and indeed the section being quoted, is about how WikiLeaks authenticity should be questioned. It is not an endorsement of their authenticity, but rather a rebuke. By selectively editing out the "So far" from the beginning of the quote, and removing the context it is followed by, it is being cherry-picked to assert something completely contrary to what the citation actually says. It would appear I do not currently have permissions to edit the page, so hopefully someone who does can either remove the quote, or expand it with context so that it actually says what the author intended it to say? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally the statement "Some of the more recent releases, such as many of the emails contained in the Podesta emails, contain DKIM headers. This allows them to be verified as genuine to some degree of certainty.[273]" is cited to a blog, which would seem to fail RS guidelines, and should probably be removed as well. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the original blog source with an RS. Burrobert (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the earlier point about Eric Zorn, Zorn seems to be saying that there he has no reason to think that the emails are doctored (which is the part that has been quoted here) but that the media should still raise the "notion that the documents might be doctored". He is also critical of the media for publishing the documents for reasons not related to their authenticity, namely the possible criminality of the hacking and his theory which he describes as "sound[ing] like I'm veering into tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theory territory". I don't think he is arguing that the documents are not authentic though he is obviously not happy that they have been published. I don't see the need to expand the quote to include the addition that the "documents might be doctored" as this possibility is already contained in what we have already cited (otherwise we would be saying something like "Columnist Eric Zorn wrote in 2016 that every stolen email WikiLeaks has posted has been authentic"). I also don't think his arguments not relating to authenticity should be quoted in this section. Burrobert (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that his words are being used to assert general authenticity when he is in fact cautioning that the authenticity should not go unquestioned. Paraphrased, he is saying "Just because the emails released so far are probably authentic does not mean we should assume that everything they release is authentic". The "So far" (Which was part of the original quote and has been left out of the version appearing in the article) is central to the point he is making, and his point is that the authenticity of these emails should not be considered indicative of future releases. In fact, this source is where we get the later line "In July 2016, the Aspen Institute's Homeland Security Group, a bipartisan counterterrorism organisation, warned that hackers who stole authentic data might "salt the files they release with plausible forgeries."[271]. But it is being used in the article as evidence that there is general authenticity, especially by linking it to Glenn Greenwald as if they were making similar points (they are not). To use a source that is about "The inherent peril in trusting whatever WikiLeaks dumps on us" to convey authenticity upon WikiLeaks is entirely disingenuous, it is cherry-picking a single line (And not even the whole line, selectively cutting out parts) out of context to convey an idea that the author explicitly rejects.AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm not suggesting his arguments not related to authenticity should be included (although you could make the argument that his entire piece is about authenticity, and thus there aren't really any arguments not related to it), but rather that he either not be quoted in that context, or that it be expanded to say something like ""Columnist Eric Zorn wrote in 2016 that "So far, it's possible, even likely, that every stolen email WikiLeaks has posted has been authentic." but cautioned against assuming that future releases would be equally authentic.[271] AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with your alternative wording but will wait to see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack
In May 2019, Ian Henderson, an OPCW analyst who reviewed the OPCW report on the Douma chemical attack, disputed its conclusions and raised the possibility that the missile had been placed on the top floor of the building where dozens were found dead. The Wikileaks documents were released in the period October to December 2019 and show that there was quite a lot of discontent within the OPCW with the report that was issued. For those interested in learning about what is happening, Peter Hitchens also wrote a detailed piece about the revelations for the Mail On Sunday which cannot be used on Wikipedia. As a result, I wrote a section dealing with the documents released by Wikileaks based on articles in The Independent and Counter Punch. The text was removed. I don't see a problem with the text. What do other editors think?

====OPCW documents related to the 2018 Douma chemical attack==== In 2019 Wikileaks released documents related to the 2018 Douma chemical attack. Robert Fisk said that documents released by Wikileaks indicate that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons "suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed in order to represent the truth". In a meeting held by the OPCW on 6 June 2018 involving toxicologists and pharmacists who were specialists in Chemical warfare, the experts concluded that there was "no correlation between symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure" and that "the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded". An email dated 22 June 2018 from an OPCW whistleblower states that the OPCW report "seriously misrepresents" the facts and distorts "crucial facts".

Burrobert (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * None of the cited sources are RS, and the text does not accurately summarize the leaks, which should focus on how Wikileaks is selectively dropping documents to create a misleading understanding of events. Thankfully, RS no longer appear to play into Wikileaks's disinformation strategy, which Zeynep Tufekci describes: "The first step is to dump many documents at once — rather than allowing journalists to scrutinise them and absorb their significance before publication. The second step is to sensationalise the material with misleading news releases and tweets. The third step is to sit back and watch as the news media unwittingly promotes the WikiLeaks agenda under the auspices of independent reporting." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is what you appear to be saying:
 * 1. Neither The Independent nor CounterPunch is a reliable source. Where did you get this information from?
 * 2. The text is not an accurate summary of the leaks. Be specific. Where are the differences?
 * 3. Something unrelated to the text that was added.
 * Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That's an op-ed in the independent. Counterpunch is not a RS – it's a website that literally lets Russian intel officers write columns under pseudonyms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll change my summary slightly. Here is what you appear to be saying:
 * 1. Neither an Op-Ed in The Independent nor CounterPunch is a reliable source. Where did you get this information from?
 * 2. The text is not an accurate summary of the leaks. Be specific. Where are the differences?
 * 3. Something unrelated to the text that was added.
 * Burrobert (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on OPCW documents related to Douma chemical attack
Should the following text be added to the Wikileaks page:

In 2019 Wikileaks released documents related to the 2018 Douma chemical attack. Robert Fisk said that documents released by Wikileaks indicate that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons "suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed in order to represent the truth". In a meeting held by the OPCW on 6 June 2018 involving toxicologists and pharmacists who were specialists in Chemical warfare, the experts concluded that there was "no correlation between symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure" and that "the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded". An email dated 22 June 2018 from an OPCW whistleblower states that the OPCW report "seriously misrepresents" the facts and distorts "crucial facts".

Burrobert (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * * Yes include the text. There is a brief inconclusive discussion above. I will copy my part of the conversation here.


 * In May 2019, Ian Henderson, an OPCW analyst who reviewed the OPCW report on the Douma chemical attack, disputed its conclusions and raised the possibility that the missile had been placed on the top floor of the building where dozens were found dead. The Wikileaks documents were released in the period October to December 2019 and show that there was quite a lot of discontent within the OPCW with the report that was issued. For those interested in learning about what is happening, Peter Hitchens also wrote a detailed piece about the revelations for the Mail On Sunday which cannot be used on Wikipedia. As a result, I wrote a section dealing with the documents released by Wikileaks based on articles in The Independent and Counter Punch. Burrobert (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely do not include (as written). None of the cited sources are RS (an op-ed in the Independent and an article in the same outlet that literally lets Russian intel officers write articles under pseudonyms), and the text does not accurately summarize the leaks, which should focus on how Wikileaks is selectively dropping documents to create a misleading understanding of events. Actual RS appear to no longer appear play into Wikileaks's disinformation strategy, which Zeynep Tufekci described years ago as: "The first step is to dump many documents at once — rather than allowing journalists to scrutinise them and absorb their significance before publication. The second step is to sensationalise the material with misleading news releases and tweets. The third step is to sit back and watch as the news media unwittingly promotes the WikiLeaks agenda under the auspices of independent reporting." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Include, I lean on the side of more information being provided about this whole incident than less. I think it would be foolish to ignore the suspiciousness surrounding it given the leaked documents. Edit5001 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not include. Not only this is not reliably sourced, but the meaning of the text (as written) is puzzling. Apparently, the official conclusions by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are disputed, but why? This is not explained. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not include. This is not reliably sourced, and not discussed in reliable sources, so it should not be included in Wikipedia.Just a Rube (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not include. As this is a subject which is regularly being covered by individuals (on social media) and websites/broadcasters with a strong conflict of interest (being pro-Putin/Assad, or outlets funded by the Russian/Syrian governments), it is important Wikipedia does not follow their lead. This website gains strength and credibility by firmly resisting their misinformation. Philip Cross (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if a different second source from CounterPunch can be found. This paragraph, cited to a single source, is bit undue. And, CounterPunch, though a fine outlet, is of questionable reliability for news reporting versus editorial commentary. BIG BURLEY 22:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not include - as others have said, this is poorly sourced, echoes Russian/Syrian government disinformation, and is excessive weight. Neutralitytalk 23:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not include Neither source is RS for the statements being made in the proposed text, many of which are stated in Wikipedia's voice. Actual news articles in The Independent might be, but certainly not the Voices section. While both sources might be acceptable for strictly attributed statements, the fact that none of this is covered by actual RS would raise issues of WP:DUE and possibly WP:FRINGE even if they were fully attributed. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not include (a) currently fails test of notabilty as only covered by one or two opinion pieces (that could change with time), (b) only the first sentence is relevant to this page; the rest is about OPCW, a different topic; (c) both sources are poor: the Indy piece is in the "Voices" (opinion) section, and the latter is a polemical piece from an at best borderline RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Amend and include. Let's separate facts from opinions. The fact is that 'The Wikileaks website published an email over the weekend from a member of the team that investigated the attack in the town of Douma in April 2018 that accused the body of covering up discrepancies' CBS story. It is also a fact that the OPCW stated that the leaks represent dissenting opinions and that they stand by their conclusions. Robert Fisk opinion that OPCW intentionally suppressed the evidence is a clearly marked as an opinion and should come after the facts. I'd remove the CounterPunch-based passage altogether. Alaexis¿question? 20:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Something along these lines (changes in bold):

In 2019 Wikileaks released documents related to the 2018 Douma chemical attack accusing the chemical weapons watchdog of covering up the discrepancies in the investigation. Robert Fisk said that documents released by Wikileaks indicate that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons "suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed in order to represent the truth". According to an account of an OPCW meeting published by Wikileaks, on 6 June 2018 toxicologists and pharmacists concluded that there was "no correlation between symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure" and that "the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded". '''The head of OPCW Fernando Arias responded to the leaks by referring to them as "subjective views" and saying that he stands by the original conclusions. '''


 * What we have there is one RS reporting on the WikiLeaks leak but doing so cautiously (because RS have repeatedly fallen for WikiLeaks's BS releases in the past). It is not acceptable to add the careful RS wording in one line and then a bunch of content from a conspiratorial diatribe op-ed by someone who falls hook-line-and-sinker for WikiLeaks's disinformation strategy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC))

This Reuters article confirms the OPCW/WikiLeaks email of June 22 2018 as genuine https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons-idUSKBN1XZ1Q1

"An OPCW source told Reuters the June 22, 2018 email was genuine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.189.202 (talk • contribs)


 * Reuters and CBS give address the RS problem - but only for the first sentence. The rest of the suggested text is not about Wikileaks but about the topic to which the leaks it released related. This amount of detail is completely undue, and its inclusion now feels WP:RECENTist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not include per WP:COATRACK. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. This is a hugely important story that will eventually be the accepted view, simply because it is true. I sincerely hope this text (and more) is included, because to do otherwise will ultimately damage Wikipedia's credibility. The current article is an embarrassment.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Include For the same reasons highlighted by Kiwicherryblossom
 * ^This editor has one previous edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not include Unreliable sources, virtually no coverage outside the usual Putin-Assad fan clubs. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation for edit
A change that this article should make is that WikiLeaks, is in no association with Wikipedia or an of its subsidiaries. This will give clarity to not associate the two with each as they each have separate objectives and goals.Thanks much. InferableSpy (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC) \ https://everwideningcircles.com/2017/03/19/what-is-a-wiki-difference-between-wikileaks-and-wikipedia/

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020
2016 needs a citation on the "sustained attacks" after releasing turkish documents, I found it: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/755144723610869760 Biosboii (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It seems like it is a WP:primary source. &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   '&laquo;Talk&raquo;'  00:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020
OpenLeaks is not up still as of October 28th 2020 Alemwasif (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2020 (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.  Seagull123  Φ  21:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020
Two proposed edits: 1) under "purpose" Chelsea Manning is dead-named, a practice of evoking the name of a transgender person that no longer reflects that person's gender identity. This occurs again 2) under "2010". There is really no need to name Chelsea's pre-transition name, beyond perhaps linking to her wikipedia page, where the name she was assigned at birth is explicitly couched as such and used only once for the whole page. That the WikiLeaks page is dead naming Chelsea at all demonstrates a significant lack of judgment, but that the WikiLeaks pages evokes a dead name at 2x the rate of her own wiki seems to add insult to injury. At the least, it is not very respectful of what she gave to us all, but especially to WikiLeaks. This is not about "facts" or about "necessary disclosure" for the readers of this page - all of which can be provided on Chelsea's page, on Chelsea's terms - it is about respect. So, my proposed edits are the removal of these two parenthetical inclusions of Chelsea's dead-name from the two offending sections - "purpose" and "2010". The change should remove the parenthetical. So, from "Chelsea Manning (then [...])" to simply "Chelsea Manning". I encourage rendering her name in both sections a hyperlink to her wikipedia entry page. As for the bibliographical citation to an article with Chelsea's dead name in the headline, I suppose that while one can press the point that an alternate article cld be found, all initial accounts were using Chelsea's pre-transition name. So, while I encourage further updating the sources of the page to avoid this sort of situation, it is perhaps not as pressing an offense as the authorial decision to twice dead name Chelsea. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. At a time when the gender identity and sexuality of those who speak truth to power is weaponized, we must be united in solidarity around principles of mutual respect and support. This includes in our editorial decisions. Gquerelle (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the sources for the Purpose section is titled "Transcript: Yochai Benkler Testifies at Bradley Manning Trial". While I agree that, in most contexts, Wikipedia should avoid dead-naming, in this context, dead-naming Manning clarifies the reports in the contemporary sources. The instance in the 2010 section is less clear, but, again, I suspect that the sources refer to Bradley, not Chelsea. Rks13 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2020 (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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)