Talk:Wikileaks Revolution

The Discussion page in the Wikipedia "Julian Assange" article contains a section which discusses the issue of whether the Tunisian Revolution is indeed a Wikileaks Revolution. The parties to the discussion agree that it cannot be verified, and is at best only opinions of only some individuals in the community and at worst a self-propaganda by Assange himself. As such, it is not neutral, or verifiable, to attribute the Tunisian Revolution to Wikileaks. This Wikileaks connection is therefore questionable at best. I suggest this redirection is therefore permanently removed. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is TOTALLY AGAINST POLICY to delete a redirect in the manner you have. Please see Redirects for discussion for the correct way to do this. And please do not misrepresent discussions that took place elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, as for me violating the policy for deletion of redirection - I was not aware of it and I did not mean to violate any policy. (It is the first time I have done so.) As for your second point about me misrepresenting discussions: Please elaborate how I have misrepresented a discussion. Here is what YOU have said in the conclusion to our discussion in the Discussion page of the Assange article (which I assume you refer to as the discussion that I am allegedly "misrepresenting"): "We are reporting what commentators said. It isn't for us to decide whether they are right or not. As for whether this merits inclusion, this can of course be debated..." Your words are clear enough I think, but anyway I would paraphrase just in case: "SOME commentators claim credit to WikiLeaks for the Tunisian Revolution, but it is impossible to know whether they are right..." Am I misrepresenting what you said? If yes - how? If not - how is this different from what I wrote above? In summary, if you agree (which I think your words so indicate) that it is not verifiably true to claim that WikiLeaks is the main or even any significant factor in the Tunisian Revolution, why should Wikipedia in effect show support for such a claim by redirecting the entry "WikiLeaks Revolution" to the Tunisian Revolution? While I agree that Wikipedia policies need to be properly followed, I still think that this redirection is inappropriate. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read Redirects for discussion, and in particular WP:RNEUTRAL: "The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term". This seems to fit this redirect precisely. In any case, this is not the appropriate place for this discussion - if you think the redirect is unjustified, please raise the matter at Redirects for discussion, so others know that it is being debated, and may add their own input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)