The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on January 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
WikiLeaks is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
Material from WikiLeaks was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
Consensus has determined The RSP you cite says There is no consensus.
It does not say It certainly ought not to be relied upon for contentious statements of fact. It says there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Why do you think the statements are contentious? If it is we can attribute it like the RSP you cite says Softlem (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could, but given that this appears to be the only source which makes certain claims, it's more appropriate not to give this slightly dubious source excessive weight in the article. Cambial — foliar❧23:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again. Why do you think the statements are contentious?
Why is it WP:DUBIOUS? it is not unlikely, particularly difficult to verify, ambiguous and open to interpretation, and no RS makes different claims
Similarly, the Daily Beast is not regarded as a high-quality and reliable source, particularly for statements of fact about living people. Cambial — foliar❧23:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer. Please stop ignoring questions.
Some instances have other sources, so the use of low-quality sources is redundant. Others make claims not reported on by any other sources, not even by better sources (such as Wired) that focus on tech/cyber reporting and that closely reported on WikiLeaks. We ought not to give undue weight to 1 source lacking a strong rep for reliability. Cambial — foliar❧02:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s time to stop making false claims that I’m ignoring questions. What you mean is that I’m not answering them the way you want. That's not on me. Cambial — foliar❧13:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with little or no evidence of editorial oversight and disagreement on reliability. You described WikiLeaks
Hence I replaced e.g. the DailyDot website with The Atlantic You replaced one source with The Atlantic and removed the others without replacing them, or even adding a [citation needed] first like I did
My input is probably not warranted here, but I would like to point out that you are not answering. You call the source "dubious" despite the fact that there is no concensus behind it. Leaving unanswered the question of why you think the statements from the source are questionable. 2001:4C4E:1B89:E500:AD0B:C28F:EED7:21DC (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to point out what you claim, but given it's not true, it's not "pointing out" something but merely making a false claim about the above comments. I agree that such input is not warranted, nor is it productive. Cambial — foliar❧20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donations via cryptocurrency: oddly missing from the article
The article prose mentions "donation" or "donations" 30 times, and extensively covers bank and credit card donations, and the ectensive efforts of various state and financial entities to stop or halt such payment channels to WikiLeaks. Yet it makes no mention at all of WikiLeaks accepting donations in cryptocurrency.
Odd that. The official website of WikiLeaks, linked as the first item in the "External links" section of the article, clearly indicates that WikiLeaks is set up to receive donations in at least a half dozen digital assets, that do not pass through banks or credit card processing centers. N2e (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
MINOR GRAMMAR EDIT:
Line says "times were" - source article uses grammar that I think is correct "instances where" - if not protected I'd have changed it to "times where".
Line in question:
In response to a question in 2010 about whether WikiLeaks would release information that he knew might get someone killed, Assange said that he had instituted a "harm-minimization policy." This meant that people named in some documents might be contacted before publication, but that there were also times were members of WikiLeaks might have "blood on our hands."[50] One member of WikiLeaks told The New Yorker they were initially uncomfortable with Assange's editorial policy but changed her mind because she thought no one had been unjustly harmed.[50]Delicious Edits (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very necessary to add the announcement about "WikiLeaks is not part of, also have no relations with us Wikipedia" at the top of the page. But I can't find a proper way to add it. So I want to ask others' opinions about this suggestion. Awdqmb (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a problem many years back with people who clearly were confused posting hostile comments on this talk page: see e.g. this [3] discussion. I'd be surprised if it is still happening now with enough regularity to be an issue though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "raided" is mistakenly repeated in the sentence "In March 2009, German police raided raided the offices of Wikileaks Germany and the homes of Theodor Reppe, who owned the registration for WikiLeaks' German domain while searching for evidence of 'distribution of pornographic material'." 2001:16B8:DEF:E100:507E:A9D5:6C00:932C (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=icon}
Done. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)