Template talk:WikiLeaks

Weak evidence that Israel Shamir is a key person in WikiLeaks

Is Israel Shamir's relation to WikiLeaks really notable enough to be included on this template?

The present version of WikiLeaks lists, in the section Founding, "Phillip Adams, Wang Dan, C. J. Hinke, Ben Laurie, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, Xiao Qiang, Chico Whitaker and Wang Youcai", which covers most of the people presently in the "People" section of the template. Bradley Manning is clearly widely claimed to be the Afghan War Diary + Iraq War Diary + Cablegate leaker. Domscheit-Berg, Hrafnsson and Jonsdottir seem to have been widely associated with WikiLeaks in the press. The section in the Israel Shamir article, based on two sources, does suggest that he has a real relation with WikiLeaks, but according to Hrafnsson, so do "a lot" of journalists around the world. That could mean dozens or a few hundred. Shamir himself says he's just a freelancer. This is a weak relation.

For the moment i'm removing Shamir from the template. If people really feel that Shamir is notable enough in relation to WikiLeaks, then i think that should first become part of the WikiLeaks article. If it were accepted by editors there that he is a key person in WikiLeaks, then it would make sense on the template. We cannot just list every person who has any sort of relation with WikiLeaks.

Boud (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations that are not Wikileaks

Should not be under a wikileak template. A template such as "leaking" (organisations) or some such. These different organisations such as OpenLeaks should not be included on a wikileak template but maybe second one as they have no relationship with each other and are rivals. Widefox (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "Post cables leaks" row

I am not sure if that would be the appropriate wording (suggestions welcome) but I guess with the next "big" release by Wikileaks after cablegate, I will add a new row in this table. If there are any objections/suggestions please feel free to discuss. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why is the timeline of Wikileaks being divided into pre-cable and post-cable? Was that really that much of a watershed event? yeah it was huge, but I've always thought that the watershed moment for WikiLeaks – when they became a household name – was the Collateral Murder video. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question Hbdragon88. I suppose there was no reason to it but it was just arbitrary when making this table [1]. I can't think of presenting it in any other way though as Cablegate does have the most sub articles about it (indeed, there can be an article for every country if someone was to go ahead and make an article as there is a lot of sources out there). Make a few designs on the sandbox maybe if you have any ideas?Calaka (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we seriously have 22 articles on Cablegate? I remember when it was at three articles and I thought that was a lot (main Cablegate, content, reaction). BUT I honestly don't have a problem with the arrangement, since the breadth of our coverage requires such a large portion devoted to it. My only suggestion is something like "Before 2010" and "2011 leaks" or something like that rather than pre-Cablegate or after-Cablegate. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Manning

Following the reversion of the article name, I have changed the Manning entry back to "Bradley". This is not just because templates normally follow article titles, but also most of Manning's wikileaks involvement was as "Bradley". StAnselm (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is now known as Chelsea, so I have rewritten the template to state Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning). Whether or not you wish to deny Manning's transition, the fact is that she is now known as Chelsea. Ergo, using both names is entirely appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no article called "Chelsea Manning". It doesn't make sense to have to have the link on this template. StAnselm (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redirect. Cheap, easy, free. If you want to make it harder for a reader to get to the article by not wikifying a perfectly-working redirect, go ahead and dewikify Chelsea Manning. I won't revert you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just looks messy now - simply having "Bradley Manning" would be far better. StAnselm (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So who the hell cares if it "looks messy"? Reality is messy. Wikipedia reflects reality, and in reality, Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning.
Concern for the aesthetics of an infobox should never override considerations of content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then just call it "Private Manning" and quit being such a drama queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTesseract (talk • contribs) 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus here. There is one editor (StAnselm) supporting an ugly parenthetical, and several editors against it. False claims of consensus in edit summaries notwithstanding. Consensus is now four to one against inclusion of the ugly parenthetical (Myself, NorthBySouthBaranof, TeddyTesseract, and implied by his edits, Sportfan5000). I have taken the most reasonable suggestion for how to avoid the parenthetical and implemented it. If StAnselm cannot bring at least four more editors who support his position to this talk page (without canvassing), then he should stop edit warring over it. It's a dumb edit war. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you edit warring? The consensus position has been for the parenthetical, even though that may have been a compromise. It was "Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning)" for the whole month of September. It was changed to Bradley Manning on October 1, before being changed to "Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning)" on October 11. It stayed like that for twelve days, so that would be the new consensus. Previously, I argued against the parenthesis on the basis of messiness, but User:NorthBySouthBaranof said who the hell cares if it "looks messy"? And I yielded and we went with the parentheses. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please show where this consensus is documented. It's not here on this page. "It stayed like that for twelve days" does not show any "consensus", just lack of interest. When there is discussion, consensus is formed on the talk page, not through duration. There is discussion on the talk page. Please show what other editors support the parenthetical by expressing such an opinion on the talk page. MOS:IDENTITY clearly states that someone who has changed their gender must be referred to by their chosen names and pronouns. This is not optional and not to do so is a WP:BLP violation. Yworo (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was, of course, looking at the edit history. StAnselm (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole discussion regarding the name Chelsea Manning has established a pretty clear consensus that the mention of "Bradley" does not constitute a BLP violation. But I am happy to post it on the BLP noticeboard again. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agreed the conclusion of both moves + arbcom was clear - no consensus that BLP requires elimination of Bradley. I put a smaller version which is tighter - I agree we should have Bradley in the template since the connection of Bradley to wiki leaks is very strong, so in interest if users we should have it mentioned.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection with the aesthetics of the parentheses, but I do feel that eliminating it and having just Chelsea Manning would be the best interpretation of BLP. I'm against constant reminders of a previous name when it doesn't reflect a subject's identity. It's biographically relevant elsewhere, but I would argue this particular link can do without it. Happeningfish (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the bulk of media sources disagree - they almost always use the name Bradley as well as Chelsea - the LGBT journalists association recommends the formulation Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley). Remember the purpose is to aid the user here - the new wiki leaks movie has several scenes with Bradley manning but no scenes with Chelsea, so in the context of this template and given you only have a few characters, having both names is entirely reasonable and after two very long discussions there was still no finding that BLP means we must hide Bradley.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Chelsea Manning" is adequate and reflects the consensus name for the article, as well as current usage in most(?) media. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the parentheses and use of Bradley at all. it seems to be another attempt as misgendering her officially across dozens of articles. I find it unlikely that someone looking for her biography won't easily find it using only her name. I support Chelsea Manning as a stand alone link. Other editors may not be aware but it is a common attack against trans* people to weaponize their former names against them. The use of "Bradley" should be absolutely minimal, used sparingly and only when not doing so would cause irreparable confusion to the reader - who is likely not an idiot who knows how to click on a link to get more information if needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opinion about weaponization, but this has been discussed before at considerable length, and this view has not been able to obtain consensus. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which view you mean? That weaponization is done? That some Wikipedians don't think it matters? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That use of the name "Bradley" is necessarily weaponizing. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common decency suggests we err on the side of not needlessly offending other editors and the general public when we know this is a common feeling. It isn't needed, it serves no useful purpose, the reader will still get their information, and we know it causes some harm. Why not avoid all those problems and follow your suggestion at the top of this section where you vigorously defend using the link to the actual article title? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes someone adds Bradley as they think the reader may not know Chelsea. As noted already, LGBt journalist associations themselves recommend a chelsea+bradley combo when introducting the subject. Templates are a different beast and don't afford space for the explanation that would be required in other cases. Your weaponization theory as applied to this case is bogus, I studied the sourcing in media very carefully and looked at every single source - and almost every single one that led with Chelsea mentioned Bradley. If Manning had been unknown before this came to light it would be a different affair, but thats not what happned. News media - that is the reliable sources upon which we base out editorial decisions - chose to use Bradley to explain Chelsea in dozens of articles as a result of editorial decision-making. To equate that with weaponizing is a terrible example and is patently false- intent matters, and my intent in keeping Bradley here is that the connection, the books, the articles, the legal case, and nearly everything else having to do with manning was done under the name Bradley. Trying to remove that by calling it misgendering (when it clearly states 'formerly') is abuse of language and demeans and deminishes the experience of trans* people who have actually had truly bad things happen to them, in the same way that calling unintentional ghettoization of female novelists via categories as 'sexism' completely demeans and deminishes actual sexism which still exists here. Remember the boy who cried wolf - if every effort to use language in the service of the reader without malicious intent is branded as transphobia or trans-hatred or whatever other dramatic terms you come up with, then the real instances of such which do occur here and elsewhere are trivialized.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What other media does is not material here; we follow our own Manual of Style, not theirs. Yworo (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And "common decency" for living people says we follow their wishes, especially for trans* folk, who are constantly given a rough time by parts of the media as well as the public. Using "Bradley" anywhere except when referring to the name given at birth in the appropriate section violates the spirit of the "do no harm" basis of BLP. "Common decency" when referring to editors and readers skates awfully close to also allowing censorship. Let's not go there. Editors and readers are able to "click through" and resolve their confusion. Chelsea has no out for our choosing the offensive use of her former name. Yworo (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rough count shows a 6-2 majority for using just Chelsea. I have to accept that some editors beliefs about respecting trans* people's gender identity will never change much, and a better use of my time is almost anything else. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good thing we don't count votes, but rather look at policy-based arguments. But out of interest, who are the six and two editors you speak of? Can you list them? Because I only count four in favour of merely "Chelsea". In any case, it looks like we'll need a RfC on this. StAnselm (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And being involved, you don't get to make that decision. I'm about to take you for arbitration enforcement and ask that you be topic banned from all trans* related articles. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I don't get to make a decision about having an RfC? StAnselm (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to start an RfC. This isn't one. You don't get to "judge policy" in your own favor... You have to go with the vote count. Because you are involved. Yworo (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But so are you and User:Sportfan5000. Until the discussion has ended, we should leave the entry at what it was before this discussion started. So why did you make that last revert? StAnselm (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the vote count represents the correct interpretation of policy. Why is your opinion on "policy" superior to everyone else's? I hate editors who basically use "policy" bullying like you seem to... And the "we should leave the entry at what it was before" when the vote is against you is also a form of bullying. Take your bullying elsewhere. Yworo (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say that based on your actions here and on the Chelsea manning page I would support keeping you away from all trans* articles. Your edits show you ready to do battle and being pretty insensitive to trans* issues, even willfully so. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current formulation of Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning is close enough to the older consensus formulation that it should be kept pending additional input. I've pinged several related wikiprojects, so hopefully more voices will join and share their opinions. Yworo, please cease your threats to have people banned - it is not helpful at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, consensus can change, the "older consensus" is now void, as we have a new consensus. In any case, consensus is not allowed to override on WP:BLP issues. The very fact that you use the phrase "older consensus" is an admission that there is a new one, one that you are editing against. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the consensus is not yet clear here; you are citing BLP, but there was a very firm, clear, and crisp determination that BLP DOES NOT apply here. Go read the arbcom and two move requests. The community !voted en-masse, and there was no consensus that BLP forced any particular title, nor that BLP would require us to eschew Bradley. Thus, your BLP argument is null and void... sorry... In any case, let's wait for more editors to join in, this is not a slam dunk yet and pending that we keep the old consensus (or the modified/close-enough version, but I'm fine reverting to the longer parenthetical if you prefer).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if Chelsea Manning, with a Bradley Manning redirect and a Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning redirect would fully address the most intense concerns here. We go with current names, not old names, primarily, even on templates. Redirects are the usual way to address both prior names and intermediate explanatory name-change titles, IMHO. Please note that redirects show up in search (WP and Google) results just as well as current article names - no information or access will be lost, no matter what is searched for. --Lexein (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks - but there are many cases where we use a different description for a link than the actual title of the link - the necessary redirects already exist, the question at hand here is will a reader who sees this template at the bottom of a page, having just read a book about wikileaks, know who Chelsea Manning is? ~90% of reliable sources that use the name Chelsea qualify it with Bradley somewhere in the text. Since this isn't prose, and is just a list of links, I see no harm in having this particular link be more descriptive, and I would argue for the same treatment for any entities who are closely associated with topic X that have a name change, that their templates should be adjusted accordingly. Chelsea is slightly more common in the media but there are still dozens of sources and hundreds of articles that use Bradley exclusively.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the safest course is just to wait a while before creating templates that depend on a person's name. Or pick just the last name for the template, like "Manning disclosures". There should never be a rush to create a template. At Wendy Carlos the sea change to minimize the use of "Walter" took quite a while (months), even though the name change proper took place decades ago. Here, we're stuck in the middle of a WP:NEWS event during which the name change took place, and trying to satisfy too many constraints at once: searchability, comprehension (not everybody knows about the name change yet, and many won't for years, trust me), simplicity, relevance, sensitivity to preference, and Wikipedia policies. Bottom line: 10 years from now, I personally think they will be generically referred to as the Manning Disclosures, just as the Snowden Disclosures (or Leaks, if one must) are uncontroversially identified now. So all concerned taking a step back (see WP:TIGERS) should be obvious for this understandably contentious topic. --Lexein (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS-TW template at the top of this page

I honestly don't know why, but Yworo is now warring to keep {{MOS-TW}} at the top of this page, because one of the 20 links on this template is a trans woman. If we assume this as a general rule, then any template, anywhere on the wiki, that has a single trans* person on it, would require this big ole template. Can someone other than Yworo weigh in here and get rid of this ridiculous thing?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's applicable. You simply don't want it here because you don't want to follow its clear prescription as to how to refer to trans* people. This is a standard template where trans* people are mentioned, and it is very clear about how we should refer to them. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want it here because the template has around 15 characters about Manning, and we don't need this big template up top - it seems like you're placing there to lean the consensus in some particular direction, but it's just a template, and just a guideline, and anyone is free to ignore it, as I will. But it should be removed, it's a massive waste of space on a template talk page. Seriously.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear. I find that you are intentionally bullying trans* people, through their articles and through your comments. Because of this, I don't give a flying fuck what you like or don't like. Get it? Yworo (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find you are intentionally using wikipedia to promote your cause and edit in an incredibly POV manner, so, I'm starting to care less about what you like, or whether you're offended. I am a neutral editor and I follow policy. Get it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not promoting any cause, just attempting to make sure that Wikipedia's own Manual of Style is correctly followed for trans* people. Why do you find such a need to diss them? Yworo (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dissing anybody. I simply feel that (1) this template is ridiculous on this page, and applying the same standard would mean putting this template on dozens or hundreds of other templates that have a trans* person somewhere within - that is not the point of this template and I think you're being daft for edit-warring it here (2) I've made my arguments for why Bradley should be mentioned above, it has to do with the close connection of the name Bradley to wikileaks - try this search [2] and see how many articles, including RECENT ones, don't even mention Chelsea, but rather Bradley in the context of wikileaks, the new wikileaks movie, etc. It is inherently better for the user, especially one who has only read some brief coverage of wikileaks and sees this template at the bottom of a page, to be able to get to Manning's article by seeing "Bradley" there, as well as Chelsea. It's a compromise that balances the new name with the old, and there's nothing 'dissing' about it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you are now have been warned about sanctions, I'd advise you to remove it again so that they may immediately be applied to you. 0RR for you on this article and talk page would be a blessing! Yworo (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo, I need to take a break from this non-sense as it's just stressful and needless, I suggest you chill as well because we may never be able to reason enough here. For the record I find Obi-Wan Kenobi's calling you out in the section title here as a perfect example of setting up a battlefield and I fully support the use of this template as it's specifically to address these non-sense discussion that are endless and unproductive debating whether or not - at the core of all the rhetoric - can we respect a trans woman to live honestly as herself rather than lie about who she is in any way. The answer is found at WP:Gender identity and elsewhere but good luck getting unreasonable people to respect someone they fundamentally believe is less than human. Whatever the reasons are, they're bogus and the very same attitudes that fuel these debates contributes to hostility against (mainly) trans women by … a certain privilege strata of society that is shrinking every day, so maybe they are afraid of reality! Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Kenyan extrajudicial killings be removed?

Should it be removed from Leaks? The entry says it was "redistributed" by WikiLeaks, so it sounds like it wasnt a leak

Leaks could be renamed to Releases or Publications or something instead, but I think the focus should be leaks because its WikiLeaks Softlemonades (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing since theres no objection or discussion, if someone disagrees they can revert and discuss Softlemonades (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]