Talk:Telegram (software)/Archive 1

Licence

Android client now is full open source under the GNU GLP2: https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram/commit/dc00cb3c212209b430856a7b7f2469ddda50ed48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.36.67 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us. Reliable sources can be added straight to the article. For information on how to edit Wikipedia pages, visit Help:Editing. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Security 1

In the security section, it is written that "It is based on the MTProto protocol built by our specialists". Are these the Wikipedia specialists? Or did someone copy+paste these statements from a PR statement?

I'm glad to see that this has already been dealt with. The article seems to be attracting a lot of WP:SPA's. Let's see how this develops. I have already identified and contacted one user with a potential WP:COI. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Security 2

The security of the system is controversial. This blog criticizes it. It is a weblog and the format is not straightforward but it would be good to have some independent analysis in the article. --Error (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See also:

• http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-cryptanalysis-contest
• http://thoughtcrime.org/blog/telegram-crypto-challenge/
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6916860
• http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegram-secure

--Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Encryption of conversations

The way it has been written in the Features and Encryption sections, it would seem that all conversations ("secret" and non-secret) are encrypted using the MTProto protocol. It would seem that the MTProto protocol is just a glorified TLS/SSL replacement. The article should include more information about the encryption technique(s) used. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

--- MTProto encrypts data before sending it via normal HTTP. So no slow SSL required at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.38.35.194 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Information removal

Not sure of the proper way of addressing these issues, but I noticed that a link containing alternative views on the security controversy disappeared in an edit by Dodi 8238. The article in question — http://features.en.softonic.com/telegram-secret-chats — originally appeared in Spanish [1], it contains opinions on Telegram from Geoffroy Couprie, Chema Alonso ([2]) (of Eleven paths) and Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez (of Securízame). --MarioRovira (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question. Thank you for noticing that and taking the matter up here on the Talk page. I have no objection to adding the source to the article, as long as the relevant information in it is presented in accordance with Wikipedia policies. However, I don't see how it is relevant at this point. Its original purpose in the article was to disprove a single cherry picked security concern. Because the security concern is (allegedly) not a valid one, I see no reason for that particular information to be in the "Security concerns" section. If its purpose was to minimize misinformation, this could be done better by expanding the Telegram (software)#Encryption section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverse engineering

Attempting to reverse engineer the software is illegal.[3]

This seems to have been copied from Threema's page verbatim. I'm not sure here, can this apply to server code as well? You would need to hack their servers first to get the thing you're supposed to reverse-engineer? So it would rather read something like 'It is not possible to obtain the server code for analysis without hacking Telegram servers, which is illegal'. --MarioRovira (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is applicable to all proprietary software, regardless of purpose. What you are now referring to with the term "hacking" can be counted as an attempt. "Attempting" as a word has a broad enough meaning to cover other ways to purposely try to reverse engineer the software as well. I therefore don't see a reason to replace it. Anyway, the term "hacking" should be avoided in such contexts. It has several meanings and using it in this context would re-enforce a negative connotation that it has. See Hacker (term)#Hacker definition controversy. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

error in History - VK is an Russian or Australia social network

History[edit] Telegram was launched in 2013 by the brothers Nikolai and Pavel Durov, the founders of VK, Australia largest social network.[10]

Hi, it seems to be a error in the above line, VK is an Russian company and the hyperlink for VK points to as a largest Russian network, however above it mentioned as Australia largest social network ??? IS this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankam.narender (talk • contribs) 07:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Telegram vs Telegram Messenger

The official website of Telegram mentions its name as "Telegram" in both the front page and the FAQ. I think "Messenger" is a common suffix for SEO and should not be included in the Wikipedia article. It might be valid for Facebook Messenger, only because Facebook is a different thing. asdofindia (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't see anywhere where they called themselves Telegram Messenger. Ballofstring (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over ownership of Telegram

Hi all! I've been a bit puzzled by recent editing of this article by Phiadx (talk · contribs). I had a look at their contributions, and they seemed to have heavily edited Axel Neff (perhaps COI editing). My suspicion is that this article is getting caught up in the ownership dispute, which I note is not covered in this article. See news articles here and here. I think it would be worth expanding the article to include information about that ownership dispute, and also to keep an eye on editing about the relationship between Telegram and the Digital Fortress Fund in light of the legal dispute. Cheers Ballofstring (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ballofstring and Totie: I found this article that I think could very well be used to expand this Wikipedia article. At this point, Telegram Messenger LLP's history seems complex enough to warrant its own section. On second thought, maybe it would be better to expand the existing history section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC) [edited 05:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)]

Wrong information

This ref that you had added :http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/23/secure-messaging-app-telegram-adds-usernames-and-snapchat-like-hold-to-view-for-media/ contains incorrect information,in Telegram,you cant contact someone only by their username,you have to have his/her number,i and people here are expriencing this,the only way you can contact someone without having his/her number is that you be in the same grouop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GREYBOYY (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is correct, usernames have been a feature since version 2 of the app https://telegram.org/blog/usernames-and-secret-chats-v2. Seatsea (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Searching & adding by usernames are disabled in Iran

"searching and adding with usernames are disable in Iran due to some technical problems,we will enable them in the near future",says Telegram Support.it means that you cant search or add accounts without having numbers and cant search them in contacts. the only way to contact someone only by having their username in Iran(without having their number),is to write the username in a chat(example:@Maryyy) or after this link: "telegram.me",so it would be like this(with adding an "/"): telegram.me/(write here the username), example: telegram.me/Maryyyy

NOTE: you have to write this in a chat room or private chat in telegram or line and then click on it,choose Telegram in the "Complete action using" menu,you will be brought directly to his/her private chat and you can see his/her profile pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by GREYBOYY (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) [comment was edited by GREYBOYY (talk) at 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)]

If you are suggesting that this be included in the article: Wikipedia articles shouldn't read like instruction manuals (see WP:NOTMANUAL). If you are not suggesting that this be included in the article: Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance (see WP:NOTFORUM). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

German registration/Impressum?

German companies and such need an Impressum. There is none listed in the Telegram website and no registry in any German business registry I can find. As a result, I've added a Citation Needed for that. Indrora (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sentence altogether. The only reference I can find leads to Telegram Messenger LLP which, according to the domain registration of telegram.org, appears to be a limited-liability partnership incorporated under English law with a registered office in London. There is no German organisation as far as I can see, although it may very well be true that the headquarters are still in Berlin (which they say). Overall I miss a critical reflection or at least some scepticism in this article with regard to what the company claims. For instance, the UK Companies House website states that the LLP's only two officers are a company from the British Virgin Islands and a company from Belize. I see no connection to Germany.–Totie (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Telegram (software)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Telegram (software) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://yourstory.com/2014/02/whatsapp-wary-telegram/

  Triggered by \byourstory\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad cryptography

There's been some discussion here about the bad crypto implementation in Telegram, but it's not really reflected in the Security section. Unless there are objections, I will (when I find time) add a paragraph there explaining how the cryptography in their protocol has been criticized by many cryptographers (a few examples: [4] [5] [6] [7], plus what ones others have mentioned).

I came to this article because I remembered hearing about a messaging app with terribly-designed crypto, and was trying to remember if it was this one. It is, but the article doesn't mention it anywhere. I'd like to fix that.

-- Qwerty0 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This point has been bothering me for a while too, but I didn't have the sources or expertise to write something about this. The problem I encountered was that many references I found were mostly (anonymous) discussions, superficial analyses, hearsay and blog posts written by people with a conflict of interest or unclear reputability. If you can find reliable sources that really challenge the cryptography of Telegram then I have no objections.–Totie (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There's actual vulnerabilities and then there's the opinion of cryptographers that what they're doing is probably a bad idea, based on well-established principles like "don't roll your own". There's been plenty of the latter, which I feel is enough to warrant a mention. There aren't any solid vulnerabilities yet, though here's a recent paper on a theoretical weakness (which incidentally also provides another expert opinion on how wise Telegram's approach is): https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177

--Qwerty0 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That paper seems to be based on this Masters research: http://cs.au.dk/~jakjak/master-thesis.pdf Pvanheus (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

App size

I know for a fact that the app size mentioned in Apple's App Store is not correct, particularly since iOS 9. The Microsoft Store uses a range instead of a fixed value. I cannot say anything about the Google Play Store. What is the point of even mentioning this when it is likely not correct? Without a reliable source, I am inclined to remove that part from the info box.–Totie (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Bots

Bots seem to be the thing in 2016 (e.g. http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/17/facebooks-messenger-in-a-bot-store/)

I think the article deserves a more detailed section dedicated to the bot platform. For example, the inline bots are not mentioned at all. A preliminary search yileded some nice sources: http://qz.com/623863/this-free-chat-app-offers-secrecy-and-bots-and-now-has-100-million-users/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/04/telegrams-new-inline-bots-make-it-easy-to-send-giphy-youtube-wikipedia-imdb-content/

Will try to find some time on the weekend maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeGregg (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

about telegram's encryption

I tried to make it clear in the summary that there are very serious problems with the security claims that Telegram makes. No authentication of contacts, MITM attacks, the protocol is filled with serious flaws that expose the users to spying, both from third parties and telegram itself. Yet the summary still says "end-to-end encrypted messaging". I am sorry, but that is just misleading. My edits were reverted on the basis of WP:SPS, yet Moxie Marlinspike is a renown security researcher. While he works on a competing product, I do not believe his claims are dubious or non-neutral, and should be considered seriously, especially since they have *not* been answered by Telegram developers. Geoffrey Couprie and Martin Ferrarri do not work on competing products and while they are "self-published", I believe that the fact that two researchers independently came to the same conclusion should be sufficient to bring serious criticism of Telegram in this article, which is now completely absent.

I believe those sources and edits should be added back, maybe with the disclaimer that Moxie works for a "competing product" (which is not quite accurate: Signal competes with Whatsapp, not telegram). Maybe the fact that Telegram was refused admission into Debian could also be mentionned in the article, see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=767418 and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=737563

This article is filled with WP:PRIMARY directly from a another WP:SPS, Telegram itself, which is just taken at face value while the criticism of their algorithms is just deleted from wikipedia. That seems wrong. At least add something regarding the "Reception" section in the summary to reflect that not all is fine and dandy with Telegram.

And for the record, I do not use Signal or Telegram, and have no stake in this other than help users make good decisions about the software they use. I wonder if other Wikipedia editors here can make similar disclaimers.

Another source: http://www.iscturkey.org/s/2226/i/isc2014-47.pdf - quotes:

• Telegram uses its own protocol called MTProto Mobile Protocol. It consists of AES-256 encryption with infinite garble extension (IGE), and hash function SHA-1. Using SHA-1 is not a good option, because studies [17] showed that SHA1 has some major vulnerabilities.
• Telegram supports forward secrecy in an impractical way. In order to provide forward secrecy, user should delete message logs and start a new secure conversation. So, forward secrecy is achieved manually
• Telegram does not provide disk encryption
• Telegram provides a group chat up to 200 participants, but it is not a secure chat. The application provides secure chat for only one to one conversations.
• Both Telegram and TextSecure send the contact list of the user to the servers in a clear text format to find the other users using the same application.
• Although Telegram becomes very popular in a short time, adding some more features (e.g. disk encryption and secure chat) to it will be good for its security.

This source confirms the MITM problems: https://nourbakhsh.ir/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/jakobsen-master-thesis-telegram.pdf

This confirms secret chats are logged in plaintext: https://www.sba-research.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/paper_drafthp.pdf "Line and Telegram both do not encrypt the messages stored on the device."

--TheAnarcat (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The 2014 paper written by Demircioglu et.al. you refer to seems to be outdated at least in part, because some Telegram clients now allow users to encrypt the local message database by setting a passphrase.[8] This was already mentioned in the Secret chats section, and some of the other criticisms you've listed are already covered in the reception section and the section about Telegram's encryption scheme.

I agree that something about Telegram's reception could be added to the lead section, considering that there is a dedicated section for it in the article. After all, one of Wikipedia's essays about how to create and manage a comprehensive lead section suggests that if a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead (WP:CREATELEAD).

Note that the 2015 paper by Rottermanner et.al. that you linked to is a draft (i.e. it hasn't gone through peer-review), and that none of its authors are notable. The best thing to do would be to wait until it is officially published.

Do you think it should be clearer that only "Secret Chats" (sometimes erroneously referred to as "Secure Chats") are end-to-end encrypted, and that they are optional (i.e. not the default)? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC) [edited 16:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)]

Correction: The Rottermanner et.al. paper was apparently published in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services (iiWAS2015). The authors probably just forgot to change the file name. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the lead section and I put the sentence back in. As for the rest, we have been at this point already and the problem is that there is not much to go on. We have already pointed out that some security researchers and cryptography experts like Marlinspike have expressed their doubts on the encryption scheme and some other aspects, like the contests. But there is little actual research to substantiate these doubts, so far there is only one peer-reviewed journal article. I do agree that we overly rely on primary sources in this article and I support replacing them with reliable sources.–Totie (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Worth adding info about hack?

Saw this article today regarding a hack on messaging accounts in Iran. Would it be worth adding any of this info to the page?

Iranian hackers have compromised more than a dozen accounts on the Telegram instant messaging service and identified the phone numbers of 15 million Iranian users, the largest known breach of the encrypted communications system, cyber researchers told Reuters.

Let me know what you guys think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this seems very notable. But a second reliable source would be good.–Totie (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Many missing features in the "Features" section

Drafts, Message editing and Mentions are missing and are not even mentioned.

I think these deserve to be included in the "Features" section.

I am not sure whether or not to create a sub-section for them, like "other features", or include them in an existing sub-section.

thoughts? Phantom147 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a little information about message editing and drafts — Tim Yusupov (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Outdated source code

Due to the lackluster maintenance of the Android (at the moment of writing, the last commit is over 3 months ago) and iOS (over 7 months ago) client Github repositories, I would say the open-sourcedness of Telegram is to be doubted. Maybe worth mentioning on the wiki? SijmenSchoon (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely.–Totie (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@SijmenSchoon: Do you want to do anything with this? The source code has still not been updated for iOS, macOS has not seen an update since August. This seems to be chronic. Does anyone have a reliable source that we could use or should we just use the commit history of the repos as facts?–Totie (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Totie: DrKLO has updated the Android repository to reflect the latest changes, however indeed the Apple side of things is looking much less positive. I have next to none experience writing Wikipedia articles, but to me the commit history sounds like proper facts, as long as the maintainers don't force push over it. SijmenSchoon (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Reception section is virtually entirely criticism

The Reception section contains almost entirely criticism with no good reviews. The sole "good" reception is a moderate security quality rating in the Security section. Fix this. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm unable to find favorable reviews that have been written by experts, published in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, and are not already covered in the article. Can you give examples of published, independent, reliable secondary sources that contain the missing material or point of view that you think should be included? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial versions

I think it is better to remove Unofficial versions. Literally they are not Telegram! Also there are plenty number of similar applications which use Telegram platform.--Freshman404^Talk 06:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?

A WP:NPOV banner was added to the reception section, yet there's no information here nor on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard about why it was added there or what the debate is/was. Can we get some clarification here? Otherwise I'll just remove the banner. I have notified the user who added the tag in his talk page, in User_talk:SpikeballUnion --TheAnarcat (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Telegram (messaging service)#Reception section is virtually entirely criticism. SpikeballUnion (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

well that's what i mean - it's not that it's NPOV, it's that there's no one that could come up with positive cryptographic reviews of the darn thing. Because there are none, as far as I know. It's not a neutrality problem, it's a problem with the protocol in itself! I'll just remove the notice already. If someone wants to defend that NPOV, they should clarify it better here.--TheAnarcat (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Binary blobs in source code

The article mentions binary blobs in Telegram's source code, but I don't see this looking at the code. As for sources, there's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9774767 and this: https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram/commit/6033ee2f5c48bb00879eab6d6d67ae5b516ff4a2 Looks like it's safe to remove that bit.

2607:FEA8:84E0:4BF:EDB4:84F:A06B:C66C (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The hatnote to Telegram (disambiguation)

Hey, Lkingscott.

Codename Lisa asked for my opinion on this matter.

May reading of WP:NAMB is that on article whose title is in the form of "Subject 1 name (something to disambiguate it)", you must not insert a hatnote, unless the following conditions meet:

1. There is a redirect in Wikipedia in the form of "Subject 2 name" and there is a disambiguation page called "Subject 2 name (disambiguation)"
2. "Subject 2 name" redirects to "Subject 1 name (something to disambiguate it)"

In that case, you can go to the "Subject 1 name (something to disambiguate it)" and insert the following:

{{redirect|Subject 2 name}}

...which generates:

"Subject 2 name" redirects here. For other uses, see Subject 2 name (disambiguation).

The second problem is that you are edit warring because:

1. You refused to read WP:HATNOTE the first time you were reverted, and wrote "There is no disambiguation link on this wiki page." (Well, who says there should be one?)
2. The second time, you read the correct part of WP:HATNOTE (which is WP:NAMB) but either you did it carelessly or deliberately make it look like you are not paying any attention.

So, this is pretty much your last chance. If you have something to say, say it here, not in a counter-reversion's edit summary.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Investigation has revealed that Lkingscott has been adding this particular hatnote to many articles, including Winnipeg Telegram, Toronto Telegram, Le Télégramme, Telegram & Gazette, The Daily Telegram, The Telegram (Herkimer), Telegram (song), Telegram Sam, Telegram (EP), Telegram (album) and—

Well, that's as far as I know it. The point is, when Lkingscott studied WP:HATNOTE, instead of bickering with Codename Lisa, he should have returned and reverted at least some of his edits. A person who cleverly discovered that Codename Lisa meant WP:NAMB (he quoted it in his edit summary) is definitely clever enough to know that some of these titles definitely don't fly well with WP:HATNOTE, no matter how you look at them. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I did read the Hatnoteand my understanding was that a hatnote was appropriate. The reversions were made anonymously, so I did not know with whom to discuss the matter. I will refrain from doing this further, but it infuriates me when I'm trying to find a particular article and I come to such articles as this with no disambiguation hatnote to quickly navigate to my intended destination. I therefore disagree with Wiki policy in this matter, but I will not continue to argue the matter.

As mentioned, when I search Google for Telegram, this article is the top hit. The article on telegram / trlegraph is way down the hit list. This often happens. Disambiguation hatnotes are really useful to get quickly to my desired article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lkingscott: Hi.

Quite frankly, your plight is your own fault. First, you should have used Wikipedia search instead of Google search, if you were looking for a Wikipedia article. That would have taken you straight to the Telegram article. Google is not an employee of Wikipedia and has no obligation whatsoever to aid our readers.

Second, even when you land on this article, all you have to do is going to the title bar and deleting "_(messaging_service)". Or using the search bar to the top right does it too.

Third, I can't imagine how on earth you could have landed on Le Télégramme if you were looking for the Telegram article.

Now, neither of this justifies polluting articles with hatnotes. The fact is that computers can do amazing things, but their users should have a tiny bit of intelligence and use it too.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki search is not as intelligent as Google, being less tolerant of typos. If I am looking up something new, I'm not always sure of spelling and Google is superior at alternative suggestions, when there is a misspelling.Lkingscott (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean address bar, and that would assume that an article by that exact specific name exists, which is not always the case.Lkingscott (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So why is it in Telegram disambiguation? Lkingscott (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So why bother having all these articles in Telegram disambiguation if they are so unambiguous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Apple shutdown of Telegram

As shown on Portal:Current events, Telegram was temporarily shut down by Apple due to concerns of it being widely used by terrorists. Is it noteworthy enough to include in the article? --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The reason I said it was temporary is because one source reporting on the takedown posted an update saying the apps were back on the app store. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello

Please let us see your first source. Only then we can decide objectively. Right now, I am having a hard time driving the notion of pot calling kettle black out of my head, as Apple is a producer of mobile phones, a common ingredient of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used by terrorists.

On the other hand, I just received a Telegram update on my iPhone.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

After review of sources, the shutdown is not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Recommend admin closing this part of the discussion. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)