Talk:News leak

Proposal to merge

Just a quickie comment for now: yes, it's clearly nonsensical and counter-productive to have three separate articles on what is fundamentally the same subject. I'm not even sure there is a counter-argument to be made. Cgingold 18:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• As written the articles have a distinct subject not really the same. Maybe one should see how they develop. Premature mergers result sometimes in bad outcomes: example merger of Outdoor and Wilderness. Decoratrix 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything against merging political leak and news leak but internet leak refers to leaking intellectual property (music, software, etc.) and the other topics don't really have anything to do with that. Recury 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not merging Internet leak, as it is quite different from the other two. Information vs. intellectual property - kollision (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

New proposal to merge

Internet leaks are news leaks that occur on the internet. We don't have an article for phone leak, letter leak, meeting-in-a-pub leak - we don't need a separate article for internet leak. Comments, anyone, before I merge them? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

They look like they're about different sorts of content being leaked, not just the medium by which the leak occurs (as mentioned above by Decoratrix). Also, this merge tag has been sitting here with no real action for over two years. I'm going to call this discussion 'inconclusive' and remove it now. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

May incident

See Talk:Andrew J. May. Several of us have searched and can find no evidence for this other than Clay's claim, apparently based on Lockwood's papers. Rees11 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to find a better example, one that's verifiable? Maybe the Pentagon Papers? Rees11 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why the edition of this example of a news leak keeps getting reverted:

• Former FBI director James Comey revealed during testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017 that he was the source of leaked memos about his conversations with President Donald Trump surrounding the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Comey explained that he shared the memos with his friend, a law professor at Columbia University, who then passed them along to the New York Times. During the hearing Comey stated “...I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel” in the investigation.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1111z (talk • contribs) 10:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This should not be on this page. It was only added to defame the person in question. Comey's memos were embargoed by Comey until a which point they were released by his permission. A leak can't come from a person who creates the embargo it just gets "released". Also your source provides no information on considering the memo's release as a leak. BSeverywhere (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References