Talk:Uber Files

Does this issue merit an article to itself?

Does this issue merit an article to itself? Being a leak exclusively related to Uber, it would seem more appropriate there. I don't see this article as becoming very long, nothing like the Panama Papers, for example. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see that this article uses several categories (News leaks, Data breaches, Data journalism, Investigative journalism, Whistleblowing...), which would not be possible if it was just a section of an article. I also found this article quickly on a search engine like DuckDuckGo by searching "uber files", probably because the subject has its own article. Baptx (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the merger should be based on the content rather than categories, and it is obvious that the current length is not worthy of a separate article. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is kept as the main article on the leaked files, the article on Uber itself needs to have details of the misdeeds themselves. For example, this article can discuss how it was revealed that the company mistreated its drivers, but the article on the company should discuss the mistreatment that was revealed by the leak, with little detail here, only bare outlines. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the article is already long enough to merit its standalone status and that's without the benefit of the weeks and months it will take for lawsuits and scrutiny to pop up based on these documents. Some of the information obviously needs to be carried over into the main article, too, but I'd argue that this more than deserves its own page, it's a huge leak that impacts a leading company in the industry and is associated with a lot of information that can be catalogued encyclopedically. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Yes it clearly does. Some people typed specifically as me "Uber files" to acess this page. --194.199.143.58 (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Something that is clearly happening is that a great deal of material which needs to be in the Uber article has been shunted here. This article has headings: Lobbying; Kill switch; Greyball; Taxation; Passenger safety; Employee safety. They are relevant to Uber; that they were disclosed in this leak is unimportant. At the moment the topic is very active; but in a year or so this article will fade out of people's consciousness, and these matters may well not be well-reflected in the Uber article. At the least that article should have the subheadings I listed here. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Politicians involved

Wonder if there should be a list of all politians involved. For example: Pascal Smet (https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/belgie/brussel/ubers-lobbymachine-bij-brusselse-politiek-blootgelegd/10401329) Lotje (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding news quote in the lead in citation

The lead has text on politicians lobbied, would be helpful if the news sources about Olaf, Joe or Osborne is directly quoted for 2-3 lines. Basically stuff that's explained much below.Greatder (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A referenced article quotes "BV" with no context or explanation of the abbreviation

I added [Uber] to the quote to clarify what it's referring to, which is a self-evident glaring omission. Uber BV isn't even referenced in the main Uber article, so just leaving "BV" anywhere doesn't make sense.

The article creator reverted this legitimate edit, with no comment or explanation. I'm not a professional contributor, so I don't want to start a revert war, nor do I hardly care since i'm spending my valuable time.

However if things like this get reverted for no reason and Wikipedia editors and bots let it slide, the site will lose conscientious cleanup editors such as myself.

2604:3D08:497C:CC00:4598:8531:3A8E:97FC (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be specified. I reinserted "[Uber]" into the article -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uber_Files&diff=1098443734&oldid=1098383032. Profzed (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Me too, I'm not sure what is BV. Write it in full letters thank you. --194.199.143.58 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the suffix for a Dutch corporation, like LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7C10:AF50:E91C:A963:C851:532D (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)