Talk:WikiLeaks

Page size and changes

Two points:

• Page size has now reached 114 kB. Policy says pages of > 100 kB should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed".
• It is easier to follow changes when they are made in small increments.

Burrobert (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I replaced a lot of the reception with a summary because of Reception of WikiLeaks [1]

Size is now 96 kB Softlem (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo.

Hello, i wanted to warn users with edit perm that in 2011–2015 section, the word "malware" is written as "mawlare". Rei Da Tecnologia (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rei Da Tecnologia: I've fixed it. Mindmatrix 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor typo

"In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden leave Hong Kong"

It should be

"In 2013, the organisation assisted Edward Snowden in leaving Hong Kong" 2601:647:6300:9590:58D:3732:6BDA:CD15 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

RSP#WikiLeaks

[2] Citing your own easy is cute essay went through TEAHOUSE and Reliable Sources. Content copied from WP policy pages. I cited WP:RSP#WikiLeaks first. Ignoring RSP is cute but against policy. Ignoring consensus required is cute but against policy.

but it’s common practice across the site to cite the subject’s own website for information about what it says it’s done Not when the site doesn't meet RSP. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source.

I didnt remove any content and I left citations to WikiLeaks about what they said. It should be easy to find sources that meet RSP. Softlem (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Considerations of reliability for information outside of the article subject are not at issue here. No-one is disputing the 2021 RfC. Like numerous other news and media organisations (and other institutions and individuals – see WP:ABOUTSELF) we can cite the Wikileaks website for information about the views or outlook or what is presented as content on the Wikileaks website. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

They are self serving and WP:EXCEPTIONAL and they involve third parties

And @Valjean said Yes, ABOUTSELF allows linking to the main index page and About page, but WikiLeaks hosts lots of illegally obtained content, and I believe we are not allowed to link to such URLs. This list links to many such pages. Talk:List_of_material_published_by_WikiLeaks#Violation of policy

Valjean started Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Policy_violation_to_link_to_WikiLeaks you said Pinging @Diannaa as the resident expert to see whether such links represent a copyright issue. and no answer Softlem (talk) 05:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support; the citations are merely for prosaic information about what documents they posted. Nor do they involve claims about third parties. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing remotely self-serving about the information they support

Self serving to say

• published classified info
• published emails from vice president candidate
• published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables

Nor do they involve claims about third parties.

Third parties

• vice president nominee
• US Embassy Reykjavik
• State Department (published hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables)
• Guardian journalist WikiLeaks said negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords
• Stratfor
• Syria
• Saudi Foreign Ministry
• AKP Party and source comments

Saying someone is not a source is about a third party. Have the information means third party lost it. Softlem (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not self-serving to state that you are releasing something on the internet on the internet page where you do so.

Neither this article nor the source make any claim about the third parties you list. Your opinion that Have the information means third party lost it is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source. The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cambial foliar in their argument that they are not unduly self serving. And they can be brought in as primary sources because of reliable sources discussing the area.. The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations. NadVolum (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Cambial

The only claim related to a third party, that AKP emails are not connected "to the elements behind the attempted coup", is very clearly attributed in-text, with quotation marks Not true and ABOUTSELF does not say you use self-published if attributed

Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords How do you say that the self published editorial isnt about third party?

During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand. Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand are third parties

Your opinion that Have the information means third party lost it is your own unsupported inference; it's neither claimed in this article nor stated in the source. it says the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell.

NadVolum

The bit about negligent about the password comes under statement in own defense about accusations. That allows denials not self published editorials accusing other people and denial has other sources

More problems

COPYLINK on Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages and Stratfor

Maybe COPYLINK Syria, TTP, and Saudi Cables

In mid-February 2010, WikiLeaks received a leaked diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Reykjavik relating to the Icesave scandal, which it published on 18 February. not supported by link restored. page does not say when received or about Icesave Softlem (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Giving the attributed view of someone or something is a statement about the person or institution that expressed that view, "this is what this person said". It's not a statement about a third party.

You write "Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords". This is not in the article.

You write "During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand." This is cited to three other secondary sources.

You write "the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell. I infer from the emphasis you added to this sentence that the part you object to is "after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell". This claim is not mentioned in the WikiLeaks page, and it is not used to support this part of the sentence. That claim relies on two other sources. It has nothing to do with a (non-existent) claim about a third party on the WikiLeaks site and no relevance to your argument. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Giving the attributed view of someone or something is a statement about the person or institution that expressed that view, "this is what this person said". It's not a statement about a third party. A statement about third party. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties. This is that

You write "Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords". This is not in the article. Thats the name of self published Wikileaks editorial cited in the article.

This is cited to three other secondary sources. Yes so why do you need this? Saying there are RSes agrees with my first post. I didnt remove any content and I left citations to WikiLeaks about what they said. It should be easy to find sources that meet RSP.

You write "the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell. I infer from the emphasis you added to this sentence that the part you object to is "after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell". This claim is not mentioned in the WikiLeaks page, and it is not used to support this part of the sentence. That claim relies on two other sources. It has nothing to do with a (non-existent) claim about a third party on the WikiLeaks site and no relevance to your argument.

Not true. The Wikileaks page says activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous' gained access to U.S. Republican Party Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account

Why didnt you reply about the COPYLINK problems on the other citations you restored?

Why do you want self published sources and not RSes? I dont understand Softlem (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats the name of self published Wikileaks editorial. So? I don't understand. It's not used to support such a claim in the article.

Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader.

Not true. It is true. David Kernell is referred to in that sentence in the article. He is not mentioned on the Wikileaks page. "activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous'" are not mentioned in that section of the article.

I see no copylink problem.

I neglected not supported by link restored. page does not say when received or about Icesave Page cited: "from US Embassy Reykjavik on Icesave". You're right about it not saying when it was received; I removed it.

and not RSes I've made no such argument, nor (I think) has anyone else. Arguing against a position no-one has taken is not productive. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not used to support such a claim in the article. The material still involves involve claims about third parties so its not right to link to it. But your right it doesnt support the claims cited to it in the article except Knowledge of the Guardian disclosure has spread privately over several months but reached critical mass last week. which is about third party

Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader. That doesnt change ABOUTSELF or the RSP or explain why you reverted

CN tags for things that only had self-published primary source It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source.

I see no copylink problem. Why do you think Palins emails are public domain? Or Stratfor? Or Syria? Why do you think they do not involve claims about third parties

I've made no such argument, nor (I think) has anyone else. I asked why you were doing what you were doing. You reverted the citations needed, restored primary self-published sources that fail RSP, and when you admitted that Icesave had info that wasnt in the source, you remove the info and didnt restore CN or better source tag. You asked for a rock not RSes and removed information instead of restoring it Softlem (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Its almost two weeks and because you are active and there is WP:SILENCE on why you think the leaks are public domain or why "someone else wrote this" doesnt involve claims about third parties, I will replace self published links with reliable sources Softlem (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A lack of interest in reading you rehash the same arguments yet again is not silence. Both NadVolum and I oppose your proposed change. Your admonishment that The material still involves involve claims about third parties so its not right to link to it. is not policy but your own moral judgment. I do not share your view and it is not relevant to creating this site. I have no objection to the addition of further secondary sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed. Do not add self-published material that has been objected to again. Do not add suspected COPYLINK violations again. And refusing to answer questions isnt A lack of interest in reading you rehash the same arguments yet again. Softlem (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not explaining things yet again to you just because you refuse to listen to other editors. The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above. There is no copylink violation, and there's no self-published material in the article. You need to stop edit-warring against consensus and trying to bulldoze changes to get your own way. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not explaining things yet again to you just because you refuse to listen to other editors. You refused to answer.

The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above. The policy says not to use it if it involve claims about third parties. This involves claims about third parties.

The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article, as is already explained in the policy and in the discussion above. Where? WP:ABOUTSELF does not say that. And you didnt say the policy said that. Softlem (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa Can you give third opinion on COPYLINK issue? If you say its okay I will stop objection Softlem (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have the time or interest to investigate this. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok Softlem (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Quoting WP:ABOUTSELF (again): may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties. The information sourced in this instance does not involve claims about third parties. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The information sourced in this instance does not involve claims about third parties. But it involves third parties.

If you wont explain why you think these things dont involve third parties, then they should be removed. You havent explained why you think Syria and Stratfor and Sarah Palin emails do not involve claims about third parties. Stratfor involves Stratfor. It is a third party.

The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article what you quoted does not say that.

Softlem (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The information sourced in the article to WikiLeaks (WikiLeaks published x document) does not involve a claim about a third party. That's why you've been unable to give an example of any that does. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Documents from a third parties that are named

You also restored WikiLeaks accusing a Guardian journalist of things, a blatant BLP violation Softlem (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no claims about the third parties, though, which is what is at issue. Do not make things up about other editors' actions. I added no such material (nor any material: I only restored useful citations). Cambial — foliar❧ 19:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not make things up about other editors' actions. I added no such material (nor any material: I only restored useful citations). Saying you restored it does not contradict me saying that you restored it. A self published claim about a third party is a BLP violation. WP:BLPSPS Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

There's no claims about the third parties, though, which is what is at issue. Yes there are. Saying a journalist negligently did something is a claim about a third party. Stratfor is a third party. Everyone in the Syria emails is a third party. Softlem (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your bizarre claim that "Saying you restored it does not contradict me saying that you restored it." makes no sense. We are both clearly referring to different things. Do not make things up about other editors' actions. You claimed, falsely - having made it up - that I restored WikiLeaks accusing a Guardian journalist of things, a blatant BLP violation. I didn't restore any article text, and thus didn't restore a BLP violation, because there was none in this part of the article.

You claim Saying a journalist negligently did something is a claim about a third party. The article text didn't say this.

The article text did not contain claims about Stratfor or people in the Syria emails sourced to WikiLeaks. This manufactured claim is your only argument that we cannot use the article subject's website for claims about itself, because the article might *also* contain claims about third parties sourced to WikiLeaks. But the article doesn't contain claims about third parties sourced to WikiLeaks, and your argument is based on an entirely manufactured premise. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your manufactured premise explains why, despite all the words you've expended here, you've been unable to name any claim about a third party in this article sourced to WikiLeaks. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your bizarre claim that "Saying you restored it does not contradict me saying that you restored it." makes no sense. We are both clearly referring to different things. No

I didn't restore any article text, and thus didn't restore a BLP violation, because there was none in this part of the article. You restored the citation saying that. Thats all I said.

The name of that citation is Guardian journalist negligently disclosed Cablegate passwords that alone is a claim about third parties

Your manufactured premise Stop making accusations

you've been unable to name any claim about a third party in this article sourced to WikiLeaks. I gave several but since you want quotes from article

• detailing the protocol of the US Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp Third party
• a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked by 4chan user David Kernell
• lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark, Norway and Thailand.
• These were created to Third party
• Wikileaks pages were also added to the Australian blacklist Third party
• pager messages sent on the day of the 11 September attacks Third party
• diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Reykjavik Third party
• a secret 32-page US Department of Defense Counterintelligence Analysis Report Third party
• from the Texas-headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor Third party
• began publishing the Syria Files, both had given to WikiLeaks by Anonymous Third party
• files covering the rules and procedures for detainees in US military custody. Third party
• a draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's Intellectual Property Rights chapter Third party
• cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry Third party
• "is not connected, in any way, to the elements behind the attempted coup, or to a rival political party or state" Third party

You said The policy about claims about third parties is about what is stated in the article but when I asked where it, you gave quote that said material can be used so long as it does not involve claims about third parties. The material involves claims about third parties Softlem (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You claim there were "claims about third parties" in the article sourced to WikiLeaks. The above is simply a list of third parties - it's not claims about a third party sourced to WikiLeaks, which is your stated rationale for why WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply. If there were such a claim about a third party sourced only to WikiLeaks in the article, you could have simply removed that claim, resolving what you say is the issue. Because there were none, that's not what you did. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If there were such a claim about a third party sourced only to WikiLeaks in the article, you could have simply removed that claim, resolving what you say is the issue. They were sourced only to WikiLeaks [3] Why would I remove the claim when I could fix it like I did? If I had removed the mention of the Syria Files, Stratfor emails, and the Saudi Cables and all the others you would object to that and youd be right

If there were such a claim about a third party sourced only to WikiLeaks in the article The policy says you cant make claims about third party sourced only to self published source. It says you cant use self published source if the material involves claims about third parties

your stated rationale for why [[WP::ABOUTSELF]] does not apply I didnt say it doesnt apply, I said it says you cant use it Softlem (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You claim They were sourced only to WikiLeaks. You again fail to include any claim about a third party. Because they don't exist. A list of third parties appearing in the article does not back up your manufactured premise. There was no material in the article sourced to WikiLeaks that involved a claim about a third party. And you've still failed to list a single example showing differently. Making another list of some people doesn't support your empty argument. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There was no material in the article sourced to WikiLeaks that involved a claim about a third party. They involved third parties and thats what WP:ABOUTSELF says is not allowed

your manufactured premise Please stop making ill-considered accusations of impropriety

I dont think you ever said why you think its important to include these self-published sources when there are independent, reliable sources Softlem (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You falsely claim that They involved third parties and thats what WP:ABOUTSELF says is not allowed. Misrepresenting policy will not help you here. The caveat in the policy is so long as: The material...does not involve claims about third parties.

I dont think you ever said. I've already explained why here and here. You've still failed to list any article material involving a claim about a third party sourced to WikiLeaks. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained why here and here. They dont explain why you think it should be used or why its important. The first says we can cite the Wikileaks website for information about the views or outlook or what is presented as content on the Wikileaks website. The second says that Supporting citations to the primary source (where the secondary sources are saying something about the primary source) are useful to the reader. but not what it adds. What does the primary source add that isnt in the secondary source? Why is it important?

You've still failed to list any article material involving a claim about a third party sourced to WikiLeaks. If the material did not involve the third parties named, you could remove the mention of them. You cant. The third party is central to it

But even if you dont agree that the policy does not say claim about a third party it says involve (Misrepresenting policy will not help you here.), there are claims about third parties. I already quoted some like a Yahoo account belonging to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and both had given to WikiLeaks by Anonymous and "is not connected, in any way, to the elements behind the attempted coup, or to a rival political party or state" that do

And no other editor has agreed with you on that Softlem (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No editor has agreed with your inaccurate claim this is self-published, nor with your unorthodox and contrarian view all citations to the website that is the subject of this article ought to be removed. Two editors have voiced their opposition. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

your inaccurate claim this is self-published You dont think its self published? Softlem (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said all citations to the website that is the subject of this article ought to be removed. and I never tried to remove many of the citations to the website Softlem (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Something published by a media organisation is not self-published. The notion WikiLeaks is self-published is your own invention to try get others to acquiesce to your demands to get your own way. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE makes no exception for media organisations and WP:RSPWIKILEAKS does nothing to support that its still allowed. It does say you cant link to copyright violations, which you have restored repeatedly

Something published by a media organisation is not self-published WP:SELFPUBLISH says you are wrong Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group Softlem (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The self-published material policy does not say I am wrong. You are wrong. Pasting and adding bold formatting to text from the policy does not make it relevant here. These examples are not material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group. If a link were to an editorial by Assange on WikiLeaks that would be self-published. There are a few rare examples of this, and WikiLeaks marks them as editorial (example). As far as I can see none of the citations on this article are to such material. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You said that Something published by a media organisation is not self-published. If you dont think that WikiLeaks press releases are press releaes, the policy still says it applies to media organisations. material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group and that the editors cant have conflict of interest characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest)

WikiLeaks publishing something saying it did something meets that

But we wont agree. Would you listen to Reliable Sources noticeboard if they say its self-published? Softlem (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Daily Dot questionable?

@Cambial Yellowing I partial reverted [4], why are the Daily Dot articles questionable? Softlem (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has determined it to be questionable for the reasons given at the time it was raised. It certainly ought not to be relied upon for contentious statements of fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Why is it WP:QUESTIONABLE It is not widely acknowledged as extremist, promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions Softlem (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

You did not answer. Please stop ignoring questions.

About Daily Beast, you were blocked for that edit warring last time with no consensus and nothing has changed

And WikiLeaks is not a living person, BLP does not apply to the organisations Twitter account [5] does it? Softlem (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Please stop Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors. You have cited things and said they had consensus for things they did not. You mention other policies that do not seem supported and are not answering about it Softlem (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

We should be using mainstream news organisations with strong reputations, not shoestring sites with little or no evidence of editorial oversight and disagreement on reliability. Hence I replaced e.g. the DailyDot website with The Atlantic. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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 first like I did

And you still havent explained why it is dubious or contentious Softlem (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the first and last sentences of your own comment. Your posts are becoming absurd. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)