Talk:We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reversions of POV, attacks on Gibney, attacks on me[edit]

I've reverted out a massive amount of unsourced opinion written by WikiLeaks partisans. I wrote the article, and I'm against PR and POV. Anybody who knows my edit history knows that. To state in edit summary that I wrote PR is a gross fucking insult. I can guarantee that it's not PR - everything I wrote was scrupulously sourced. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, so now we discuss. Welcome to Wikipedia. So, points to discuss:

  • Was the film independent? Yes. Farmed-out films are considered independent, because once the money's handed over, production and final cut control goes, in this case, to Gibney. He wouldn't have it any other way.
  • Was the film lambasted by WikiLeaks? Sure, but this article's about the film. As soon as reliable sources start fact-checking the film and quoting WikiLeaks, then that criticism can quite reasonably be included. The criticism levelled in the article by recent editors had already been addressed in encyclopedic language.
  • I like Assange and his expressed goals as much as anybody, but he lost credibility by attacking the title of the film without seeing the film itself. Not to be taken seriously.
  • WikiLeaks leaking an obviously incomplete transcript and lying about that irreparably damages their credibility and reliability as a source, so I'm putting my foot down and calling their missives unreliable unless discussed by reliable sources.

Feel free to list other points for discussion. --Lexein (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note with interest the utter lack of discussion here by the partisans. Whatever. The The Monthly article by Manne is a rather sober critique of the film, lacking both the hyperbole and drama-queenish fake outrage of the other EL. I will reread it in depth, and use it in the Reception section. --Lexein (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pretend to be objective. Its so obvious you are not, both by your writing style, e.g words used (partisans, etc), and the rest of the article which is completely POV in its current form, e.g wikileaks official analytical comments on the transcript is last paragraph of the corresponding section. Don't be shy, the corporate media monopoly has done miracles, you are not the only obsessed victim. Ypovoleas (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place[edit]

This is the place, right here, to discuss improvements to the article per all Wikipedia policies, especially those on Neutral point of view and Reliable sources. Those are links. Click them. Here, and nowhere else, is where the discussion is. Discussions started elsewhere will be ignored. Disputes between non-notable partisans will be ignored. Twisted screeds published in omfg-are-you-kidding-me rags will be ignored. POV language unattributed to a source will result in the entire addition being gutted. To all the WikiLeaks pro- and anti- partisans, give up thinking that you'll succeed in shoehorning in some fringe agenda into this article. If RS discuss fringe claims, then fine. Until then, fringe stays in the weeds. Now, if you have specific complaints about specific points of improvement, discuss them. If you have a problem with me, take me to any form of WP:DR. This article will not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or a WP:FORUM for any ideologues. I don't own the article, but I will not have it crapped up with WP:OR and editorializing. --Lexein (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and I would recommend the Truthout article be taken there. From what I understand, Truthout qualifies as RS. petrarchan47tc 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box office numbers are not news[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason to breathlessly update box office take as if it's news. It's not. The proper time to post box office numbers is, if I'm not mistaken (WikiProject Film people?) after the film has left theaters, or if discussed in RS. Since neither has happened, I'm removing the box office number from the infobox again, per WP:BRD. --Lexein (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you got that idea from? but the box office usually get updated when the box office gets updated. that could be everyday or every week depending on how often Box Office Mojo updates it. but going back to what you said before about "waiting till the film is out of theaters" how would you know if its out of theaters? I mean if its out of theaters in the United States doesn't mean that its out of theaters in other countries and sometimes a film may be released in another country a year after its first release in its own country. Also if you look at the films that were released last week you will see that they all have their box office numbers. so I don't see why this one shouldn't have one. Redsky89 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about theatrical showings, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great rationale for rushing to post numbers, in my opinion. Though perhaps I overreacted, with rare exceptions, box office numbers for documentaries are usually low, and to post them early seemed WP:POINTy. No? --Lexein (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Steal_Secrets:_The_Story_of_WikiLeaks&oldid=1202913428"