Talk:Wikileaks claims news organisations pressured to remove articles on billionaire fraudster
Sources? This really needs them :P --Poisonous (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
OR Notes[edit]
- Refers to documents on Wikileaks - it is currently the most recent document available (although I am not linking due to what happened when i linked the LDS stuff)
- I verified stuff using http://web.archive.org
Anonymous101talk 08:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Web Archive links - [1]
[2]- two links i can find, I foind an observer article as well somwhere as well Anonymous101talk 10:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)- Well the second link is the wrong link. If someone wants me to spent half an hour finding the link again I will, but I think the first link proves it is not a hoax. Anonymous101talk 11:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikileaks documents shows major news organizations changing articles on 'Obama linked businessman' following pressure[edit]
Long title is loooooooooooooooooooong. Also, "Wikileaks documents shows" - methinks proper grammar would be "show", not "shows". Cirt (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct. Anonymous101talk 09:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Review[edit]
 |
Revision 701412 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Might be worth adding that Carter-Ruck have a habit of doing such things (Tesco, I belive, was the client) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 701412 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Might be worth adding that Carter-Ruck have a habit of doing such things (Tesco, I belive, was the client) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
- To get back on my comment above, this (from the Guardian, ooh, the irony...) shows that the firm is going on where its founder left off. Interesting to note also they are yet to sue the Private Eye for calling them Britain's "most rediculous libel lawyers" by the name of 'Carter-Fuck' (although they have had a go at them before). I wonder why. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Connection?[edit]
Info on the connection between Obama and this guy? And sources? They could very well be high school sweethearts and the reader would think them scam buddies or something. They may well be, but sources and information should be provided, or else don't include the claim. --Poisonous (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Links[edit]
Explain why there is no links to the Wikileaks documents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.179.226 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church. Anonymous101talk 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Category[edit]
{{edit protected}}
Please add this article to Category:The Guardian. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Category[edit]
{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Daily Telegraph (United Kingdom). Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Done (not by me) BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be so glad to be able to build assistants for this sort of thing; I'm a great champion of humans always being keep in the loop with decisions, but helping humans to not fumble fussy details is a task for semi-automation. --Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)