Talk:Reality Winner

Hi, User:Koavf. Should the page for "Reality Leigh Winner" (who reportedly leaked NSA documents to The Intercept, according to http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/reality-winner-nsa-russia-hacking-leak-intercept) really redirect to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as it currently does? The latter page does not, as of right now, even mention Reality Leigh Winner, neither on the main page nor the Talk page. Or is this is just a temporary placeholder until you have time to write a real Reality Leigh Winner page? --Karl Fogel 01:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kfogel: It's more of the latter--I assume that a lot more will come out in the next couple of days and either way, her name (with or without middle name) is a valid search term. If you have a better target, then by all means, please redirect it somewhere else. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: I think it would be better if it redirected to Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present) since it is an NSA leak and as far as we know not connected to the Russian interference investigations. Although it contained information about it. --Andreas de Blanche 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@PumpkinSky: This is the second time I've removed the quote "being white is terrorism" from the social media section. Once again, the original quote is "@kanyewest you should make a shirt that says, 'being white is terrorism'". Saying that Kanye West should make a shirt with a phrase does not necessarily mean that phrase is one's political view, as it could just be a joke. ^Falling_Gravity 14:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @FallingGravity: Hardly. It still shows her political slant and motivation, so it's quite relevant and verified. Here the WAPO title says she hates whites. PumpkinSky talk 17:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

An op-ed piece in a conservative newspaper is not a reliable source. I agree with FallingGravity's removal.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since when is WAPO conservative? Far from it. You guys do what you want. This is why people leave wiki in droves or reduce editing to almost nothing. And are you implying WAPO isn't reliable and that only liberal sources are reliable? What a crock. PumpkinSky talk 18:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are confusing The Washington Times with The Washington Post. Opinion articles are unreliable for contentious assertions on WP:BLP regardless of political bias. ^Falling_Gravity 18:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

What was added to the article was taken out of context; compare the full tweet to the article copy: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

PumpkinSky blocked for abuse ... what a surprise. -- Jibal (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi I'm the guy who found the microdots in the document the Intercept published. We have no way of knowing whether or not the microdots played a role in the FBI's investigation, because we don't as of yet know (as of 2017/06/09) what information the FBI had access to when. The document the Intercept published with their story, and my subsequent discovery of the microdots took place AFTER Winner had already been arrested (story was published on Monday, Winner was arrested the Saturday before that). We don't know if the FBI had access to the copy of the document which was made public, or if they had a different copy whether the microdots were visible or not. The Vice News article cited for this is speculation. The affidavit the DOJ released with the announcement of Winner's arrest mentions paper folds pointed to the document being printed out, but that's the extent of what has been made public from the government's POV.

13. The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.

Knowtheory (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Knowtheory! You are correct. I read the Vice article very carefully, noting the chronology, after seeing your comment here. Vice was speculating about the "microdot steganography" detection. Furthermore, the FBI, NSA and Department of Justice have only provided statements about the folding and creasing as evidence of the documents having been printed and removed by hand from a secure space, but nothing about any printer microdot "signature" in their analysis. Please read my re-write of that passage, and tell me if you think it is accurate. If you think that there should be some mention of the microdots at this time (I removed that part entirely, although I kept the Wired article as a source, because it provides WP:RS for other parts of that section), let's figure out how to include it here. Thank you for speaking up about this! You show professional integrity, as your observations were widely discussed on Twitter etc. and received a lot of attention.--FeralOink (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The FBI was then able to identify the printer steganography tracking dots to determine when the document was printed, narrowing down the search to six suspects, including Winner.

That hasn't been confirmed and is based on widespread speculation. Although researchers found yellow-dot printer steganography in the NSA document, the FBI affidavit does not say they were used in the investigation. The affifavit notes that the document had been printed out, that Winner was one of six people who printed it, and they caught her because she also emailed The Intercept from her work computer. Affidavit is here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/971331/download

I wrote about the topic in some depth on Quartz here:

https://qz.com/1002927/computer-printers-have-been-quietly-embedding-tracking-codes-in-documents-for-decades/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinskeith (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Microdots have been known for over a decade now and have been detailed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. See: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/effs-yellow-dots-mystery-instructables 2601:543:4203:5B70:2DE8:34B4:8219:34F7 (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point. We have no WP:RS reporting that the FBI used microdots to unmask Reality Winner. KalHolmann (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

We did have WP:RS reporting from the Intercept, their belief the FBI used the microdots to identify her. The FBI's affidavit constitutes WP:OR and should not have been included. Editing the this part to reflect the actual WP:RS would have been sufficient --removing it entirely was unnecessary. Pimprncess (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

On September 1, 2017, User:Akloki added 162 words from FBI special agent Justin C. Garrick's Affidavit in Support of Application for Arrest Warrant. This came just 2½ hours after Akloki wrote in an edit summary: "Reality Winner is currently unemployed and will never work in American intelligence again." Akloki has apparently decided Ms. Winner is guilty—obviously a violation of WP:NPOV. The addition of an undigested verbatim FBI affidavit is further evidence of Akloki's lack of neutrality, especially considering its context, where the affidavit's prominence violates WP:UNDUE. I request discussion and guidance by impartial editors. KalHolmann (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have been an impartial contributor and editor of Wikipedia articles for over a decade. I emphatically welcome another impartial opinion. My contributions and edits will speak for themselves. The subjective nature of the accusers contributions, while well written, are as blatantly bias as their author accuses me. Project much?

As to your cite of my bias; It is my informed opinion, that an individual who openly admitted to disseminating classified information to a news source 2 days into her tenure as a contractor for the NSA, will never hold national security clearance again, ever. Thats just what happens in these situations. Don't blame me!

...for the record: I share Ms. Winners sentiments about the ginger orangutan in chief. I strongly suggest you actually read the NPOV policy that you keep repeating.

...I don't think that word means what you think it means! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akloki (talk • contribs) 2017-09-01 (UTC)

After a decade of "impartial contributions," you suddenly decided to stop being impartial and interject personal opinion? Why would KalHolmann not "blame" you? You're solely responsible for your failure to adhere to the standards of etiquette when you inserted your personal opinion into the talk section. Indeed, your contribution DOES speak for itself, here. It is not impartial --the real problem is, that behavior has compromised the WP:NPOV integrity of the entire article.

(and how are you not aware WP:NPOV refers to articles, not content?)

Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum (per policy WP:EP). After ten years, you would know better. (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The bit of info I most want to know isn't in the article: what were her parents thinking when they gave their infant the name "Reality Winner"?? ^_ ^ 192.121.232.253 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Readers will come here looking for neutral biographical information simply on account it sounds like a fictitious name. All they will find is this most certainly NOT neutral article violating basically every policy on living persons articles, and a sock puppet federal agent having a discussion with themself on the talk page to falsely legitimize removing the appropriately referenced and cited WP:RS Intercept's reporting on their OWN discovery of the microdots --only to REMOVE that reference, and replace it with a quotation from their own affidavit?! Affidavits from law enforcement agencies aren't simply a primary source (unacceptable in an article about a living person), they violate WP:OR policy restrictions. Regardless what any law enforcement officer attests to on any affidavit --it cannot CHANGE the fact of the INtercept's reporting of discovering the microdots. Never mind that wikipedians have NO reason to be inclined to defer to some pretext of "credibility" as a judiciary might --the standards of whether not a source is verifiable STILL apply. Is it possible to verify the sworn statement in the affidavit? No. It is not. Not in this case at any rate.

Not to mention, it's possible this shouldn't even BE an article given the WP:BLP guidelines --and until only very recently really had no business including the details regarding the pending charges per WP:CRIME rules. Pimprncess (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Saying her father chose the unusual name is sufficient. Sandizer (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen such a one sided portrayal of a person. Seems like this "biography" of Reality Winner was written by someone who definitely does not agree with what she did. Highly biased and not an accurate depiction of this woman's life. Shame on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D6F:AC80:A426:488:220B:B1F3 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Same problem as mentioned above but now in the other direction. Was this rewritten by her mom? The personal life section is like a hagiography or a dating site write up; "Winner cares deeply for animals, environmentalism, and people in war-torn or poverty-stricken areas. Her dream job is to provide Humanitarian aid to women and children in Afghanistan." I actually laughed when I read "dream job". 24.142.24.102 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well it was introduced with this edit by User:Winnerbr who is an editor with an obvious COI. Definitely needs toning down!-- P-K3 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done After reading the comment by IP 24.142.24.102, I substantially revised "Personal life" to better conform to WP:NPOV. I also added a {BLP sources section} template because this section relies on a single source and would be improved by additional content citing other WP:RS. NedFausa (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am Winnerbr, and I'm her sister. Do I count as a source? Winnerbr (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Winnerbr: Please read the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have specific changes to suggest, you're invited to post them here, and interested editors will evaluate accordingly. But bear in mind, we are all bound by that fundamental guideline. NedFausa (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please also be aware of our policies on writing from a neutral point of view and having a conflict of interest. It is obviously difficult to write objectively about a close relative and it is in fact strongly discouraged.P-K3 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, you don't. Jibal (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I feel like these concerns have been addressed. This is a situation where word choice can have a substantial impact on the reader. I just changed a header that said "national defense information" to "classified document," as the text describes it, as that seems more fair to me. But I understand that it might not to someone who is very angry about what she did. Sandizer (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to the article, she speaks fluently Farsi, pashtu, dari and Arabic. According to the article she had language training in the air force. Is it know how much she knew beforehand, or why she was selected for language training? Speaking those four languages fluently at 19 seems quite an achievement for someone not grown up in the middle East, so maybe the air force saw a talent they built on? 176.11.54.48 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia advises that Template:Infobox criminal must be used judiciously: This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. On May 23, 2020, I Mertex I changed the infobox from "person" to "criminal". I request discussion as to whether or not that is appropriate. Winner is of course a convicted criminal, but does her notoriety rise to this level? She is often compared to Chelsea Manning, whose infamy seems far greater than Winner's; yet Wikipedia does not use the criminal infobox in the Manning bio. And since we are dealing with WP:BLP, I have reverted I Mertex I's change out of an abundance of caution. We really ought to have consensus to restore Infobox criminal. NedFausa (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Winner is known for the crime she committed. His crime was leaking classified information to the press. By the way, I changed it to "infobox criminal" because in "infobox person" you cannot put the prison where she is located. Also, she has already been convicted; I don't understand why this edit could violate WP:BLP. --I Mertex I (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I Mertex I: The final sentence in the lead states: "She now resides in the Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Ft. Worth, Texas." Her place of detention is also repeatedly identified in Section 4 – Intelligence report leak, arrest, role of The Intercept, sentencing and confinement. Why do you feel it is necessary to further duplicate this location in the Infobox? NedFausa (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

NedFausa: Because a summary of the person is put in the infobox. --I Mertex I (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Isn't an arrest warrant supposed to be issued before someone's arrest? Why is the affidavit for the warrant dated a month after the arrest? --ZFT (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The affidavit is dated June 5, not July 5. (I have corrected our article accordingly.) That was two days after Winner was arrested at her home. According to Wikipedia, an arrest without warrant is generally allowed when a suspect is in their home but an officer has reason to believe evidence is being destroyed. Wikipedia does not explain why an arrest warrant is requested after the fact. Presumably it's a law enforcement method to strengthen the case. When a judge issues the formal arrest warrant, it demonstrates that the court concurs there was probable cause to make the arrest. NedFausa (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the first paragraph of the Arrest section of the article, there is no such thing as a "15" gauge shotgun. Is this a typo in the article or a transcription error in the original? The realistic choices would be 12, 16 or 20 gauge.

In the interrogation transcript she says 15 gauge. She probably misspoke. That sentence really needs a reliable secondary source, not a primary one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It’s inevitable that some horse at the Kentucky Derby will eventually have this name as well so I think we need to proactively create a disambiguation page for this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No. Jibal (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Under 'Sentencing and confinement' '...Winner expressed ironic appreciation for Trump's support, saying, "I can't thank him enough." ' The source is https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reality-winner-former-nsa-contractor-deeply-regrets-leaking-classified-documents/ She previously expressed disdain for the Trump, but I detect no irony or sarcasm in what she says. Yeltommo (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the grand scheme of things, this is pretty minor, but in reading this article I came across this "Winner stated that she had a pink AR-15, a 9-millimeter Glock, and a 15 gauge shotgun." Is see that this reflects the transcript of her interrogation. The chances of her having a 15 gauge shotgun are vanishingly remote. This is almost certainly a transcription error or she misstated--16 gauge is common and there are AR-15 pattern shotguns. While these words are in the transcript, should there be a note about this? Hist ed (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably not, per WP:SYNTH,unless you can find a reliable source specifically casting doubt on her claims. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you know firearms at all, you should know it 99.99% likely she misspoke, was misquoted, or she said so out of ignorance about what a 15ga shotgun is. ...15g shotgun (smh). 99.75.147.243 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If there are no secondary sources for something so unlikely, it should be removed altogether. What would any reader care what kind of guns she owned when arrested, anyway? Sandizer (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Google luck. If a "reliable source" said she was a unicorn, no amount of logic will get wiki editors to change it. Especially not if they can use a distortion to attack any conservative narrative or point of view. Also I lol every time I hear "neutral point of view"... what an oxymoron. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is why Wikipedia isn't reliable. If one their holy leftist "reliable source " says an obvious falsehood, it's their truth in Wikipedia, praise be the DMC. No wonder zoomers' IQs are dropping. 99.75.147.243 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

...can't edit typo, should say "of their..." and "DNC" 99.75.147.243 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why are you responding to yourself anyways, this was removed from article back in April by Sandizer above. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know if the leaked information is now public — and if so, where can it be found?

If the leaked material is *not* public, I would like to know that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:99b7:daf:c093:d4df (talk)

This is misleading due to her charges not being comparable to other whistleblowers like Bradley Manning who received far longer sentences for leaking classified material to the media. So the phrasing is misleading and betrays others who suffered more severely.

It should be rephrased something like “given the longest prison sentence for the charge of willful retention and transmission of national defense information, though other accused whistleblowers were charged with more severe crimes for their offense” Tonymetz (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Probably, but Manning wasn't a whistleblower. 2601:40D:4300:6F60:6924:C09F:E7A4:61AF (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is beside the point - I personally do not consider Manning a whistleblower, but the sentence in this arficle talks about leaking secret government information to the media; it does not qualify the circumstances surrounding the leaking. Manning got 35 years. It is wildly misleading to state that Winner's sentence was the longest ever imposed. 2A02:AA7:4040:A838:31DB:1C29:7C1F:1239 (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/165.225.220.225 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality_Winner&diff=prev&oldid=1158044098 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reality_Winner&diff=prev&oldid=1158043238

The diffs this user has submitted are derogatory and unsupported by the record. They are intended as character assassination, not to represent the facts. AcmeRocket (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. I have removed the text that was not in the sources provided. Burrobert (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply