Jump to content

Talk:United States government group chat leaks

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


Requested move 7 April 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States government group chat leak → Signalgate – 1) The name "Signalgate" is widely accepted and used by the media, including 10 sources in the article's intro alone. 2) There needs to be an end to the constant move requests. —theMainLogan (t•c) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Signalgate scandal" would be better than just "Signalgate". CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: far more sources do not call it "Signalgate". There's "10 sources in the article's intro alone" because someone bombed the "Signalgate" part of the lede—one claim—with 10 citations (which may be appropriate for a lede name, but still, that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that it is an alternative name) included for the sole reason of showing use of "Signalgate". Of the 9 normal citations in the lede, only 3 call it signalgate. There's 171k Google News results for the current title and only 111k results for "Signalgate", a neologism highly likely to become unrecognizable in 10 years. Remember, "WP:CommonName" stands for "Use commonly recognizable names": The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
And there is no "constant"-cy of move requests. This is only the 3rd one and the 2nd one to not need a procedural close. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Signalgate is something people probably won't recognize if they're just looking for this Wikipedia article. Besides, as a logged-out user pointed out, not every scandal needs a name that ends in "gate".
Will the proponent (@TheMainLogan) yield to a series? Algerbra (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a series? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you a question? Algerbra (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're asking one right now. What does "yield to a series" mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's too early to determine WP:COMMONNAME 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it too early to determine? —theMainLogan (t•c) 14:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Many sources do not call it Signalgate, and they use terms like "Houthi PC group chat leak" or "government group chat leak." I also think the term "Signalgate" is slang-ish and I wouldn't use it outside of common conversation. This is a personal opinion, but I don't think it's a horrible thing to share. Cydw (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A gate scandal is generally one used to imply a cover-up with-in a political term, not just any political scandal. There was, however, no cover-up done for this, just mistakes made. There was an investigation into the mistakes made, but none of it led to signs of corruption of any members involved. Secondly, the gate libfix has been extensively used, and for most people lacks real meaning, and using it in the common-name will likely limit the public from understanding what has occurred. The current name is descriptive of what the scandal was about, without putting extra meaning on name. HarbingerOfFire (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elsagate, Gamergate (harassment campaign)... I agree with your second point, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a cover up, Trump and his lackeys said nothing happened, in essence, just like HillaryGate, they get away with it because of their power and political clout, whereas any John Doe with a clearance would have instantly had his clearance yanked, been fired, and thrown in jail. That's a cover up. MisawaSakura (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not constitute a cover-up, but rather, denial. A cover-up typically involves deliberate efforts to suppress information from reaching public awareness—such as through bribery or coercion to ensure silence. As of now, there is no evidence suggesting that such measures have been employed in this instance. HarbingerOfFire (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're hiding the truth, for example, saying nothing was leaked. I say it's a cover up and you're not convincing me otherwise. No need to respond, I'm not reading this thread any more. MisawaSakura (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please note the "generally," because it is hardly true of "all" scandal. Also, that was also a publicly named event that was named via bandwagon. It's original name was "Quinnspiracy" which was used by the proponents themselves. HarbingerOfFire (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where did all this "...gate" stuff start? With the Watergate scandal. 12:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisawaSakura (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 April 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus to include the second scandal (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 13:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States government group chat leak → United States government group chat leaks – There appears to have been a second leak of Signal chats today. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to have been anything added to this article about a second leak of Signal chats. This seems premature or perhaps presumptive.-- Pemilligan (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search brings up lots of articles from reputable sources. Just because it has not been added does not mean it is not without good reason. This is nor premature, nor presumptive, it is proactive. Support move. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some info (although not a lot) has been added about the "new" leak of information (which was actually leaked in the group chat on the same day as the old leak). WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Multiple sources, including the New York Times, have reported on a second group chat leak. This has since been corroborated by news organizations like the Washington Post and Reuters. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 06:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reliable sources such as the New York Post have released articles today exposing a second group chat leak incident involving the Signal app. Stickymatch 02:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, the NY Post article is sourced from Reuters, not written by Post contributors- which is why I deemed it reliable. Stickymatch 02:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the recent second incident. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 06:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 14:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Common Sense. Buster7 Chat 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buster7: since when does common sense matter on wiki?MisawaSakura (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just definitionally, Hegseth's groupchat was not a leak. The groupchat was intentionally created to include Hegseth's wife, brother, and lawyer. The New York Time's point was that the information should not have been shared on Signal, not that it was actually leaked. Do any reliable sources call it a leak? satkara❈talk 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just to name a few, the BBC, USA Today, KYMA, the Economic Times, and the the Guardian. Couple that with the fact that many news organizations call this a "second" and "another" Signal controversy, on top of the existing group chat leak with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 01:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WellThisIsTheReaper There are a lot that call it a second controversy or scandal, and maybe that would be a reasonable term. When I looked yesterday there didn't seem to be any actually calling it a "leak", but as you pointed out, now there are. satkara❈talk 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LEAK it was indeed because the classified info was given, intentionally BTW, to uncleared people. That's clearly a leak.MisawaSakura (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked over the sources mentioned by @WellThisIsTheReaper and @Stickymatch, but none of them actually describe this incident as a "leak": New York Times, NY Post, Reuters, Washington Post. The NY Post calls it the "latest mishandling of sensitive info". satkara❈talk 15:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that the chat exists in the first place is most certainly a "leak", as senior Pentagon officials leaked the existence of the chat to the New York Times, correct? --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 01:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original incident was a 'leak' of information to the editor of The Atlantic. But nothing leaked from this newly reported second Signal chat, making this proposed title inappropriate. The scandal is that further chat(s) existed, not that anything leaked from them. Support 'Signalgate' for the whole affair. Or keep it at 'leak' singular, as the main and worst accusation. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the sharing of non-public military plans with people who do not have an appropriate level of security clearance (and a "need to know") ordinarily be considered a leak even if it is intentional? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this viewpoint, hence my continued Support for the move. Stickymatch 06:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But are reliable sources calling the non-The Atlantic chats "leaks"? PK-WIKI (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Senior Pentagon officials "leaked" the existence and content of the chat to non-clearance holding New York Times editor. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 01:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for suggesting "Signalgate". —theMainLogan (t•c) 14:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article mentions numerous leaks. Des Vallee (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE TO SIGNALGATE. As I previously stated, it would provide a solution to the repeated move requests while also using the common name. Also, most articles about similar "gates" frequently called by that name in the media use that name as well. —theMainLogan (t•c) 21:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I lean against "Signalgate", as it seems like a tabloidish neologism that will not be so common in reliable sources in the long term (at least not outside of quote marks). A lot of scandals have had "-gate" names invented for them, but none after the first seem to have persisted broadly in the public consciousness. (Maybe someone will point out some arguable exception(s), but it seems the case generally – to the extent that it has developed a connotation of silliness.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support There have been multiple group chat leaks. People keep mentioning changing the name to Signalgate, but I've only ever seen people mention "the group chat leaks" Rylee Amelia (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New non-"leak" component of the scandal in the Washington Post today about installing Signal on an office computer. WP uses "Signalgate" for the whole affair. “Signalgate,” as it’s come to be known, erupted last month, when the Atlantic magazine reported.... PK-WIKI (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identity of "Jacob"

[edit]

Is it possible that "Jacob" is Jacob Reses who is JD Vance's Chief of Staff? It would make sense considering that some of the other members are also Chiefs of Staff. Is there a way to find out if this is the case? Minermatt122514 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 06:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Group chat excerpt
Group chat excerpt
  • ... that Trump's vice president, defense secretary, state secretary, intelligence director, and security advisor leaked military plans to a journalist after accidentally adding him to their group chat (pictured)?
    • ALT1: ... that Trump's national security advisor, Mike Waltz, accidentally added a journalist to a group chat (pictured) in which he and other US national security leaders shared military attack plans?
    • Reviewed: Thin mouse shrew
    • Comment: I only named the top contributor as the author. The rest of the hard-working editors appear to have all contributed an equal amount, and it would not have been practical to name them all.
Created by Noble Attempt (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 220 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The addition of the journalist to the group still seems unexplained. Various theories have been expressed and Musk has been asked to make a technical investigation. So, the suggested hooks (orig and ALT1) are premature in stating a definitive explanation in Wikipedia's voice. We need more ALTs. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific, Andrew? The lead of the article unequivocally states that Goldberg was erroneously added by Waltz. Is that not an indisputable fact? What are the other 'theories'? Should the article mention them? Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The lead of the article does not provide a citation for its statement. WP:V is Wikipedia 101 and providing a clearly cited statement is a fundamental requirement per WP:DYKHOOK. For some theories, see Was Signal-gate a mistake, hack or knife in the back?. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not citing Wikipedia as a source. The article cites its sources, obviously not in the lead. The 'analysis' you linked rests solely on the assumption that Waltz could not have been incompetent enough to do this, and that assumption is not shared by any significant portion of reliable sources. The 'theories' seem to be fringe. If you disagree and think they should be included in the article, I suggest starting a thread at the talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the theories are not fringe; they all seem reasonably plausible and there's no solid evidence yet for any particular scenario. And pointing to an uncited portion of the lead is not the way that DYK works, "The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plausibility is not what determines whether a theory is fringe or not. The fact of the hook is indeed cited at the end of the sentence in which it appears. Should the citation be repeated in the lead section? DYK does not say, and if that is the issue you have with the nomination, it is very easily fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like the answer in both these cases is, yes, I did know that. I feel like we ought to be able to find a hook that would actually be something most folks don't know. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most people in the US probably, but Wikipedia is written for a wider audience. Of course you may suggest alternative hooks. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been international news for a week now. I've read the article, nothing jumps out at me other than the fact Signal allows deletion, which is against record-keeping laws. Maybe we could build a hook around that? I dunno...that gets into negative about a BLP. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative hooks could be based on how Goldberg's number got on Waltz's phone (see article talk page), or on the TeleMessage hack.

@Noble Attempt, Surtsicna, Andrew Davidson, and Valereee: Not seeing a hook on this page that meets WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't followed the latest developments and so didn't know that an investigation had determined a plausible way that Goldberg's number was added to the chat. This update might interest others who want to know the latest. So, please consider ALT2 for which a source is How the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg got added to the White House Signal group chat. The hook deliberately doesn't get into the weeds of the technicalities as they seem too complex to explain briefly. The idea is to get readers to click through for the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 ... that the White House forensic investigation of Signalgate has determined the way in which a journalist was included in the group chat about Operation Rough Rider (pictured)?
Long enough, new enough. QPQ done. I see multiple paragraphs that require {{cn}} and these should be attended to. (There are also pretty big MOS:PARA and MOS:OVERSECTION violations, but I'll attend to those myself before I approve this.) The only decent hook in the article is a variation on ALT0: ALT3: ... that a United States government group chat recently leaked war plans? Earwig looks like an angry toddler kicked over a paint set and I'll assess that on a full stomach, both figuratively and literally.--Launchballer 15:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noble Attempt, Surtsicna, Andrew Davidson, and Valereee: False positive. Please address the above.--Launchballer 21:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noble Attempt, Surtsicna, Andrew Davidson, and Valereee: The nomination will time out in five days, so please respond to the above comment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had one {{cn}} which I have just resolved. So far as I can see, there are no cleanup tags or significant issues and so the hook should be promoted. The suggested hooks are much of a muchness but what's most interesting now is that there has been a technical investigation which found a good explanation for the leak, which was previously mysterious. This will be interesting to readers like me who followed the story initially but didn't see the later update. That's what I've tried to summarise in ALT2 but some copy-editing might improve on that.
As I was the first editor to respond to the nomination with an objection, I'm ticking this to make clear my willingness for this to proceed.
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


How Goldberg's number got into the chat

[edit]

This is now established, though you'll have to find a ref and details. It appears that some piece of software automatically took a phone number from a piece of textual communication, and assigned it to the contact that sent the communication. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I noted this as a significant finding in the DYK discussion above. It is covered in the article in the section White House internal investigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_government_group_chat_leaks&oldid=1292984847"