Talk:Ashley Madison data breach

Josh Duggar

Resolved

Worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So 60 gigs of info was leaked and Josh Duggar was the only person that publicly got shamed for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:B9C1:A2DA:C05B:2013 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Public figures

Note, there have been some additions and removals in the "public figure" area.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to this - there has to be a compelling public interest in including information that is included in multiple reliable sources.

WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:ATTACK applies. -- Callinus (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I submit that how public figures, particularly parliamentarians, react to their official e-mail addresses being included in the Ashley Madison data breach is matter of compelling public interest, inasmuch as they themselves spoke to the media about the affair. kencf0618 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Jusdafax 00:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What about other public people like Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, a well known international missionary. These people are widely in the public debate now.

http://www.meforum.org/5458/hamza-tzortzis-ashley-madison http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/23/islamic-lecturer-hamza-tzortzis-explains-why-his-data-was-found-in-the-ashley-madison-hack/ BernardZ (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead.

The site allows anyone to register any name with zero verification (not even the usual conformation email) then charges money to delete accounts.[1] This makes the alleged list of users completely unreliable. I propose that we mention this prominently in the lead paragraph. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The busted users have confirmed they really did use the site. The transactions showing the monthly payment include their home address and you can also see last four of card. There is too much info for them to believably lie. Men had to pay to chat with the "women." —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable people

I have removed all entries but the Josh Duggar, per WP:BLP until there are corroborations in multiple sources. There is no rush. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Anything originating from breitbart.com should be regarded as treated as dubious. - MrX 22:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Then it's best the whole section get thrown out. There are other sources than Breitbart for the Hunter Biden example, and if people are going to throw out all the other implicated names except Duggar, it looks quite clearly like a violation of WP:NPOV and covering for Democrats like Biden while sullying the name of Republicans like Duggar. So if we can't do it fairly, especially when we're dealing with living people, we can leave that section out. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Research originated from breitbart.com but has been substantiated by gawker.com, who was the primary source for Duggar. Neither appear to be credible news sites, but it should be all or nothing. Also started created a section on Talk:Hunter_Biden 184.180.121.142 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that this is all or nothing. (and I think we should lean towards nothing). There are a great many people who are reliably sourced, but Biden in particular being excluded smells of WP:NPOV pretty strongly. FWIW Biden is now ABC, CNN, Washington Times, Sun Times, The Hill, People, Gawker, Daily Mail, and several others. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should be thrown out at all. If there's coverage of Biden now that's reliable, add it back in and keep the whole section. --Cagepanes (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not political. The Duggar thing is an admission, the rest is speculation at this point and we do not publish WP:GOSSIP in articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely there are sources reporting on the speculation about Hunter Biden, but it does not meet the threshold for BLP. It is not even mentioned in his bio, and for good reason IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If there's consensus to omit Duggar, or include Biden, or any of the others, I can live with that. But please let's not make this a political issue. I didn't even know that Duggar was a republican until JMyrleFuller mentioned it here. The criteria for including people in this article should be (a) editorial discretion (does it improve a reader's understanding of the subject), and (b) coverage in multiple high quality sources (not Brietbart; not People Magazine; not the Daily Mail). - MrX 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason Jeff Ashton isn't included? He held his own press conference to apologize and cried about it, but said he was not resigning. This made national news as well. He doesn't have a profile here but probably should. [2] —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is covered in several high-quality sources, so it would seem to be DUEWEIGHT. Whether it's an important aspect of this article, I don't know. - MrX 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a bit odd to have "notable people" section and only have Josh Duggar. This guy held his own press conference about it. Redlinking his name might inspire someone to create his article, and certainly the major section would be the Casey Anthony trial and not this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jason DeZwirek

Is Kaboose's CEO Jason DeZwirek the same Jason DeZwirek who, according to the Ashley Madison data breach of August 2015, is the majority stakeholder of Avid Life Media, the parent of Ashley Madison? if so, it's interesting that the CEO of a company which publishes a website "which focuses on family activities and parenting" also publishes a website for facilitating extramarital affairs. 68.56.144.234 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't do investigations at Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Using a public key for signing

Makes no sense. See [3]. I posted a message on the user that authored that change. --Ysangkok (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed "public" and the source, which is a self-published blog.- MrX 12:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article seems slightly biased

Well explained but the names used of Ashley Madison outed users are both religious & or conservative. While the examples are few it does give a biased feel to the article. The article should be balanced by the addition of 2 examples of users who are neither religious nor conservative or by replacing the two listed users with 2 more generic outed users. 2601:647:4B01:BD30:B9EB:ABA:9D2E:C0E7 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)