| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Joshua Schulte be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Discovery
editThe Discovery section should be renamed. "Discovery" has a specific meaning in criminal law that may not be common knowledge. I suggest "Evidence" but someone else might come up something better. Matuko (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Discovery section has been revised to reflect the specific meaning in criminal law. NedFausa (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Balancing issue
editWP:PROPORTION advises: An article should … strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. … This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
Before today, I was unfamiliar with Joshua Schulte. After reading accounts of the opening of his trial in New York, I came to his Wikipedia page and was struck by the difference in emphasis. The news stories reported on an accused leaker who also by the way "faces a separate trial for possession of child pornography." Wikipedia, by contrast, encapsulates in 400 words Leaks of classified information (the largest loss of classified documents in CIA history) before lavishing more than twice that many (970 words) describing Sex crimes allegations.
Something is out of whack here. NedFausa (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Update. In accordance with WP:PROPORTION, I took the liberty of carefully trimming the overlong Sex crimes allegations section by 50%, bringing it more into balance with Leaks of classified information. NedFausa (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Reference
editA recent long-form piece from The New Yorker may be of use to this article.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/13/the-surreal-case-of-a-cia-hackers-revenge Ckoerner (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've added it to the article - there's probably more points in the article that could use it, but the first and last sections are a start. Autarch (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)