Talk:Jeff Bezos phone hacking incident

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

DYK 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Jeff Bezos’s phone hacked by exchange a WhatsApp message that sent from the account utilized personally by Mohammed bin Salman? Source: telegraph
    • ALT1:... that Saudi experts claimed Bezos's coverage of Khashoggi's critical columns about bin Salman and his struggle of repression against activists were reasons for the hack? Source: theguardian

Created/expanded by M1nhm (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Date and length fine. However I have some serious concerns about this. First of all, the article is written in broken and ungrammatical English. Second of all, that title is very provocative and in my view seems to violate WP:NDESC. Thirdly, this is very WP:NPOV here and those hooks could not be accepted at all as they, and the article seem close to libellous if we ran them (article says the alleged hack came from the Prince's phone, but that doesn't prove he sent them). @M1nhm:, can you answer my concerns because I have to be honest, I am very close to declining this at the moment. But may ask advice from WT:DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The C of E: I apologize for the delay in response. About ungrammatical English: the article was copy-edited.For WP:NDESC: I used this title (Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone) based on reliable sources like telegraph and nytimes and theguardian . I was going to change the title to "allegation to hacked of jeff's phone", but it is n't true. Please note that the phone was hacked (it is fact) but hacking by Saudi crown is questionable. So that I think the current title is true because I said nothing about who did the hack into the title.For WP:NPOV: I tried to collect all of the opinions in the article. Anyway please give me more time to find and fix NPOV issues. M1nhm (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that was copyedited, I suggest you ask someone else because it clearly wasn't done by someone who was fully familiar with the English language. Examples: " the massage was sent from the personal account of the crown prince", "after the National Enquirer has released details of Bezos's private life". I'm sure you can see how this is clearly incorrect English, looks a lot like a google translate attempt to me. It will need some serious cleanup before we can even consider promoting this @M1nhm:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to review the article and fixed the problem that were mentioned by you. If there are problems, please let me know. M1nhm (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee and The C of E:I tried to review the article and fixed the problem that were mentioned by you.I sent a message to you at article talk and waiting for your reply.M1nhm (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M1nhm I don't think The C of E's major concern as expressed at the DYK link he gave above (now archived) has been fixed, and on rereading the article and the sources, I'm not sure it can be without stripping out everything that says it was bin Salman who did it. We don't usually want to say "it has been alleged" "The allegation is" "it was found" etc. We want to attribute this kind of thing. We want to say, "So-and-so alleges" and "Person X found" but unfortunately the sources dance around who exactly is alleging and finding this, too. And they're going around in circles -- the telegraph says the guardian reported it, for instance. And then there's the "highly probable" with "medium-to-high confidence" issue. I don't think this works for DYK, and frankly I'm a little leery of it being an article. --valereee (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The C of E, I've done a complete overhaul of the article, if you'd be willing to take another look. --valereee (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC) ETA: we're going to need some new ALTs, too, neither of these will work. --valereee (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that analysts claimed Jeff Bezos's phone was hacked because of Jamal Khashoggi's columns in The Washington Post? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/21/amazon-boss-jeff-bezoss-phone-hacked-by-saudi-crown-prince "Saudi experts – dissidents and analysts – told the Guardian they believed Bezos was probably targeted because of his ownership of the Post and its coverage of Saudi Arabia. Khashoggi’s critical columns about Mohammed bin Salman and his campaign of repression against activists and intellectuals rankled the crown prince and his inner circle." --valereee (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a new review —valereee (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • valereee, using "claimed" in a hook like this casts instant doubt on the hook (see WP:CLAIM); we need something more neutral. (I've struck the original hook because it doesn't make sense grammatically, and ALT1 because of "claimed" and that the fact of the hack is obscured and puzzling.) I'm not entirely sure whether ALT2 would work with something like "believed" (used in the article) or "concluded", or a couple of the words mentioned at WP:CLAIM, "speculated" or "surmised". Revisiting the Guardian source may be the best way to determine the most appropriate characterization for the hook, though it shouldn't go further than the article does. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, 'believed' works for me, it's the language used in the source. —valereee (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New reviewer needed to recheck the overhauled article and the ALT2a hook below, which replaces "claimed" with "believed" per the above discussion:

I'm still in the process of going through this article and not done yet. Starting from Background, and I'm not impressed. Date errors. Timeline issues. Significant omissions (de Becker's March 2019 column). Things in the wrong sections. Whew. If something is obvious, I'd fix it myself. starship.paint (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In October 2018, Khashoggi was murdered. Washington Post reporting became increasingly critical of the role of Saudi regime and bin Salman in the murder. - how is this relevant to the hack? Make it obvious.
  2. By April 2018 they were exchanging friendly messages - needs a source.
Starship.paint, nom hasn't edited in over a month. I'd suggest failing it. —valereee (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: - I'm aware of that. I'll think about it. starship.paint (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above ping to valereee did not go through due to a typo in the template; repeating ping here so she sees it. Also, if you put a DYKproblem template on the user page and there's no response, closing is clearly in order—sometimes editors are just reading and not writing for a period, and a talk-page ping will bring them back; it's happened at DYK a few times recently. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments above that this article needs substantial work, and I would support failing the nomination if not addressed within a week. Flibirigit (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: - I'm about 66% through the article already. I think it can be fixed. I'll ping you again when I'm done. starship.paint (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flibirigit - I'm done. Phew. Go ahead and review. Proposed ALT3 below. I know the hook too long, but this topic is sensitive. Better safe than sorry, hope you can ignore the guideline on hook length, starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starship.paint, the 200-character maximum is an absolute ceiling; no reviewer can ignore it (or if they do, someone else will enforce it), so I've struck it. You'll need to cut at least 30 characters. A couple of ALT3-based possibilities:
—BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BlueMoonset, I wasn't aware. I'd leave the decision to Flibirigit. starship.paint (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had not intended to do a full review of the article, my comment was simply meant to support closing a stale nomination. I notice that Starship has done substantial work on the nomination, and I feel that warrants a DYK credit. As for the subject of the article, it's not something I am comfortable reviewing. Flibirigit (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per all the comments above, the article passes. I approve Alt 3b, though 3a is okay too. --evrik (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bezos' or Bezos's?[edit]

Courtesy pinging @Baffle gab1978 and M1nhm: I think Bezos's is actually correct, per MOS:POSS. Curious to see thoughts on this. (Title and instances throughout the article would have to be changed. Consistency is key.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made them all Bezos', to be consistent with the article title. But if someone wants to change them all to Bezos's (including the article title), I have no objections. I was simply making them consistent. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the references are mostly Bezos' (one is Bezos's); both the New York Times and Washington Post seem to agree on that, and Bezos owns the WP so that may influence their usage. I'm not sure that helps; my instinct would probably be to use "Bezos's". BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will make it Bezos's as WP style is guided by WP:MOS, not NYT. —GoldRingChip

timeline[edit]

The timeline is off -- the article says that the investigation of Bezo's phone began in January of 2018, but the goes on to say the whatsapp message was sent in May of 2018, which seems to be indicating the investigation began before the hack? --valereee (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sentence fragment[edit]

Not sure what this sentence is supposed to say: De Becker claimed that "the close relationship" between bin Salman and David Pecker, the chief executive of the company that owned the Enquirer, in the months before the Bezos texts were issued. It's missing what De Becker was claiming. --valereee (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've fixed that one and several others. I don't know what this one means: Saudi experts, dissidents and analysts believed Bezos's coverage of critical columns on Khashoggi's death against Mohammed bin Salman and his struggle of repression against activists and intellectuals made Bezos a target of the prince. It seems to be trying to be two sentences. --valereee (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'm done --valereee (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details...[edit]

The article has no technical details as to how the hack occurred, beyond saying someone using Salman's phone sent Bezos a WhatsApp message. This leaves ambigous as to whether it was a normal message, with an embedded url to a malware site, which Bezos, or maybe his secretary, trustingly clicked on, or whether the WhatsApp message looked innocuous, but exploited a security hole in WhatsApp, to invisibly inject an infection onto Bezos's phone. In the later case did Bezos have to read the message to get infected? Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Geo Swan: - I've now written this into the article: The report stated that just "hours" after Bezos received the file from bin Salman, his phone began transmitting dramatically higher amounts of data, and that this continued for months. The video in the file was not infected, but the downloader of the file could not be analysed by investigators because it was encrypted by WhatsApp. As for your questions, I don't think the report actually answered them. starship.paint (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. /wiae /tlk 21:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Nartey[edit]

Solomon Nartey @ 154.160.2.123 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Bezos_phone_hacking_incident&oldid=1212338255"