Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

About Putin

This quote "Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, wields less power than his "alpha dog" image[192] in the media portrays." does not correspond to what is said in the reference. Actually it is the contrary. Macaldo (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times reference discusses Putin wielding less power. The [192] citation is just for the "alpha dog" label.--JeremyMiller (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Converting lists to prose

User:SummerWithMorons recently created Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats. I've merged the content into United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#United_Nations and redirected it for now. It would be helpful if editors would focus on converting all of the content lists to prose like this. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the insurance file?

Is this the insurance file? This cables doesn´t seem to compromise the US security. It´s more like a US´s criticism to world leaders!.Solde9 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The insurance file has a bunch of encrypted documents, probably documents that have not yet been released. No one knows what it contains because the encryption key is only to be released if WikiLeaks are for some reason prevented from publishing. However, WikiLeaks does not say its intentions are to "compromise the US security", rather it says it seeks to increase transparency and create reform around the world. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

the insurance file is their hostage. if it is anything at all, it is probably something big, but probably not unethical. it would be unethical for wikileaks to cover up a crime. not that wikileaks is super ethical, but it would go against their core value. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wired reported that the insurance file was made available, and The Pirate Bay has it. I think this should be mentioned in the article, near the section about the staged release. - Dandv (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The insurance file is several months old and is unrelated to this particular leak. The topic should be discussed more in depth on WikiLeaks, but not on this article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a new insurance file, the "history insurance," released on Nov 25.--Sum (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the cables describe issues related to the US embassy and many countries but not issues related to US inner subjects, it should be mentioned the possibility that the cables would be intentionally released, both to discredit WikiLeaks and accomplish other goals. --Solde9 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

US/UK or U.S./U.K.

We have UK and U.S. at the moment. Looks messy. Ericoides (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of contributors editing this article and given that information is constantly added, I doubt we can effectively enforce one or the other as of now. When things cool down the article can definitely be copyedited more effectively using a constant style. My opinion anyway - Cheers «CharlieEchoTango» 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with U.S./UK? That's common usage and what is done by the cables themselves.--Jiang (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's using two different styles, like having traveled and fuelled in the same article. That the cables themselves (and 'common usage') are clueless in this regard doesn't mean that we should be. If it's a direct quote, fine, we can tolerate inconsistent usage; otherwise, see WP:ENGVAR, "Consistency within articles". Ericoides (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This "mixed" usage reflects contemporary North American usage (IMO the prevalent usage), as opposed to more conservative North American usage (put periods on everything), and non-Canadian Commonwealth usage (never use periods for anything, including mister). It makes sense to use American English in this article, but American English no longer forces us to attach periods to all acronyms/initialisms. --Jiang (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ericoides (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "non-Canadian Commonwealth usage (never use periods for anything, including mister)"???Where do you get that from? In UK we use both U.K. and UK. U.K. would be strictly correct (and conservative?) and UK would be more "contemporary". I don't think the point is US v U.K. English, as afar as I can see usage is about te same - it's more about internal consistency in the article.DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! Ericoides (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A related note, it's either UK, U.K., United Kingdom or Great Britain.. but never Britain - which is currently being used in the article and for links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.175.215 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not. It's in widespread common use in the UK as well as elsewhere (and actually it's arguably as technically (in)correct as "Great" Britain since the name of the state is strictly UK - GB being only a constituent part of the UK)DeCausa (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange rape accusations & cables leak timing

The rape accusations are of course legitimately covered in the Julian Assange article, but i'm surprised that there is no cross-reference here because of the timing issue. It's out there that either the arrest warrant etc was political and a response to the cables leak (if you're pro-wikileaks) or the cables leak was timed to help him argue that the rape investigations were political (if you're antin-wikileaks). either way, isn't it relevant?DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DeCausa, do you have any RS which talk about a connection between the posting of the cables and the rape charges? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SeeJulian Assange article DeCausa (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is content being deleted?

We have a count of all the content being removed.. but no explanation. I would think that that's important, wouldn't you? 173.3.246.53 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't speculate. We can only report on others' speculations. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not precisely true that content is being deleted. I imagine that several collaborators are working on this and that they are not 100% synchronized. Stuff disappears and appears again some time later.213.84.53.62 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that the content was moved under a different heading.--JeremyMiller (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.privetbank.com.ua/cablegate/index.html seems to talk more of the issue and gives examples of differences in editing articles. 173.3.246.53 (I'm the original author talking from a different IP without a username) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.173.162 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Article title: leak or release

I suppose a better article title would be United States diplomatic cables release rather than 'leak' as a leak happened only once, while the release is presumed to last for months and the article focuses on the release not the leak. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not in favor of this. A release indicates something sanctioned. However the cables may come out, they have been leaked from the original source - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favour of this, either. I agree with Amog, the term "release" implies that the U.S. government has approved of the publications to some extent. The term "leak", in stark contrast, indicates that the publication of the cables was contrary to the wishes of the U.S. government. Thus, the term "leak" appears more appropriate for this article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"cables disclosures" would seem more accurate to me. They were 'leaked' to Wikileaks and Wikileaks then discloses rather than 'leaks'. 'Leaks' implies the 'leaker' held the info under some duty of confidentiality and a 'leak' is a breach of that. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See Iraq War documents leak and Afghan War documents leak - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Current title is fine and appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cables disclosures" seems appropriate to me. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt there be something about Finland?

Especially how China threatened Finland to not accept Uigurian prisoners from Guantanamo bay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.59.180 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Long Term Analysis

So we're going to create an entire section based on a blog post, a campaign video and a controversial, anti-American extremist? It appears Wikipedia is becoming complicit with the wikileaks movement in their campaign to undermine and discredit the US. Will be interesting to see how far this goes and if Wikipedia’s credibility can survive it. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Minus the over-the-top editorializing in this comment, it is true that the Long Term Analysis is really, really skewed. Next time, just edit the section you're having a problem with, because you can actually do that. It's how we get balance to an article at all. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Information warfare

References to the ongoing information warfare between WikiLeaks (and its supporters) on one side, and the governments of the world and the MSM on the other, have been removed from the lead section and need to be restored. It is an essential component of this topic and the lead needs to summarize the most important points. The "incitement to violence" rhetoric from politicians and opinion writers is also an important element of this warfare and should also be covered. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation Request for Positive Support of Assange

There are tens of reliable published articles in which Assange receives positive support from notable figures and organizations. The best roundup is from Wikileaks Central, a partisan site for sure, but a great collector of links.

They are doing a series of positive news roundups (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), and each one has 5 to 10 excerpts from sources like The Atlantic, The Hindu Times, Clay Shirky, Civil Liberties Australia, The Economist, Open Democracy, FAIR, CounterPunch, HuffingtonPost, The Nation, etc...

Here are a few that look good. I'll pick out two and cite them. Would someone beef up the ref formatting for me... it's a skill I've yet to tackle. Ocaasi (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to use WebCite every time you add a link. Links are disappearing faster than ever on this topic. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I figured there was a shortcut I hadn't found yet. Ocaasi (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Insurance File

What's in the Insurance File posted to torrent sites? (related to this article's topic). I suspect it's just the whole Leak with a password missing to reveal it. Is it something else? --Leladax (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparing sizes (1.6gb) it appears to be the entire cable dump. The data is AES encrypted, and (from what I know) was sent out to ensure that in the event wikileaks went down before the release, the password could be released to ensure the world had the data. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have a reliable source that says that the insurance file is suspected to contain cablegate material, then this is only useful for the main WikiLeaks article, not this one. (The general net-think seems to agree with the above speculation, but i haven't noticed The Guardian etc. talking about it.) Any RS's? Boud (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there a few zillion or so RS's :P ... Time to do some work... Boud (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The main WikiLeaks article had a few sentences on it in the Afghan War Diary section, but i think it's obvious that it has a more general relevance rather than especially for the Afghan WD - we don't have any RS that claims it contains extra Afghan War Diary info, only that the release date was in that same period. i've reworked that into a separate subsection WikiLeaks#Insurance_file. i only looked into a few of the "zillion" other files, without specifically finding an insurance-cablegate link claim. If someone finds one, i suggest that s/he add a brief comment in this article, and cross-ref to WikiLeaks#Insurance_file for the main summary of insurance file issues. Boud (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Source: Assange itself said it during an interview with the Guardian: "The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically." [1] --Sum (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11928899 says - Wikileaks has released an encrypted file containing all of the embassy cables," said Dr Joss Wright, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. The information is already out there". Thousands of copies of that encrypted file have been shared using peer-to-peer networks, like BitTorrent. "Once the information is there, it's virtually impossible to stop people sharing it," he added.

I think this info can be added to this page. -Abhishikt 08:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Duplicate <ref name="guard">

Some individual has at some point in the evolution of this article made the unfortunate blunder of adding a named reference, <ref name="guard">, when one already existed by that name. I just realized this because the section Data security explained which I added to the article when it was only a few edits old has been significantly corrupted/watered down in the present version. Obviously, when someone added a new named reference using a reference name that was already in use, information which before was referenced no longer was, except you would have to read the actual reference article to realize that. Someone also did that and hence the watered-down version currently of this section. The task is therefore now to disentangle all 12 tidbits of information that are connected with <ref name="guard"> and reference each by one of two Guardian articles both using this reference name at present. __meco (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone double check if the refs for The New York Times are facing the same issues? Since NYT and the Guardian are the article's two main secondary sources, problems on an article as large as this are a given.--JeremyMiller (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have clicked on the refs and the link to the NYT seems corrupted, but the connection to the WikiLeaks site seems to be working fine, as of 18:34 Dec. 7. I can try to make the NYT ref point to a page on their site which seems appropriate, and if not, then leave the URL here for someone else. I further suggest that this page will be subject to a great deal of errors, vandalism, or deletion, for whatever reasons. You could ship the best copies of material to my government transparency website (check my Userpage) if you feel the need to place it there, where hopefully it will receive less problems, or I could lock it down if they follow the material there. Sounds a little paranoid, yes, but think about it if the problem continues. --TheLastWordSword (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a try and simply broke the code, so here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html

Sorry that I couldn't do better. --TheLastWordSword (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The link for ref1 is directly to WebCite, and it covers the original WikiLeak page, not the NYT page. The WebCite URL on the above page is:

http://www.webcitation.org/5uo3PbKoa

That's the NYT page for "State Secrets". --TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that this clean-up is still to be performed. __meco (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews sisterlinks box too imposing

Could we do something about this box at the top of the article. It's not "ours" and it usurps readers' attention, in my view. __meco (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove the news from November? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 10:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic analysis of individual leaders

We do not need this list. What we need are between two and four tight paragraphs summarizing the analysis in encyclopedic stytle. This does not mean quoting from every leader. It means focusing on the purpose of the analysis, how the analysis was made, and any reactions to the analysis when it was leaked. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List of vital sites

Relevant discussions: Jimbo Archives, ANI
Should an article listing the "vital" sites for the US be created? There is sufficient mainstream media coverage.Smallman12q (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I was looking for information about this "sensitivities" list to be mentioned in the article and I can't find it. This has headlined international news outlets all day, I suspect. __meco (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You want to post classified data? Sort of illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

But is it copyrighted?Smallman12q (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that listing the sites would be imprudent. Most United States citizens and their elected representatives would consider it an act overtly unfriendly to the United States. It would also place Wikipedians who are naturalized United States citizens or serving military personnel, and who have therefore taken an oath to defend and protect and United States, in a rather awkward position. Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The list would add nothing to the article. Linking to the list or citing the source material is not out of the question, however. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Republishing the list should be unproblematic as long as it has already been published by others. I believe that is also a cornerstone of US legislation concerning the freedom of the press, if I have caught the last days discussions in the news correctly. That list would be comparable to List of additives in cigarettes. Also, the notability of such a collation would surely be no less manifest than that of List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family or List of Nike sponsorships? __meco (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, no, and no, a thousand times no. Republishing such a list has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and therefore, we have no need for it. Your comparison of such a list with cigarette additives, warrant holders, and Nike sponsorships is frankly absurd and troubling. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to your POV, even emphatically so. Nevertheless, however many times you reiterate your opinion, adding the eternal "poor-witted Wikipedians staple argument", i.e. the tautology of "no encyclopedic value" and even more added emotionally charged arguments, just goes to show that this is a question that acutely touches on the nerves of certain people. The actual rationale for those reactions remain undetermined, and I suspect they'll be vehemently upset should such rational grounding be evoked. __meco (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For the rationally minded I shall present a quote from the lede of a BBC article:

"Of all the leaks to have emerged from this set of releases from Wikileaks, this global list of infrastructure sites which the US considers critical for its national security interest must surely count as one of the most sensitive."[2]

Still, a veteran editor asserts that "Republishing such a list has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and therefore, we have no need for it." I think BBC got it right here, not the clamoring opposition. __meco (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are backpedaling. There's a huge difference between writing about the importance of a list and supporting the creation of the list, as you have above. Blurring the line between that important distinction isn't helpful. As other editors above have said, the list would add nothing to the article. Do you believe Wikipedia should be turned into an online version of The Anarchist Cookbook? And how could any reasonable person compare a list of sites important to national security with a list of cigarette additives or Nike sponsorships? Are you trying to be humorous? Please answer these two questions directly. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To address your last question first, you may have missed something important about my "comparison", i.e. the context. I write "the notability of such a collation would surely be no less manifest than that of..." and then I mention two lists of asserted lesser notability. In the same manner, the characters in the Walt Disney universe could be said to be less important than the US presidents. Now, would that to you constitute a shocking attempt to "compare the presidents of the United States with cartoon characters"? I hope not. As for the answer to your first question, the answer would be "no".

Now, as the actual list hasn't been published ("Wikileaks have pointed out that they deliberately removed details of names and locations from the secret list." -source: same BBC article), at present, the list would simply amount to a section in the present article, listing the types of installations and target areas that have been published, and discussed in mainstream media. __meco (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever has been published in secondary RS about the list can and should be added. We are not censored we are a comprehensive encyclopedia). --Cyclopia^talk 11:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't add "whatever has been published in secondary sources", and in fact, we operate with restraint and self-control at all times, carefully choosing what is relevant to the overall topic; as a tertiary source, our job is to summarize the main points of a topic, from soup to nuts, avoiding unnecessary detail that distracts from the main thesis. In any article, we avoid getting distracted by the fine detail, and focus on the broader topic. It is a common misconception (and it comes up all the time on the noticeboards) that we should add whatever is found in RS; We just don't do that on any level. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the realities. And I think you know that you do. Sorry to apply some bad faith towards you here, but I believe not doing so would be an insult to your obvious intelligence. Sure we don't go into details that are trivial, but the general importance of the subject being discussed plays a significant role in determining which level of detail would be relevant. With the context being that this specific leak may be the single most important of the entire diplomatic cables corpus thus far, it would be only a matter of course that we would allow ourselves to delve quite deeply into this particular story. And that would by necessity include dishing out details, whether in prose or, if deemed more convenient, also in list form. __meco (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are focusing on one detail from a large leak of documents. Instead of focusing on details we need to focus on the broader aspects of the topic, such as the background of the leak, the role of WikiLeaks in its release, the role of diplomacy, the importance and consequences of the leak, the implications and reactions, and the key analysis. We're getting lost in details because we are dealing with a herding cats problem, where one editor drives-by to add a detail, and another adds another detail, until the article ends up reading like a bad "in popular culture" list. Instead of working from fine detail to a broad overview, the process needs to be reversed. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no conflict between going deep and going wide. Sure we should cover attempts at analyzing the bigger picture, but this serial event is in fact driven by the individual cases being revealed as a continuous stream of sundry information that has to be collected and organized—collated—in as much as the individual pieces are intrinsically noteworthy. And the mainstream media do for the most part take care of that job in that what they find newsworthy generally also is notable by our standards, in fact, there's a direct correlation as coverage in reliable sources is a mainstay of our notability guidelines. This mode of building an article will, as experience has shown many of us, dictate a certain listiness of the article in its various stages. Then we attempt to organize the information into a coherent narrative, to the extent that this is possible. __meco (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote your own words back at you, "it would be helpful if you argued on the basis of guidelines, policies or precedents." We do not build articles from random lists, and I've never heard anything like that before, nor does any policy or guideline recommend such an approach. We focus on the topic and go into detail as necessary. You just added more than a 1000 bytes going into sensitive detail after being told by five editors that we didn't need it. Are you here to work by consensus or to push your own POV? Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Viriditas, if you only cared to read well, you would have seen that I said "whatever has been published in secondary RS about the list". I don't get what you mean by "self-control" (again, read the links above: we do not "self control" on the mere grounds of information being controversial or possibly problematic in the world). But of course we carefully choose what is relevant: and such a list is not "fine detail": it is a very relevant feature of the article subject (if not even deserving an article in itself). --Cyclopia^talk 11:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to say what is important and what is not, which is why we need to start with the general and work our way to the particular, paying special note to what the secondary sources agree is important, and watching for the outliers. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The matter at the heart of this is what the readers are supposed to gain by reading the actual list. I don't see the encyclopedic value here. It would be akin to listing the complete contents of the cables, regardless of news coverage, just because the cables as a whole are notable. This isn't Wikisource. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. --Cyclopia^talk 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That counter-argument would apply to most any list at Wikipedia. It would be helpful if you argued on the basis of guidelines, policies or precedents. __meco (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether the actual list has even been published. If not, the idea of turning it into an article is moot. The CNN article (linked to by Smallman) and the BBC article (linked to by meco) both read as if they were by someone who has seen the actual list. But the BBC article says "those working with Wikileaks have pointed out that they deliberately removed details of names and locations from the secret list." I'm not quite sure what that means. If it said that all names and locations have been removed from the published list, I would know what means. Instead, it vaguely refers to "details" of names and locations, and the wording leaves unclear whether all names and locations have been removed, or just some. Until someone can link to the actual list rather than an article about the list, there seems to be little point in discussing whether the list should be turned into an article. Neutron (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If I might make a comment that applies generally to articles that draw on Wikileaks' material as opposed to this particular inclusion discussion, if one or two sources have published something that the vast majority of the most responsible media outlets have, in their editorial discretion, decided not to, I don't believe the standard for publishing on Wikipedia has been met, simply because of the principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. Wikileaks' chosen threshhold for disclosure is not automatically Wikipedia's threshold. When WP:NPOV is considered from a broad perspective (i.e. doesn't miss the forest for the trees), it is clear that Wikipedia's role is to play FOLLOWER (of the norms of the most reliable sources) not TRAILBLAZER. Jimbo Wales made a good point in July when he observed that

I wish people would stop citing WP:NOTCENSOR all the time. It almost never answers anyone's actual objections, and it may seriously mislead people who hear it for the first time. It sounds like an "in your face" kind of "we don't care about what happens" when in fact, we in general can, should, and do follow thoughtful, careful, respectful, serious linking policies that do involve - at times - declining to link to material that is in some way illegal or harmful.

With respect to established policy, note the following from WP:ELNEVER:

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors...

From ArbCom:

Outing sites as attack sites

11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.

Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as narcissistic if Wikipedians cannot tolerate having their real names published yet in turn insist on denying the non-Wikipedia world any comparable consideration.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Brian, read WP:COMPREHENSIVE to find lots of examples where we do not censor information regardless of it being potentially problematic outside. Besides, stuff published by BBC and CNN is hardly obscure. --Cyclopia^talk 13:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now created a section on this particular release, United States diplomatic cables leak#Disclosing international infrastructure critical to US national security using the two sources mentioned in this discussion, BBC and CNN. __meco (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus for you to do so, nor was there any consensus for you to add this much detail.[3] This seems to be a clear case of you ignoring discussion, ignoring consensus, and ignoring the basic policies and guidelines about adding fine detail and ignoring the broader topic. Per the above discussion, I'll remove that detail immediately. We're dealing with a large topic and we simply cannot focus on such things in this article. If you are unwilling to listen to other editors, then I suggest you take your concerns to the most relevant noticeboard(s). Above, myself, User:Merrill Stubing, User:ButOnMethItIs, User:Bdell555 and possibly User:Neutron, do not agree with your approach. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me there's such a consensus to remove such information. I reinstated the paragraph; I'll trim it down now to address size concerns. --Cyclopia^talk 13:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor adding content, not removing it, and there is no consensus to devote this much content to the subject. This is undue weight and ignores the concerns raised by five different editors. When content is disputed, we remove it to the talk page and discuss it. We do not try to keep forcing it into the article through edit warring. Please follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Meco, you are in danger of violating WP:3RR - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What's with the shouting? I find your post to be a rather inappropriate attempt to make me look like I'm disrupting the editing efforts of thia article. __meco (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I apologize for the bolding. No intentions other than to get you to notice. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are disrupting the article. Your proposal was discussed and rejected, and you went ahead and added it anyway, making the article more unreadable than it already is. This article is not about vital sites; it is about the cables lead as a whole. We have an unmanagable list that needs to be removed completely and turned into prose about the leaks, and on top of that, you add even more unnecessary detail, revert a compromise version, and revert again while ignoring BRD. You are simply not willing to work with anyone here or listen to anyone else. When material is disputed, you work towards a compromise or you discuss it on talk. 13:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the list should be mentioned. A lot of leaked information is currently presented in the article so why not the list? The content is to long for the article but we could create an article for it: List of International Infrastructure Critical to US National Security and just mention the list and redirect to the article. There is no Copyright on the list (US government => Public Domain) and it was first published by other media source (Wikileaks, NYTimes, Guardian and so on) so no fear about classification. --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is undue weight. This article needs to be trimmed in a large way, and Meco's recent additions have ignored the concerns raised above and do not help focus on the broader topic. This topic is not about the vital sites. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is by no means undue weight, and I particularly find this edit by Cyclopia inappropriate, randomly removing significant points from the section making it appear of less importance. Let me again quote from BBC's article.

Of all the leaks to have emerged from this set of releases from Wikileaks, this global list of infrastructure sites which the US considers critical for its national security interest must surely count as one of the most sensitive. In its preamble, the cable from the US State Department in 2009 specifically notes it was compiled to try to protect US interests from terrorists.

— BBC article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

Now, how could any unbiased editor here assert that this isn't very important? __meco (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, my edit tried to find a compromise between the position of me and you and that of Viriditas, by reducing the space devoted to the list. But I completely agree it's an important topic. --Cyclopia^talk 14:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you paying attention?? There are 251,287 documents, of which only 1000 have been released. Only 1000! You really need to start seeing the forest for the trees here. There is a broader topic, and we need to start writing about it. Focusing on this kind of detail when the article is already over 150,000 bytes is just careless. So, a source says a certain leak "must surely count as one of the most sensitive". Newsflash: they are all sensitive documents. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I find that utterance utterly non-sequiturial. What's the argument? Should we consider the would-be full picture of the full 251,000 documents release, of which we know basically nothing apart from the 1,000 that has so far been published? Please, do start writing about the "broader picture", as I have acceded above, but there are no rational grounds for purging the article of the assertedly most important leak so far. __meco (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Meco. Viriditas, you are putting your own original research in front of what reliable sources say. We have sources indicating that this is particularly important. We should follow them, not substitute our arbitrary judgement. I also disagree that focusing on the detail is "careless". On the contrary: we should begin by adding detail, and then, in case, splitting and reorganizing. But we can't write in general without having material in detail. --Cyclopia^talk 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I'm afraid you are confused as to what "original research" means here, as it doesn't even come into play. Concern about meco's content has been raised above, and other editors have raised alarms about the readability, with guidelines like Wikipedia:Splitting recommending a split for anything over 100 KB. Let me remind you, we were at 166, and keep in mind that the majority of it was a list not prose. This is just not how we write articles. I'm really surprised at both of your positions here. They are simply not tenable. Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is merely the splitting and putting the information in another article, I'm perfectly OK with that. I only disagree with positions that consider the information being not worth inclusion in WP at all.--Cyclopia^talk 15:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed content

Below is the section which I added today and which has now been completely removed from this article. I would like to point to the coinciding splitting off of the actual diplomatic wires contents to a separate article was effected a mere two hours after I had written this section by Viriditas who has shown themselves to be deeply entrenched in their bias to drastically downplay or keep this information out of the article. I would also like to point out that none of this information is currently included in the recreated fork, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

Disclosing international infrastructure critical to US national security

Perhaps the most sensitive of all releases as of December 6 was a cable from the US State Department sent in February 2009 listing installations and infrastructure worldwide that it considered critical to protect US interests from terrorists. Before releasing this list WikiLeaks had deliberately removed details of names and locations, but much was still revealed. Ostensibly the list does not include any military facilities. Instead it includes key facilities that if attacked could disrupt the global supply chain and global communications, as well as goods and services important to the US and its economy. In the cable the State Department requests American diplomats to identify installations overseas "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States." The order was under the direction of the Department for Homeland Security in co-ordination with the Department of State.

These are noted excerpts from the list:

• Submarine communications cables
  • across the Pacific Ocean to New Zealand, Australia, China and other US allies in Asia.
  • across the Atlantic Ocean, particularly those from the United Kingdom and Ireland northwards.
• Major port hubs, particularly in China, Japan and South Korea.
• Critical sea lanes, such as the Straits of Hormuz, the Panama Canal and the Straits of Malacca.
  • Notably, the Bosphorus Strait is missing from this list reflecting changes in the global strategic map.
• The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline as well as many other strategic pipelines criss-crossing Eurasia.
  • In connection to these pipelines also Georgia, Azerbaijan and Belarus are on the list.
• Mines that produce rare earth and other much-needed metals, especially in South Africa and Australia.
  • Several underwater pipelines are listed in Japan, China and Britain.
• A long list of pharmaceutical facilities in Europe.
• Ostensibly missing are also civil nuclear power plants outside of the United States.
• Dams close to the U.S. border.

The publishing of this particular cable which had been classified secret and not for review by non-U.S. personnel, has been followed by strong criticism. US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the disclosure was "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list." Also British prime minister David Cameron stated that the list was damaging to the national security of both his country and the United States, "and elsewhere". WikiLeaks spokeswoman Kristinn Hrafnsson said with reference to the cable: "This further undermines claims made by the US Government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role. Part of the cable read: "Posts are not/not being asked to consult with host governments with respect to this request."

__meco (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true; much of it is included in the reactions section as I previously informed you on your talk page. So, the main points are in the current article. Viriditas (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, I don't get it, Meco: There is a perfect venue for that material. Why instead of copying it there you're nominating it for deletion? --Cyclopia^talk 15:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that if I copied it there it would be removed promptly. I wrote the following at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak as rationale for the nomination:

This article is a fork of United States diplomatic cables leak and was originally created a week ago but for a lack of agreement on this action it was soon converted to a redirect. Discussion about having this fork was discussed at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak but no consensus developed for the split-off. It has been argued that the parent article is becoming too large (169kb prior to the split-off) and one editor therefore made the unilateral decision to reinstate the article fork with the amazing edit commentary "Sorry folks, but this needs to be brought under control), indicating some sort of emergency procedure having to be made, assumedly as the rationale for omitting to obtain a mandate from other editors. It should also be mentioned that there are strongly conflicting opinions on the parent article's talk page about what strategies to pursue in going forward covering the ongoing diplomatic cables leak situation. I would like to point out that adding one more layer for the casual user to have to click makes the information on this issue increasingly less available. Already we have the situation that with the current diplomatic leak story being daily in the news headlines across the globe, 20 times as many people only go to the WikiLeaks page as go on to United States diplomatic cables leak (500k hits vs 25k hits). That should raise a huge warning sign that continued diffusing this information comes at a considerable cost.

That's why I think having that article recreated currently is a bad idea. I have also addressed the unapproved split-off specifically in a new section below on this page, #Unapproved splitting off of content article, which you might want to contribute to. __meco (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the addition of the infrastructure bit. As time progresses, and this is overshadowed by more important details, we can always modify it - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found it, a section stashed in the middle of the United States diplomatic cables leak#Reactions section at the end of the article. I reiterate my position that this information is the singlehandedly most contentious part of the leaks thus far (as the BBC clearly opines). Have we any sources that actually dispute this? The way it is being subdued currently here in this article does not reflect this, and that is outrageous. __meco (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not "stashed" or subdued at all, but placed directly into the context of what we already have in the article in a logical, orderly fashion. Please pay closer attention to the prose. The reactions section begins with an official statement from Clinton, saying among other things, that the leak will endanger people. It is followed by a comment from Javier Moreno, who says that the leak will not cost lives, but will cost the jobs of diplomats and politicians. That statement is in turn followed by your material, which includes statements from P.J. Crowley and David Cameron saying, no, the leak will endanger lives, because it includes a list of vital sites. This is in turn, followed by politicians calling for action, some of which have been interpreted as incitements to violence against Assange. This is followed by Reporters Without Borders condemning the incitements to violence and with further overview about the leak by the ACLU and a specific comment about the Khalid El-Masri cable leak. I hope you can see the structure here. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's now a specific article Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative for details of the list. I should probably work the overview above into the introduction in some form, since it's a sourced synopsis. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. __meco (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an extremely poor idea, and I've redirected the article as we don't have any secondary sources supporting the list. We do not self-publish leaked classified material on Wikipedia. This was explained to you in the above section, and you and Wnt went ahead and did it anyway. I would encourage you to take this up on the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How many documents have been released by now?

From reading the article's lede section I get the impression that only 291 documents have so far been published. Surely this has changed? I also seem to remember that before the first release took place a number of documents of, I think 1.7 million was mentioned. What was that figure related to as compared to the 251,000 which is the figure for the total corpus of US diplomatic cables also mentioned in the lede. __meco (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly simple to verify how many has been released, just press the link provided at the bottom of the article. It says currently 1060 documents of 251,287 has been released. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

145.236.109.178 has added a column "Added" in the releases table, but there is no information in that column, it just contains the difference between two successive entries. I am deleting this column again. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Payback

Supports of wikileaks are doing DDOS attacks on the websites and companies which blocked wikileaks.

Do we need to mention this?

1. Operation Payback cripples MasterCard site in revenge for WikiLeaks ban - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/operation-payback-mastercard-website-wikileaks
2. Hackers strike back to support WikiLeaks founder - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Hactivists-wage-Operation-Payback/articleshow/7063118.cms
3. WikiLeaks avoids shutdown as supporters worldwide go on the offensive - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120804038.html
4. ‘Operation Payback’ Attacks Visa - http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/operation-payback-attacks-visa/
5. "Operation: Payback" announces on Twitter planned Web attack on Visa - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/operation-payback-announces-on-twitter-planned-web-attack-on-visa-after-wikileaks-mastercard.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. __meco (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be detailed, yes; but if there's any shortage of space then it's time to get Operation Payback its own article. The tree here is Anonymous -> MasterCard -> Wikileaks -> United States diplomatic cables, which is a whole lot of indirection. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Payback has existed for quite some time. __meco (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow - wasn't expecting that! Wnt (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it certainly shouldn't have its own section. It should be a 1-2 sentence addition to the 'Hosting, finances, and accessibility' section. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As I proposed earlier (above) we need a new section on the information warfare, of which this is one part. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

'I agree'. Media is calling it The First World Infowar - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexia-parks/wikileaks-the-first-world_b_792761.html?ir=Politics - -Abhishikt 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

BBC News report on The First Information War - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sg6fU5gn_M -Abhishikt 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Now, consider what will happen when the leaks target China and Russia. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We should wait and see how the situation develops. For now, I think a new section on infowar is too premature. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the news indexes; there are more than enough sources. We can also move the DoS attacks against WikiLeaks to that section. The more we can group related topics, the easier it is to steer the article in the right direction. One of the main advantages to doing this, is it forces editors to approach the issue from a NPOV since the section topic is wide enough to include both sides. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. What exactly is the scope of your proposed infowar section? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What could possibly be the confusion? The scope of information warfare in this instance, with governments and corporations on one side, and WikiLeaks and Anonymous and others on the other couldn't be clearer. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reintroduction of vital sites material

Considering the sources that have been found for Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative and its seeming importance, I feel that the section that was previously in this article should be reinstated (or in the contents article). The previous discussion about this was here. The section should probably be shortened, obviously, since there's no need for as much information now that it has its own article. But there should definitely be a paragraph and a Main Page link to it either in this article or in the Contents article. Silverseren^C 00:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the reactions section, with the amount of due weight given to the subject, considering that there are no reliable secondary sources about the CFDI, only news reports about WikiLeaks leaking a cable that mentioned it and the reactions from officials. And that is exactly what is already in the reactions section, so I don't see that there is anything to add here. Right now, what we need is a good summary of the contents, with between 2-4 long paragraphs, focusing on the breakdown by weight based on the subjects listed in the table: (External Political Relations, Internal Government Affairs, Human Rights, Economic Conditions, Terrorists and Terrorism, and the UN Security Council). Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I missed it. Yeah, that's a perfect amount of info. I just went ahead and reorganized the first sentence of the paragraph so it had the name of the cable and linked to it from there. The way it was linked to before, with "foreign installations and infrastructure considered critical to U.S. interests", was a bit confusing. It looks good. Keep up the good work, guys (and gals). Silverseren^C 00:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good outline for how to deal with the contents part in the present article. __meco (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources

People are still editing content based solely on the cables. This is not appropriate. We need to add content only from secondary sources, and if needed, use the cable links to illustrate what is already sourced to major news outlets. Ideally, we will only use this article to focus on important topics that have received extensive news coverage, such as nuclear proliferation, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, as only a few examples. We are not here to focus on humorous anecdotes and gossip, or to expand upon what a single editor finds interesting. That's not our job. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, if a reputable secondary source has focused on humorous anecdotes or gossip, then it's fair game for inclusion. 7daysahead (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If something isn't being talked about in secondary sources, it's not notable enough for inclusion. The notability guidelines are reasonably clear on this point. The cables themselves can and should be used for things such as direct quotation. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with ButOnMethItIs. I believe that wikileaks.org probably meets the standards for a RS and thus can be quoted from. But individual cables will not meet the criteria for notablility, unless they are covered in major media sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that as an encyclopedia article, we're supposed to be writing about the cable leak, not citing or highlighting individual cables. The focus and structure of this article doesn't hold up. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RS problem it's WP:OR--Brian Dell (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

However, once a secondary ref is added about a cable, its serves best the interest of the reader to also include a direct ref to the cable itself.--Sum (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is something we need to discuss. Assange released those cables as "raw data" for journalists to write about and cover in the media. As an encyclopedia, we use those secondary sources to write our articles, but do we also need to point to each cable? I would say no. Look at our article on the Climatic Research Unit email leak as an example; I don't believe we link to a single e-mail, nor should we. The same is true here. The secondary sources are doing the analysis for us, and those are the sources we need to use. Viriditas (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why only secondary sources? Is this Wikipedia policy? Arianit (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed your question in a new section, below. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 00:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved splitting off of content article

Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak was originally created a week ago but for a lack of agreement on this action it was soon converted to a redirect. Now, Viriditas has unilaterally taken it upon themselves to reinstate that fork. In an edit summary Viriditas amazingly writes: "Sorry folks, but this needs to be brought under control)".[4] I wonder, are we dealing with some superhero editor here who, embroiled in the contentious conflict du jour (# List of vital sites), still sees it as their task to make swift, rash and extensive changes to the article, without a mandate and without any recent discussion. Splitting off the leaks content has been discussed previously on this page in the section #Proposal for a splitting-up strategy with the last post 4 days ago. No consensus was formed then but nevertheless Viriditas now goes ahead with this action. I strongly urge that this action is redone immediately. __meco (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you have just failed to read the concerns reiterated by editors on this page, editors who are growing concerned with the readability, management, and focus of this topic. The article is now a healthy 44,000 bytes and in prose form. Imagine that. As for your obsession with a list of vital sites that at least five editors disagreed with you about, I compromised where you would not, and incorporated the most salient bits into the reaction section. No need to thank me, you are welcome. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep referring to your five supporting editors. Here are the five (four) that I assume you consider to be your supporting faction:

• User:Merrill Stubing is concerned about posting classified material. Their opinion is most forcefully expressed as "Sort of illegal." Is that a valid argument in this discussion? (since we both know what the answer to that suggestion is).
• User:ButOnMethItIs doesn't see the encycplopedic value.
• User:Herostratus argues that including the list would be imprudent because "[m]ost United States citizens and their elected representatives would consider it an act overtly unfriendly to the United States". Would you call that a valid argument?
• User:ButOnMethItIs argues againt presenting "the actual list". But that's not what we are talking about here, is it?
• As for Brian Dell, I'm unable to ascertain if he has an actual position on the inclusion issue.

What about User:Smallman12q, User:Cyclopia, User:Wikieditoroftoday who all clearly favor my position? __meco (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And now also User:Amog[5]. __meco (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in a sort of middle position. I strongly agree that arguments based on "it's not encyclopedic" or "it may be harmful" are to be firmly rejected, and that the content about the list must be in WP, somewhere. But I welcome the existence of a split that lists the content in detail: it's the only way to have both depth of coverage and readable articles. --Cyclopia^talk 17:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just worried that this page is disintegrating in a less than constructive manner, making only the most tenacious readers being able to find information of relevance. The individual diplomatic cables themselves is at least fifty percent of the story, so removing that for the most part from this article troubles me. I think we should allow for a considerable discussion and detailing of the most important individual cables in the present article, then everything else could go into what is now the content article. I have made a similar proposal vis-á-vis Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak (see Talk:Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak#Types of reactions). __meco (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The page has improved, not disintegrated, and we don't need long lists of cable items here. Please familiarize yourself with summary style and make an attempt to broadly describe the contents in 2-4 long paragraphs. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I applaud the outline for dealing with the cables contents in this article, as noted below. If this works out, my initial worries will have been put to rest. I shall update myself on summary style as you recommend. __meco (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The page has improved considerably since my last edit - Dec 6. I approve of the split to make the article size smaller; it used to take forever to submit edits earlier as it was so big. --33rogers (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the split was probably unavoidable. I only regret the timing and the manner in which it was effected as I have discussed in detail elsewhere. __meco (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't very good before, but it seems stable and well-organized now. Silverseren^C 01:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The content of the cables is the significant part of the topic of the article. Removing it amounts to censorship. I agree that the move was done unilateraly and contrary to a previous discussion on this page. The contents section is now reduced a meaningless paragraph, while large space is given in the "reactions" section to the hysteria generated by US television. This is just ridiculus.--Sum (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: transclusion

I'm not sure if this can be reconciled with our guidelines on transclusion, but wouldn't it make everything much simpler if the people editing Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak also automatically generated the summary of that article for this article which seems to never have gotten off the ground? If parts of a lede section at that article could contain (as it should) a comprehensive summary of the article's contents, then those same parts could be transcluded into the present article. Then it would also be automatically updated. __meco (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea and I've talked about it in the past. However, it hasn't been seriously considered since 2004. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Content removed from Wikileaks' cable archive

I noticed that an editor had removed information about decreases in the number of cables released on the Wikileaks site. This piqued my curiosity. I downloaded several torrents from the main magnet page, verified their MD5s (which doesn't prove much at all, but...) and determined that in fact 32 cables were removed between 14:09 and 18:11 on 2010-12-04, but all but one (2009\04\09cairo746.html) were restored to the archive three days later ([6]), and that one still appears on the browser on the Web site itself. However, the same was not true of cables removed between 00:10 and 17:21 on 2010-12-06: 2007\01\07paris322.html 2008\08\08rabat727.html 2009\01\09madrid71.html 2009\04\09cairo746.html 2009\09\09paris1254.html 2009\10\09paris1465.html 2009\11\09telaviv2502.html 2009\12\09casablanca226.html 2009\12\09conakry797.html 2009\12\09ouagadougou1158.html 2009\12\09ouagadougou1159.html 2009\12\09rabat1009.html 2009\12\09rabat1018.html 2009\12\09rabat988.html 2010\01\10rabat22.html 2010\01\10rabat34.html 2010\01\10rabat5.html 2010\01\10rabat8.html - these appear to exist only in the old torrent ([7]) at least for now.

You destroyed some information, and I did not. For each time stamp the number of released cables is given. If that goes from 800 to 840 then the added column contained 40, if it went from 840 to 830 then the added column contained -10 (that is, removed 10). As you can see, it does not tell anything that is not already in the table. Moreover, it is misleading information since the number actually added may be larger, if simultaneously other cables were deleted.

And yes, there are interesting changes in the text of the cables. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't examined whether redactions or other changes were made between different release dates for individual cables. But I wonder what all the deletions and undeletions are about. Meanwhile, I think maybe that running count should stay in the article. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way, but your comments above and your self-publishing of a classified list of vital sites from a leaked WikiLeaks cable, tells me that you are a bit confused about original research and how we write articles from the secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the above text to the article because I know it is original research. But there ought to be an answer out there in a usable source, even if I didn't find it on my first search. Wnt (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas appears to be a bit confused about the difference between original research and a pertinent observation regarding some apparent vandalism of the main article. WP:OR does not require us to leave our brains at the door. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas is not confused about anything. However, as a new user you may be unfamiliar with how we write articles and use the talk page. You are welcome to take your concerns to the OR noticeboard and discuss it with them there. But please remember to use the talk page to discuss content, not other users. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that Viriditas removed the small section that explained the release table, and more especially the 'deleted' column in that table. To me the previous version looked better, but I moved the essential content of that small section to the caption below the table itself. (And added the next entry to the table.) In the text the number of cables in the first release was given as 291. All references I can find give 220. Changed. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Present vs future

There has been an announcement to release a quarter of a million cables. So far, I have seen 1310. Some editors change this page to describe the future as if it were present already. Also in the media I see great confusion about the present size of the leak. The "Contents" section has a table with counts (the total is missing, it is not the sum of the parts) but does not say clearly that this is an announcement, not present-day reality. There was a table that described present-day reality, but Viriditas moved it to the Contents page. I think it would be better to have it here. (The Contents page should discuss the contents of the cables, the text itself. The meta-information about the process of leaking should be here.) 213.84.53.62 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Two concerns: 1) Do you realize just how long that table is going to get? Consider that for a moment. 2) How is that information important to this article? I realize some people get obsessed about some details, and that's fine, but we write for the general reader who doesn't care about that table unless it is giving them information they need to know. Now, if you want to restore it, go ahead, but I can't see what benefit it gives the average reader, somebody who doesn't know anything about this topic and came here to learn. That's our audience. Viriditas (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

About the two: of course I considered both aspects. You moved the table to a different page, and I am tempted to move it back, in the belief that it fits better here than there. About the size: you did not comment on the first part of my remarks above, but there is present and future. Today the size is such that it fits in a table. Just like 30K is an acceptable size for a WP article and 300K is not, 20 lines is an acceptable size for an inline WP table and 200 lines is not. When an article gets too big we do something, probably split it. When a table gets too big we do something, probably condense it or find an external source we can point to. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved administrator. A relevant policy here is WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information in our articles should only be included if it is encyclopedic, and has relevant coverage in reliable secondary sources (reliable news, books, and journal articles, which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). We are not trying to provide all possible information here. Again: it is not our job to supply raw information. Instead, our job is to put raw information into context, by providing summaries of what other reliable sources are saying about that information.--Elonka 16:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your remarks would be appropriate if there were a conflict here about what should be included in WP. There is not (yet). A table was moved from A to B, and I voiced the opinion that it fits better in A than in B. Concerning the NOT part: I agree, but not yet. This is a current event and things are changing quickly. Pointers to external data are important to present and future editors. Many not precisely accurate statements on these pages are sourced today with references that do not exist any longer. For WP verifiability it is important to have solid data. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the addition of the content and total fields again. There is no applicable total number here as the list represents documents in multiple categories, TTBOMK, not the actual number. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the total is what you get when adding these numbers. It is the total size of the leak. It enables one to see that External Political Relations is a classification for 58% of these cables, and that Terrorists and Terrorism occurs in 11%. Such a total is only natural. Without it one might be tempted to think that we have a partitioning into categories. If you prefer "All" instead of "Total", I do not mind.

Concerning the caption: American politicians are clamoring these days about the "indiscrimate dump of thousands of documents" by Wikileaks, and the table without caption gives the impression that it gives information about published cables. But it is a hypothetical statistics, statistics on what might never be published. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not how the total field is used. There is no reason to add a total number field here because the sum does not reflect the total. Your edit is not making sense. The numbers represent the number of documents in each category and do not reflect a total number, nor were they intended to do so. Adding a total number field at the end implies that the sum equals 251,287. It does not, and should not imply that it does. Honestly, if this continues, we're going to need to remove both tables, because this information is being misused against best practices. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll make it "All" then. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, because that still implies a SUM. There is no sum here, nor was one intended. If you persist, I'll just remove both tables because you can't keep adding stuff without sources. The original source (Assange? WikiLeaks? NYT?) talked about how the numbers only represented topic categories, not a sum total. So even implying that there is a relationship here makes no sense. Add it up for yourself. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain good statistical practice, now that you mention good practice. Whenever one has a table that gives counts of subsets of a set, the most important item of information is the total size of the set. If you have a group of people, and 12 are women, and 7 have a university degree, then what? Very little useful information. If the total number of people is given, 17, then suddenly one has an idea about what fraction has what property. I'll think about other choices if you think that "All" still implies addition. To me it does not. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This table only shows the number of documents that appear in topical categories. In other words, it is not a "true" table, in the statistical sense. The previous edit implied that the numbers added up to 251,287, and of course, they do not. Furthermore, this table was copied wholesale from the secondary sources that got it from WikiLeaks, and none of them used a total number. Since you don't see how your edit could easily confuse people (nor do you seem to care), I'm leaning quite heavily towards removing it altogether and converting it to prose. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! Be bold! :-) 213.84.53.62 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this debate over the phrase, "Contents of the announced leak (251,287 cables)", at the top of the table in the "Contents" section of the main article? It is clearly a relevant and notable figure that needs to be placed in such a table. Arguably, that is the most important number in the entire article. This point is so completely obvious that I am left wondering if I am really following this discussion. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 04:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this debate is clearly not over that phrase, as it was added after this discussion took place. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources

It is Wikipaedia policy that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources where the facts may be open to interpretation or misrepresented by a selective account of those primary sources (which will usually be a significant possibility). This is not a blanket rule that forbids all primary sources (although, some editors appear to believe that it is). The Wikipaedia guidelines issue a strong caution when using primary sources, to ensure that editors' uses of those sources are fair and reasonable and stick to undisputed facts:

Policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

For all their noise about WP:PRIMARY, I suspect that many established editors have never read the fine print of that policy. Under WP:PRIMARY, WikiLeaks may be used as a WP:RS for referencing the content of the diplomatic cables. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 00:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact, they may not, and consensus is against using them in this way on multiple noticeboards. You are welcome to request clarification at either the OR and/or RS noticeboard. Be sure to explain to them that you are a new user who is still learning. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't link it, it didn't happen. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 03:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of primary sources is generally frowned on, though they can be used when necessary. Reporting "new" information gleaned from review of the cables is not the purpose of Wikipedia, especially when interpretation is involved. WikiLeaks is ideal as a source for direct quotations, but ideally should not be used for anything else. Let the newspapers do the interpreting and the analysis, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. SDY (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is ideal as a source for direct quotations by secondary sources, not by Wikipedia. If you require clarification on that point, please take your concerns to the RS or NOR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I accede Uncensored Kiwi's response above. Unless you produce some links to these many fora which support your contention, you saying it is so is really not a very strong argument. This is emphasized by past recent experiences of you grossly misrepresenting the situation in these discussions. That taken into account, your disjointed emphasizing of Uncensored Kiwi's brief history as a Wikipedia editor without any real assertion that that has shown to be a problem appears tantamount to a personal attack. __meco (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Meco, your comments are again, completely absurd. Your false accusations of "gross misrepresentations" are a joke, and I recommend you report yourself on ANI for making personal attacks. This is a discussion page reserved for discussion about the topic. If you can't do that, don't comment. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, please respect your fellow editors, as per WP:CIVIL. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly civil in asking you to take your off-topic policy concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Also, this discussion page is for discussing the topic, not other editors, as you've been reminded several times now. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, with phrases like "completely absurd" and "Your false accusations ... are a joke", and taunts such as "I recommend you report yourself on ANI for making personal attacks", your comments clearly breach WP:CIVIL. I would have preferred to issue this warning in your user talk page, but you appear to have locked that page. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 11:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You can stop trolling now. Meco's accusation of personal attacks was in fact, an overt personal attack, and your off-topic trolling is more of the same. Either use this discussion page to discuss the topic or don't post here. And, my talk page is still protected because of your previous trolling. You aren't welcome there, and it is time for you to move on. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, you have issued needless personal attacks against another editor, in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:PA, and now you're accusing me of going off-topic simply because I politely asked you to respect your fellow editors, as per WP:CIVIL. And all of this has needlessly continued in this inappropriate forum because you have somehow locked out all comments to your own user talk page. Perhaps this does need to be taken to ANI. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 12:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, let me be perfectly clear. Confine your comments to the subject of this article and refrain from talking about other editors. Is this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It becomes increasingly obvious that this can-do-no-wrong editor with 90,000 edits[8] is displaying a demeaning and condescending attitude towards earnest fellow editors, as well as leveling personal attacks at me, which should warrant a community injunction against such behavior. I can only in good faith understand that they may be a bit off balance with all the current discussions going on and regrettably allowing this to cause further bad behavior rather than taking a break, going for a long walk or something along that line. But obviously this cannot go on much longer. __meco (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right; it can't go on any longer. Therefore, please stop discussing editors and get back to discussing the topic. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what is the immediate background for this discussion as I'm unable to keep pace with the many ongoing discussions surrounding WikiLeaks on Wikipedia. That said I find your reiteration of our guidelines on using primary sources timely, and I do find that some editors tend to respond with kneejerk rejection to any use of primary sources even when the use is within what is explicitly allowed. __meco (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to join the new user on the RS noticeboard to pursue your interest in how we use sources, but this is not the place for it. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, please respect your fellow editors, as per WP:CIVIL. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly civil in asking you to take your off-topic policy concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Listen: if the content of a cable is important, there's going to be a reliable, secondary source that covers that cable. When we determine what gets coverage or not (by using the primaries as the sole source), we run into WP:Original Research, WP:Notability, and WP:Notnews. It's just a matter of finding the right sources. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC) tl;dr - we are not the arbiters of what's important

More or less correct. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, while I can see how the use of a primary source runs the obvious risk of misrepresentation due to subject or selective interpretation (hence, the understandably STRONG cautionary warning in Wikipaedia's policy), I don't see how it leads us into WP:Original Research, WP:Notability, and WP:Notnews. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Using a primary source often leads to OR due to WP:SYN, and there are notability problems inherent in an editor choosing to use specific material from a primary without good secondary sources making that determination for them. NOTNEWS comes into play, because recentism, or recent newsworthy events deemed newsworthy by Wikipedians, do not necessarily indicate encyclopedic importance; using primary sources to build the article can lead to OR, exaggerate notability and promote a false sense of encyclopedic importance. These are great questions, but they belong on the OR and RS noticeboards, not here. We reserve the article talk pages for only discussing how to improve a specific topic. Viriditas (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Petition to Lock Page

Due to the controversy of the subject of the article, I suggest the article be locked for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalek666 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for this; as I understand it, locks are to be used in response of persistent vandalism, which I don't see here. Visibility itself is not a reason, this would be like giving medication to a healthy person. «CharlieEchoTango» 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason being some people may feel paranoid about the validity of the article and the veracity of the readers. The analogy is not giving medicine to a healthy person, but rather preventive medication to a perfectly healthy VIP. Dalek666 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no edit-warring going on and content disputes seem to be resolving timely. Nothing serious to justify a lock. You can request admin to weigh in. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

People being paranoid about the validity of the article is no problem unless they actually edit it in a paranoid way. The veracity of non-editing readers is only relevant in the readers' personal social groups/networks (family, friends, workplace, social organisation). If the readers become editors, then paranoia about the accuracy of their following the sources carefully can be solved by reading the editing history, and by bringing up particular points on the talk page. None of this requires locking. It doesn't look to me like this page is particularly controversial. Boud (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's been almost no vandalism, and some some admins are watching this page anyway. And there's no reason to full-prot, which is purely for content disputes and some high-profile templates. And kind of like Boud is saying, if I semi-prot, a lot of people can't edit the things they're paranoid about. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Short answer: No. :-p

I am immediately suspicious of any attempt to lock a political news article. Especially when the news story is on-going, with considerably more content to come, and locking the page would amount to censoring future developments in this story. Dalek666 cannot retain any credibility after making such a preposterous suggestion. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You may want to learn to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE, particularly when you yourself have argued for protection on other pages [9]. Admitedly it's hard to AGF for most of Dalek666's older contribs but hey it's been a year... Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Libertarianism page is sand-pit politics run amok. I don't think that page needs to be unlocked; I think that page needs to be deleted because of its background of constant political agenda-pushing and the blatant sabotage that have driven the quality of that page from "featured article" down to "incoherent and patently false nonsense". I think that distinguishes the circumstance of that page from those of an on-going news article. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You ask for a page on a clear notable topic to be deleted (and from your comments it's apparent you're somewhat familiar with policy) and then complain about a newbie unfamiliar with policy asking for this article to be protected? The mind boggles. The proper thing to do of course if there are problems with an article is go fix it. (No random rants on that article talk page don't count, actual concrete proposals that can be implemented or at least discussed, and no deleting it isn't one of them, do.) You're right about one thing, the circumstances of the proposals were clearly different, one was a simple newbie misunderstanding of policy, the other was a, well let's not go there... BTW, there's no such thing as a news article on wikipedia (try Wikinews:Main Page). All articles here are encylopaedia articles and should be written as such even when they involve an ongoing event. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A rhetorical remark about the need to delete the Libertarianism article, as a way of highlighting its appalling condition after months of blatant sabotage and vandalism, is not commensurable with criticism of an attempt to censor the WikiLeaks story as it develops. Especially given the criminal behaviour that is being used by draconian governments around the world to silence WikiLeaks.

Regardless, if you know nothing about the background politics to the Libertarianism article, the prudent course of action for you would be to keep quiet.

As for your comment about there being no "news articles" in Wikipaedia ... /facepalm. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No one was trying to 'censor' the story. Someone unfamiliar with policy and the development of articles simply offered a suggestion they thought would be helpful since they correctly recognised how problematic writing this one was going to be. I'm glad however you finally agree your comment on deleting the Libertarianism was dumb and completely OT and far sillier then what the OP unfamiliar with policy suggested. The background of the article is of course mostly irrelevant there is still no merit to delete an article no a notable topic, in fact if what you claim is correct that it was once a FA then there is even less merit since that means there's not even any point re-writing from scratch. And I'm glad you've realised now there are now news article on wikipedia, no need to be that facepalm yourself though, people are often confused sadly and it's not that big an error to make (far less so then suggesting deleting the libertarianism article). Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So it's settled. The article won't be locked. Now why don't we all stop bickering about it and move on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies?

In this article, the exact number of cables released on 28 Nov 2010 is listed in the top section as "220" and in the release section as "219". In the main article on WikiLeaks, under the heading "Diplomatic cables release", the number is listed as "291". Additionally, citation 1 directs to the Wikipedia page on the New York Times, which contains no information on the diplomatic cables leaks. I have repaired this citation so as to take the user to the link provided, not to the New York Times page, and have edited the number shown in other sections of this article and of the main article.Right is right. (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Rightisright4250

Life is not so easy. What does 28 Nov 2010 mean? In which time zone are you? Precisely what do you count? Releases by The Guardian? The New York Times? Wikileaks website? Wikileaks torrent? The 220 was documented by a ref that said 220, and the 219 was documented by a ref that said 219, and both were correct. The 291 was right on Nov 30, at least if you count cables in the released torrent file, but more cables had already been released and removed again. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

An RfC has opened regarding the use of classified documents as sources. All editors are encouraged to participate, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents. --Elonka 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to the diplomatic cables leak section

Why are many of the reactions posted under the main article of the reactions to the diplomatic cables leak regurgiated under the reactions section of this article? I suggest moving all the reactions under the reactions section of this article to the main article, anybody disagree?Fellytone (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Support, this reactions dont have to do with WikiLeaks in general, but with its actions pertaining to thsi leak. I suggest they be moved here.(Lihaas (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).

Operation Leakspin

I think we can mention Operation Leakspin as subsection under Infomation warfare and refer to article Operation Leakspin -Abhishikt 07:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Definitely worth a mention, with link. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 08:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

more refs for kosovo and serbia

Here are some more mentions : http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/16987/46/

http://www.emg.rs/en/news/serbia/140329.html

Quote : "In Kosovo he used Moscow city funds to build housing for ethnic Serbian refugees," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-moscow-mayor-corruption

Tunisia Leak

Just found an article that mentions a Canadian ambassador telling the west about Tunisian torture. Don't know if it is of any relevence or usefulness but as its not listed on the contents page it might be useful. Im rubbish with citations so thought list it here, if its any good someone else can put it on the list. the link is http://ipolitics.ca/2010/12/02/tunisia-tortures-prisoners-canadian-envoy-says-in-leaked-diplomatic-cable/ (Neostinker (talk))

Bolivian Head of State

I don't know who the leaked cable refers to, but the current head of state (and government) of Bolivia is President Juan Evo Morales Ayma according to the CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bl.html). Hugo Chavez, of course, leads Bolivia. Wabbott9 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela that is.(Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).

Duh. Of course. Wabbott9 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate name

Shouldn't we mention somewhere that WikiLeaks prefers to call this "Cablegate"? I'm not saying we should move the page, just mention the alternate name somewhere. Sonicsuns (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Absoltuely, verifiable adn sourced it is. Go ahead and be WP:Bold even in the lead.(you can bold the subject in the lead).

Come to think of it we can move the title to what it is actually called, becuase this is ireally the synthesis of wikipedia editors(Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).

Cablegate currently redirects to United States diplomatic cables leak. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How's that ? Tim.thelion (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be the other way round as its the "official" name.(Lihaas (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)).

Odd ? Editorialwik (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Wikileaks, who calls it Cablegate? Neither The Guardian nor The New York Times, two of the newspapers which have led on the story, have ever referred to this story as Cablegate. Can we get some perspective? It's in the template and it need not be. Crashandspin (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a huge need to change the article's name, but the official tag is "cablegate" (or "#cablegate" where hash syntax is appropriate) [10]; Google gives me 744,000 results on "cablegate"; and international English-language mainstream media refer to it either with a description of several words or with "cablegate". My impression is that "cablegate" is for usage where a short, compact term is needed, e.g. in the headlines in the mainstream media in the references i gave, in tags for online social media or for a cablegate URI. That's not the same context as an article title, so i'm not convinced that Cablegate is so overwhelmingly universal as to replace "United States diplomatic cables leak". But the suggestion that the term is not widely used seems to be incorrect. Boud (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia

There are numerous Reliable Sources that connect the cables with the uprising in Tunisia. I was considering putting it in the Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak but it doesn't really fit there as that seems to cover only opinions. For now I am putting it in the Reactions subsection here. "But we might also count Tunisia as the first time that WikiLeaks pushed people over the brink."-Foreign Policy "The protesters, led at first by unemployed college graduates like Mr. Bouazizi and later joined by workers and young professionals, found grist for the complaints in leaked cables from the United States Embassy in Tunisia, released by WikiLeaks, that detailed the self-dealing and excess of the president’s family."-NY Times[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Another newspaper with access to Wikileaks?

Is it notable that El Espectador newspaper in Colombia has also partnered with Wikileaks to release cables regarding Colombia? They got last week the original cables from Assange itself (in Spanish, on how El Espectador managed to get to Ellingham Hall, Norfolk http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/wikileaks/articulo-252039-encuentro-julian-assange). I had only seen original cables being released in the 5 described newspapers, plus the wikileaks website. I don't know if something like that happend in another countries (let's say, O Globo in Brazil or The Globe and Mail in Canada), so El Espectador may be added to the "official" list of newspapers which have direct access to the Wikileaks cables. ometzit<col> (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unredacted cables

I don't have time right now, but I suggest rounding this section off using information from, for example:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/02/wikileaks/index.html

http://nigelparry.com/news/guardian-david-leigh-cablegate.shtml

http://wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html

Totorotroll (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting. After a rapid read, these links suggest that the "publication" was actually by David Leigh and against the plans and intentions of WikiLeaks/Assange. I've altered the WP:ITN language accordingly, but the corresponding section in this article may also need revision to achieve neutrality. causa sui (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix Information Presentation

A lot of this article seems to say that the full leak hasn't happened yet. Some of the tenses and other ways of talking about the information need to be fixed so that it is clear that the full leak has occurred. Alphius (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Censorship

I'm inclined to support this unexplained change by an IP [19]. Are there any sources that doubt that the US government is suppressing access to the leaked cables? causa sui (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter who doubts the existence of censorship? The burden of proof goes the other way. I'm sure there are reliable sources that decry various acts of censorship and maybe they're even worth including in the two preceding sections full of things that might be labeled as such (the word doesn't make a single appearance right now). I'm also sure that the only widely acknowledged and undisputed example of "censorship" is on US government networks where access is restricted for websites hosting the leaked cables (which are still classified/secret and treated as such).

None of that matters for this particular sentence though. Anonymous may have acted on what was perceived to be censorship or what was alleged to be censorship, but it did not act on the certain knowledge of censorship. What's more, it may be entirely unreasonable to talk about the motives of what is essentially a mob, but that's not a thread I care to pull. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "censorship" is too strong. Is "suppression" (my first choice) more fair? causa sui (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be more accurate, but I don't know how that changes anything. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy

Re this diff [20]. I'm not sure why it's important to mention it multiple times in the article per "BLP". We do mention it. Why do we have to repeat ourselves? causa sui (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Did he know?

On this, [21] you say in your edit summary that he "clearly" believed it would expire. What we know is that he said he was told that. As far as I am aware, Assange hasn't confirmed that. causa sui (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, he is claiming to have believed that the password would expire, this could have just been an assumption on his part.Totorotroll (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to be one person's word against another person's - I think it's important to represent both views, in this case where it's difficult to know what actually happened. Totorotroll (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We must avoid making guesses (or author opinions). Until there is more facts, simply describing what the different peoples claims are should be enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.140.240 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's clear Leigh made a mistake (i.e. he did not intend the consequences), but there's a difference between what he believed and what he was told.

1. Here it says he believed the site would exist for only a few hours, not that the passphrase was a temporary one:

He said that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had supplied him with a password needed to access the US embassy cables from a server in July 2010, but that Assange assured him the site would expire within a matter of hours.

“What we published much later in our book was obsolete and harmless,” Leigh said.

“We did not disclose the URL [web address] where the file was located, and in any event, Assange had told us it would no longer exist.

“I don’t see how a member of the public could access such a file anyway, unless a WikiLeaks or ex-WikiLeaks person tells them where it is located and what the file was called.”

2. Here Leigh said:

"He promised to delete the file on the site. The supposed unique new password wd die along with it [obviously]"

3. Here Leigh said:

"File wasn't to be re-named or pw re-used. It was promised it would be deleted."

4. Here, a Guardian spokesperson said:

A Guardian spokesperson said it was "nonsense to suggest the Guardian's WikiLeaks book has compromised security in any way".

"Our book about WikiLeaks was published last February. It contained a password, but no details of the location of the files, and we were told it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours.

"It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database.

"No concerns were expressed when the book was published and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security they have had seven months to remove the files. That they didn't do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian's book."

So it seems he was told the file would only be available to him for a few hours, and he therefore assumed the passphrase was a temporary one too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing we can say is what he actually says. We can not say "It's clear Leigh made a mistake", because that is the authors conclusions based on the evidence he has read. Wikipedia authors should not make articles based what we thinks is "the truth based on the evidence", we only write about the evidence as given by reliable sources and then let the reader make his own conclusions. The exception is when the conclusions is not contested (everyone agree about the statement) or when a reliable source makes the specific conclusion. The statement that Leigh made a mistake need a source. Additionally, we only have his own claims on what he did and why. Don't we need more before we can make a absolute statement claiming what happened?81.231.140.240 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That is contradicted by number 3, in which Leigh says that he understood that the password wasn't going to be re-used once the file he had access to was deleted.     ←   ZScarpia   02:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think you have a lot of sources demonstrating that Leigh said this, and there is no controversy about the fact that he is giving that narrative. But I don't think that's enough to report that what he said happened actually did happen, especially until we find out whether WikiLeaks is going to confirm or deny it. That's not cause for us to doubt Leigh's narrative either -- which prima facie appears to stick us with choosing a side. Luckily, NPOV rescues us from the ambiguity. We report Leigh's version of the narrative and attribute it to him. That way, all views are represented. causa sui (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did WikiLeaks volunteers put the encrypted file online

I have added twice now the information from the spiegel article that WikiLeaks volunteers put the encrypted file online Accidentally, and twice this part has been removed. Are there a reason we ignoring this sourced claim and presenting it in a way that directly contradict the source?81.231.140.240 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't describe the distribution of the encrypted file as an accident. What was accidental was that both the file and the password were released into the wild, a fact presumably unknown to everyone. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Cited from the article: subsection "Act Three: Well-Meaning Helpers Accidentally Put the Cables into Circulation".

Presumably thousands of WikiLeaks sympathizers -- and, one supposes, numerous secret service agents -- now had copies of all previous WikiLeaks publications on their hard drives.

And, what they didn't know, a password-protected copy of all the diplomatic dispatches from the US State Department.

How is this not a description on how the encrypted file ended up being distributable to the public? 81.231.140.240 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, was accidental? Distributing things blindly is not the same as distributing things accidentally. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't placed online by accident, according to the sources I've read, though clearly the people who did it didn't realize the passphrase was floating around and would be published. But when they first did it, there's no indication that it was an accident. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Which sources and are they explicit or implicit about it? More sources is always a good thing :). After rereading the spiegel article again I noticed that its only the title that explicit claim that the distribution was made accidentally. The body text can be read as if it supports the claim that it was accidentally, or that it was only the recipients of the mirror archive that did not know of the password-protected copy inside it.81.231.140.240 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting it into circulation was an accident, but placing it online wasn't, because they didn't think the latter would lead to the former. The sources are in the footnote after the sentence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain what the different is between putting it into circulation, and then putting it online. Do you mean that it was an accident to put the encrypted archive into the mirror archive, but then the action of putting the archive online using bittorrent was not, even if no one was aware of the file inside it? If one makes an archive of files to be distributed over bittorrent via TPB, I would say that the action of putting it into circulation and the action of putting it online is one and the same.

What Im really trying to find, in a effort to improve the article, is if there are any source making a claim that about the Wikileaks-supporters intention in making encrypted archive accessible to the public? The nytimes article dont make any claim what the intention was. The salon article do not either. The only article I can find that have a claim on this subject is the spiegel. Have I missed a source with a different claim?81.231.140.240 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel Domscheit-Berg explained it in his book, calling it "insurance". I've added him as a source. See this section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, it was made available so that it could never be suppressed or lost. I'm not sure how anyone would know for a fact why it happened as no one seems to know who these people are and they didn't announce their intentions at the time. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that the salon source starts its article with this: A series of unintentional though negligent acts by multiple parties -- WikiLeaks, The Guardian's investigative reporter David Leigh, and Open Leaks' Daniel Domscheit-Berg .... In the same way they claim that David Leigh act was unintentional with the key, the same claim is made about the wikileaks-supporters and the encrypted file. Would it satisfy everyone if the word "unintentional" would be added to the article?81.231.140.240 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's on Guardian Online that the Wikileaks volunteer put the file online intentionally, as a kind of insurance around the time of all the palaver surrounding Assange's court cases. Not to say that the volunteer published the file, just that he or she backed it up somewhere. Here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/leader-wikileaks-unredacted-release and the quote: "It now appears that last December another WikiLeaks employee was responsible for a further leak when he placed the unredacted cables on a peer-to-peer site with an old password – motivated, it seems, by the arrest of Assange on allegations concerning his private life. It is not clear that even Assange – distracted by his legal actions over the Swedish sex allegations – knew of this act. This, to be clear, was not the original file accessed by the Guardian last year, which was, as agreed with WikiLeaks, removed from a secure file server after we had obtained a copy and never compromised." Totorotroll (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since Wikileaks is suing The Guardian, is Guardian considered to be a reliable source in regards to Wikileaks intentions? At any rate, shouldn't the article then reflect the different claims made in the different sources?81.231.140.240 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a thorny one. As a newspaper, the Guardian bound by certain professional ethics, and seems to be putting across its version of events. Yes, the article should give a well rounded, non-biased view. Totorotroll (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian has become a primary source for this story now, particularly as some of their material is being written by a former WikiLeaks volunteer. So we should replace material from them with material from a secondary source, unless we're using them for statements like "The Guardian said ..." In particular, I'd like to find another source for the joint statement of the five media partners. Did any of the other media partners publish this statement? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Weight to Glenn Greenwald

I'll disclose that I'm an avid reader and have been for years. But even being a fan, I have a bad taste in my mouth about how much we are relying on him. SlimVirgin made a very perceptive judgment that we should regard The Guardian as a primary source and a party to this story now, and be careful citing them as we would any other reliable source. But I think we ought to evaluate whether we should make the same judgment of Greenwald, whose relationship with WikiLeaks appears to be growing closer with each passing month. causa sui (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that part of this story is now actually about The Guardian. Greenwald is really a very good source on these issues. I've been watching his articles on Manning, and they have been superb in terms of detail and insights. He's also quite even-handed in ascribing blame for the recent situation to all parties. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

insurance file

Wikileaks has made a statement said that the the 1.4 gigabyte encrypted file was not the one that got decrypted. Some discussion of this can be read on Bruce Schneier blog in where people tried to decrypt the file with the mentioned password and was unsuccessful in decrypting the file. Neither of those are what I would call reliable sources, so I'm not sure what actions on the article if any is suitable.Belorn (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, Belorn, thanks for finding it. So WL is saying the July 2010 insurance file does not share that encryption key? I don't think we can use it because it's just a tweet, but hopefully a secondary source will put it together soon. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The only secondary source I can find is The Spiegel article mentioned on Schneier's blog. As for now, I think we should use the twitter post as primary source until a better source is found. Belorn (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assage gives some more of his side of the story in this interview with the New Scientist. Totorotroll (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a very useful interview, explaining the whole thing clearly. Thanks for posting it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkish daily Taraf

• Turkish daily to publish WikiLeaks cables on Turkey, Today's Zaman
• Turkish newspaper Taraf signs contract with WikiLeaks, Hürriyet Daily News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.53.137 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Raping boys

I removed this:

Further, they reveal that U.S. diplomats told an Afghan government official to keep quiet after they learned that a major U.S. government contractor firm was pimping underaged boys to be auctioned off to be raped by Afghan policemen in parties organized by the contractor.

The "Houston Press" is an alternative press, and not a reliable source. The other source is Change.org, which is an advocacy cybercommunity, apparently, and far from a reliable source.

The Guardian transcript is cited, largely as OR, imho

What the transcript says is quite different: By my reading, the Afghani official asked the U.S. diplomat for help in quashing the story, and this official was suggested to chill out to avoid giving the scandal higher profile. The Afghani official then described how they were prosecuting the guilty, etc.

This story is so horrifying that it shall dominate headlines throughout the world. There should be no shortage of reliable sources.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a similar article at dancing boys about the practice.Smallman12q (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is another discussion about these sources at Talk:Afghan War documents leak. User:Serene-something found a December Guardian article, which looks like a good source. (I'm sorry but I'm too tired to help more today.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an act of censorship. You removed data when you should have read the cables and verified the reports were accurate. Please restore what you have destroyed.

No, it wasn't. (I did read the cable.)

Please reconsider your statement in the light of WP's OR and RS policies, and also with respect to encyclopedia tone. I would suggest that you consider using the December Guardian article, which is a reliable source, for the analysis.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The guardian article looks fine as a RS. The text should reflect that "Two Afghan policemen and nine other Afghans were arrested". Belorn (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree (although I find the content sickening). The previous version (citing a blog in Houston) seemed grossly sensationalistic and false. I haven't looked at this lately, and I have little motivation to contribute to a broken project (outside my interests). Do what you want.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Statistic on Missing Cables?

This 251,287 cables are only a fraction of what the State Department net created up to Secret level since 1966. The cables have number and time tags. Has someone analyzed how much is missing where and when? Is it known how this fraction was selected? (Some common word, a running index number, or do we only see the stuff ever send to Baghdad by various requests?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.105.2 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tunisian revolution and Arab Spring

This section tries to subtly establish a direct causal effect between the cable leaks and the Arab spring. Although some Agnlo-Saxon authors do like to trump up the value of the leaks it was but one factor out of many that exascerbated a condition in the muslim world that was already pushed to the brink of stability by multiple factors well covered in the Arab Spring article which this section refers to. It is safe to say that the Arab Spring could have well occured without the existence of the leaks, so it seems exagerated that this section portrays the leaks as a necessary actor. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence of the section: "It is widely believed..." Weasel word. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101207094056/http://wikileaks.dd19.de:80/static/html/faq.html to http://wikileaks.dd19.de/static/html/faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104080815/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wikileaks;_ylt=AufzaAythuCl0aimsCU.8Hms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5dWlhMnAwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjA4L3dpa2lsZWFrcwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzgEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2hhY2tlcnNzdHJpaw-- to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wikileaks;_ylt=AufzaAythuCl0aimsCU.8Hms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5dWlhMnAwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjA4L3dpa2lsZWFrcwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzgEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2hhY2tlcnNzdHJpaw--

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429142813/http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/ to http://thislandpress.com/09/23/2010/private-manning-and-the-making-of-wikileaks-2/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/wikileaks_28/singleton/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101204094146/http://lieberman.senate.gov:80/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/amazon-severs-ties-with-wikileaks to http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/amazon-severs-ties-with-wikileaks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Quotebox translation

The translation in the green quotebox is inaccurate. Any particular reason for that? ATBWikirictor (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• "Denn der Freitag hat eine Datei, die auch unredigierte US-Botschaftsdepeschen enthält. [...] Die Datei mit dem Namen "cables.csv" ist 1,73 Gigabyte groß. [...] Das Passwort zu dieser Datei liegt offen zutage und ist für Kenner der Materie zu identifizieren."

• "The Freitag newspaper is in possession of a file which contains unedited US diplomatic cables. The file named "cables.csv" has a size of 1.73 GB. The file's password is plain to see and easily identifiable by the insider."

Wikirictor (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wikileaks.dd19.de/cablegate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225013607/http://cablesearch.org/ to http://cablesearch.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128210244/http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2010/11/spiegelgoodbig.jpg to http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2010/11/spiegelgoodbig.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/08/wikileaks-suing-guardian-over-security-breach/41979/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110183731/http://dazzlepod.com/cable/ to http://dazzlepod.com/cable

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)