Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meco (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 8 December 2010 (→Operation Payback: Absolutely). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Government of the United States Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the United States diplomatic cables leak. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the United States diplomatic cables leak at the Reference desk. (additional comments)

A news item involving United States diplomatic cables leak was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 November 2010.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Lihaas, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC).Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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

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)

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 | 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." --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)

Merge

Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak to--> United States diplomatic cables leak.

• Oppose - Doing this will make this article too long and cluttered. See: WP:Splitting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The reaction is large enough to warrant its own article. In fact, the reactions article will likely need to be forked itself in order to adequately cover all the various reactions.Smallman12q (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. We only need the most notable reactions, and we certainly don't need a separate article. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.160.75 (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both articles are big, and their content is related but different. It's a valid fork. MBelgrano (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Discussion was closed by me on 05:44, 6 December as per WP:SNOW. I have reopened as per User:Viriditas - Amog | 11:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Cable contents - please add years

Considering the cables span almost 50 years, it seems that the article could be greatly improved if all editors made a conscious effort to add years to the cable content description, that is if the year isn't clear from the context.

e.g. This information is of little value, without knowing when it happened:

"A Chinese official revealed that both public opinion in China and the government are "increasingly critical" of North Korea, stating that "China's influence with the North was frequently overestimated"."

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, this article should not be focused on citing cables. As an encyclopedia article, it needs to focus on the issues in the secondary sources, and it needs to be written using prose about the relevant topics. Simply dumping a list of cables here isn't going to work. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Viridtas, none of that is relevant. The only point that I was trying to make, is that wherever we discuss the content of the cables, it seems absolutely critical to provide some indication of the timeframe. In the example above, the information has completely different meaning if China was increasingly critical of N. Korea in 1969 or 2010. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the news articles don't necessarily put dates of the cable(s) they're reporting on (some might though). Which means we would need to look in the actual Wikilinks archive to find the correct cable. Silverseren 19:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear terminology / jargon

I mentioned this early on in the discussion, but the comment appears to have been deleted without resolving the issue.

I asked:

"What is meant by 'biometric information' in the context of the allegation that the US had ordered diplomats to "gather biometric information on the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon"? The WP entry on biometrics describe physiological measures (DNA, fingerprints, hand geometry, etc.) and behavioural measures (typing rhythm, voice, etc.). Is this what is meant? If so, it should be linked to the biometrics article. If something else is meant, it should be explained."

Since then, the term 'biometric information' has not been defined *or* linked, and is now used three times instead of just once. It's jargony in a way that's counter to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Technical_language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.102 (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be linked and explained, but not removed. If it was 1990, then yes, we probably shouldn't use it. But, it is 2010, going on 2011, and the term is widely used throughout society and has become somewhat mundane. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Defining Moment

In article integrity. So far our articles are about the only neutral reports (with a large audience) on this organization and its people. The "you're either with us or against us" threat, from both points of view, has expanded its global duress to media reporting in a frighteningly rapid way. I hope this and related articles can withstand the pov pressure which is likely going to get much worse, from both directions. So far, so great. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone will do their best, i'm sure. If news articles start getting too POV-ish, then we'll just revert to using wording styles like "The New York Times said", which we already use in some places anyways. The POV in news articles are probably going to just get worse after the Amazon shutdown though, just saying. It's a crazy world out there. Silverseren 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Contents section

It is unreadable at this point. It is just too long, and a lot of the issues are not that notable. Considering the size, I will reiterate the previous proposal, to split the contents into a separate article and leave only the more notable topics here. Please. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. First thing we should do is keep it simple. One way to start thinking about this process is by looking at the intersection between El País, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and The New York Times. What does their coverage all have in common, and what are the differences between them? What are the "big" topics, and what are the "small" ones? From there, we can begin to get a sense of how to proceed. A chart or table would help us here. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article is in a readily-accessible list form where notable information for each category of information (helpfully grouped by country and notable individuals) is readily accessed by the interested reader. If anything, this is one of the most "readable" large articles I have seen in Wikipaedia. I suggest we exercise caution against attempts to censor the WikiLeaks information via the back door. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What I've recommended isn't nonsense: it is how we write encyclopedia articles. If you can't tell the difference between censorship and writing Misplaced Pages articles, then you've got a lot of reading to do on how this place works. It is understandable that this topic would attract people who aren't here to write articles, which is why our policies and guidelines on the subject are more important now than ever before. The fact remains, the list dumping can't continue, and we need to start focusing on the real encyclopedic topic. That means doing research, looking at and comparing secondary sources, and focusing on writing, not list dumping. If any of this isn't making sense, feel free to ask questions. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

About Putin

This quote "Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, wields less power than his "alpha dog" image 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 citation is just for the "alpha dog" label.--JeremyMiller (talk) 07:31, 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 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 | 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 | 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 10:50, 7 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)

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)

Duplicate <ref name="guard">-2010-12-06T17:04:00.000Z">

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 | 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)

List of vital sites

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."

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That counter-argument would apply to most any list at Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages has been met, simply because of the principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. Wikileaks' chosen threshhold for disclosure is not automatically Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages 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 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. 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 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 | 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 | 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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."

1. ^ Kendall, Bridget (December 6, 2010). "Wikileaks: site list reveals US sensitivities". BBC News. Archived from the original on December 8, 2010. Retrieved December 8, 2010.
2. ^ Lister, Tim (December 7, 2010). "WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security". CNN. Archived from the original on December 8, 2010. Retrieved December 8, 2010.
3. ^ Haynes, Deborah; Mostrous, Alexi; Whittell, Giles (December 7, 2010). "Wikileaks lists 'targets for terror' against US". Times Online. The Australian. Archived from the original on December 8, 2010. Retrieved December 8, 2010.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

__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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 | 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’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)

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))

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 | 10:22, 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)

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)

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)". 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 "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. __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 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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors