This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Government of the United States Journalism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Has anyone seen any source discuss the possibility this alleged DDOS is really just a lot of real people hammering wikileaks because of reading about this upcoming leak? Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I was on /b/ a little while before, and there was a lot of speculation there about it being from a single source. It didn't seem like it was them - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a single source? Then, it is not a _Distributed_ Denial of Service. emijrp (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume they meant someone running a botnet or something. (Not that I have any idea how they know that.) You're right a single source is not a DDOS, and a non-distributed DOS generally doesn't work anyway since it's trivial to block or take down one IP. I would still like more details on why Wikileaks believes this to be a DDOS but I guess that will just have to wait (stupid sources which say it's a 'hack' don't help). Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even know how significant the DDOS was. When I saw it on Twitter, I tried accessing wikileaks.org (somewhat contributing to the problem, I suppose) and didn't get an answer. Here's the thing: Wikileaks says, via Twitter, that they're being hit by a DDOS. Fine. The news then reports this. Fine. I try accessing wikileaks.org again. Fine. No, seriously, I got in without a problem, maybe 10 minutes after I'd last checked. Whatever it was, it didn't last long. I think the coverage over the DDOS has been hugely overblock since the media just doesn't understand how a DDoS could affect something like Wikileaks (and it's the media calling it a "hack"). What part of wikileaks was subject to a DDOS? What does a DDoS even mean to an organization like WikiLeaks?

My point is that this is maybe not such a huge issue deserving of so much speculation or coverage (edit: well, coverage, yeah). Maybe. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I largely agree with you (somewhat why I started this discussion), particularly since wikileaks seem to have somewhat of a flare for the dramatic, it's difficult at the moment since most sources are just parotting what wikileaks said. Funnily enough the wikileaks main site while mostly working fine doesn't seem to have been updated so anyone visiting it will be mystified where these cables are. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By 'single source' I meant it is not a bunch of real users all around the globe, but rather, an attack coming from thousands of computers in (just an example) China. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section starts with "About an hour prior to the planned release of the documents on 28 November, Wikileaks announced it was undergoing a massive distributed denial-of-service attack." That may be so, but it is somewhat misleading. I believe the attack started well before they made the announcement. Could someone check this for accuracy, and rewrite if needed? Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That line only states the when the announcement was made. It isn't really stating when the attack started. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find sources telling you when that started - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my point. It is unintentionally misleading. IIRC, the attack had been going on for at least the previous 24 hours. The sentence makes it seem like the attack started an hour before the release. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links regarding criticism of the British action in Afghanistan and the actions of its royal family reveal very little information. Does anyone have any better links as to what was actually said? -- jfry3 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't see any, I suspect we'll have to wait until those cables are released Nil Einne (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw one thing about the royal family, I'll try to dig it up again. C628 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no luck. C628 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see something about Prince Andrew but it did not say what he did. Was it that? -- jfry3 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Guardian, it is only "inappropriate comments about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country." [1] Quite mild for Andy, given his track record! Physchim62 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was stuff I added when I created the stub. That was in the initial Guardian article. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation on the part about a Royal family member mentions Prince Andrew, and says he said something. Therefore, why not be more specific in the article? saying a royal family member behaved inappropriately has different connotations. I think I will change it. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Be bold! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revelations aren't being made in one day, similar to the way the MP expenses scandal was published over a period of time so the cables will be printed in the newspapers over at least a week, probably more. We'll just have to update as more info comes in, the guardian has had the documents since august and aren't going to blow them in one splash Zaq12wsx (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] perhaps although I haven't seen the details discussed in an secondary source yet (haven't looked) Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to define Diplomatic Cables more clearly. Does an article about diplomatic cables exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? Is it a term for general diplomatic correspondence? Does it specify classified messages exchanged within the American diplomatic corps and intelligence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.29.144 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term "diplomatic cable" is not properly explained on Wikipedia and currently it refers to an obsolete term of actual cables underwater. This event is about emails and other types of correspondence media, not related to submarine cables. John Hyams (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I also agree that diplomatic cable does not direct to particularly helpful information, but this should be corrected with more relevant information. I'm having trouble finding reliable sources to clarify this, though. If someone can add a better explanation or generate a new article on the subject, it would be appreciated. —sroc (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Diplomatic cables" essentially just means "diplomatic documents". I think this is pretty clear from context, but you can change "cables" to "documents" if you like. Remove wikilinks to the underground cables article. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

specifically it means correspondence. that is it is messages from embassies and consulates to D.C. Although it could include memos at State Dept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the current redirect target for Diplomatic cable not useful I have nominated the redirect page at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 29#Diplomatic cable. __meco (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Reactions' subsection includes only reactions from national governments, and not any from other individuals, organizations, international groups, etc. Three of the five government reactions currently listed come from the United States and its two closest allies (Canada, UK). I believe a larger variety of reactions would help balance the point of view in this section. Tyro (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I agree that it is needed. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing such sources would go a long way in helping. Grsz 11 04:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good chronicle of commentary: http://www.thenation.com/blog/156701/blogging-wikileaks-release-return-here-all-day-updates Gregcaletta (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mostly links to commentary by bloggers and news agencies though. Have any other national governments or international organizations put out statements yet? ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 05:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There are only a couple of good things on there, one from a New York Times editor. I have integrated them. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the US and its two closest allies(ok it is), it is the English speaking nations. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Excluding, of course, all the other English-speaking nations... (Notably, Australia, being the other nation where it is the de facto language.) --V2Blast (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section: "...the New York Times said "we did not get the documents directly from WikiLeaks..." This seems to be splitting hairs. The Times seems to be claiming, for some reason or another, that the cables were given to them by an intermediary who obtained them from WikiLeaks.[3] However, this does not seem to be important enough for the lead section. Compare with this statement by Robert Mackey: "On Sunday, The Lede is following the reaction online as The New York Times publishes the first in a series of articles based on secret American diplomatic cables obtained and released by WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing Web site."[4] Correct me if I'm wrong, but the information still came from WikiLeaks, regardless of who personally handed it over to The Times. I'm going to remove this from the lead. The fact that The Times was given a memory stick from someone else who got the data from WikiLeaks isn't important enough for the lead. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. NYT apparently received the documents from The Guardian: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101129/ts_yblog_thecutline/guardian-editor-says-they-gave-cables-to-the-ny-times Gregcaletta (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to preserve the info in a footnote. Someone could probably talk about it further in the body, but it doesn't belong in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://wlcentral.org/ has reactions from both government and media. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a notable backstory in the handover of the cable archive to the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29askthetimes.html?pagewanted=2. "WikiLeaks is not a “media partner” of The Times. We signed no agreement of any kind, with WikiLeaks or anyone else. In fact, in this case — our third round of articles based on documents obtained by WikiLeaks — we did not receive the documents from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of the group, decided to withhold the material from us, apparently because he was offended by our reporting on his legal and organizational problems. The London newspaper, The Guardian, gave us a copy of the archive, because they considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures. (The Guardian initially asked us not to reveal that they were our source, but the paper’s editor said on Sunday night that he was no longer concerned about anonymity.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.233.218 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary detail for WP:LEAD, and the consensus is to stop adding it there. Please focus on using the lead to summarize the article, not discuss how the NYT received their copy of the documents on a thumb drive. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I restored without seeing this; I just saw text within a ref and figured it was a mistake and intended to be in the article. Apologies. C628 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible (considering more of these cables will be pouring out of the floodgates in the days to come) that we can organize the cables not only by their national significance, but also by their release day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.8.249 (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep sure go ahead. Although me might wait till they have been coming out for a few days. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the chronology relevant? 5 years from now, how much will it matter if one document was released 3 days before another one? I think that we should only start adding a timeline of events, if there are other significant events directly related to the release of the documents. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the fact that this is going to hard as hell, given the sheer number of cables yet to be seen - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody aware of future releases of the cables on wikileaks? and do we need a section on that? Lexusdominus 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article rated only Mid importance? Surely it deserves atleast a High importance classification ! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self Note After reading this perhaps it isn't that important. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{collapse top|User request for adding maintenance tags is completely unintelligible and appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works. User is pointed to the NPOV and RS noticeboards for further information. }

When verbatim excerpt of wp:principles is caled "unintelligible" whos "misunderstanding" ?

WP:POV :: ..."the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue"

"Hard facts are really rare."

Not in this case where in reality exist abundance of facts clearly available up to the last punctuation mark.

"what we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

• Who advocates the point of view
• What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)"

At the time when article was marked {POV} was complete lack of supporting evidence. No single supporting evidence from primary source.

Abundance of facts negating thesis: "Hard facts are really rare" and complete lack in article of supporting evidence oppose wp principal guideline.

Wikipedia:Verifiability :: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document

Again no single document was cited. Violating another principal guideline. Exact references to document(s) are also not present in all checked newspaper articles. (if is otherwise show examples) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags twice now, and your justification for adding them makes no sense. Feel free to review our policies and guidelines or to point to specific examples of a problem, otherwise, you'll need to convince others of your point, which I cannot begin to figure out. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{collapse bottom}

When verbatim excerpt of wp:principles is called "unintelligible" who's "misunderstanding" ? Apparently Viriditas claim problems with ineligibility. This sensible inability do not support removing tags before resolving issues. Viriditas if you really need to hide your reasoning feel free to collapse it but do not touch others authors words. If it was editing mistake 'sorry' is appreciated. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your concerns to the POV and RS noticeboards as I requested on your user page. The concerns you raise above do not make sense. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain precisely what you mean by "above do not make sense". Why for you citing documents (what is also called the primary sources) do not make sense (if it is this what do not make you sense) ? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We only write what reliable sources have reported. Please take your concerns to the NPOV and RS noticeboards as I requested. The summaries you are disputing are mostly accurate. I've found at least one that was not and removed it. I also discussed the removal with the editor who added it. If you can deal with specifics rather than generalities, you may be more successful in communicating the problem that you see. However, I think the noticeboards are a better venue, as you will receive good feedback and directions. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look you using your mind to wrote your words. But is it true? Why you avoid copy paste to show what you claim is true. The above citation (citation are marked in specific way if somebody don't know it) are a prove of wp:principles. Your words are apart from this standard. Some shorthand notation lets say perhaps trivialize important ideas. If you like i can mark over your text what is superficial trivialization of deep encyclopedic ideas. If not, go find cite and then, having textual support (source), argue. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense. Could you explain, using a specific example, why you added maintenance tags to this article? I've asked you to use the RS and NPOV noticeboards so that you could obtain further input on your concerns. This isn't really the place to discuss how to use maintenance tags. Please take your concerns to the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When verbatim excerpt of wp:principles is called "unintelligible" who's "misunderstanding" ? Apparently Viriditas claim problems with ineligibility. This sensible inability do not support removing tags before resolving issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't supported the use of maintenance tags, you haven't answered my questions, nor have you taken this to the noticeboards as I asked. Therefore, you are now back on ANI...again. The last time you were there, the community decided that your edits were unintelligible, and you were blocked for a month. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your question were included in first post in this section. The impression may be that you want to prove/show that wikipedia in this article works apart to above excerpted principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently overwhelming force can be used as substitute to logical argument. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your argument? I am confused. We have a bunch of primary sources (the cables) being reported by secondary sources (the media). We add that information and cite it. Nothing here is terribly controversial, so far as WP is concerned. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bunch of primary sources Not really not in wikipedia. It were rather needles in a haystack . There were no way to verify any of =content= sentence by documents - primary sources. If there was no way to verify then wp:v was violated. There was no single link to primary source when i started this section. Is there any improvement by now ? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your point. However, this isn't an issue of WP:V, which says what we say must be verified, that is, cited. We're not responsible for their verification, so long as they're reliable sources (we generally take it on faith that what they say is trustworthy). We should probably link to the primary sources (available via cablegate.wikileaks.org). And yeah, the media has done a terrible job of sourcing their coverage. Perhaps we'll one-up them. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC) This is despite the fact that WP tends not to link to primary sources.[reply]

(Although if we go about this, we'll probably want a standard way of linking to the cables without bloating the reflist). Xavexgoem (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this bit - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be rewritten for clarity and needs serious work. Could someone please help? Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section needs help. To start with, let's clarify what it's about. Is it "wikileaks acquisiton of the documents"? If so, it would be greatly clarified by saying that. -- Bob drobbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. In basque wikipedia we're working on a good coverage of this topic. We have found some good links with reactions on this, mainly in Spanish and I want to share them here: http://eskup.elpais.com/*papelesembajadas2010 this is a good one. Here you can find a good synth of some reactions: http://www.gara.net/azkenak/11/235066/es/Paris-alinea-Washington-Berlin-quita-hierro-filtracion. -Theklan (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Reactions_and_commentary should be forked to give more room to put reactions and quotes.Smallman12q (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very lengthy in referrals. --Leladax (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this stuff about biometric information? They asked biometric information even of candidates for Paraguay's last presidential election. What do they want that information for? In order to breach biometric security systems? For postmortem forensic identity confirmation? Or are they just way too committed to "gather EVERYTHING about them"? Does anybody have an explanation (with references, of course) for this? Aldo L (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Guardian they wanted fingerprints, iris scans, and DNA. No idea what for. Kaldari (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that these are not ordered in a POV way, surely they should be alpha ordered? So, as the contents stand at present, rather than starting with "Issues related to Israel and Iran", we should have:
3.1 Issues related to Afghanistan
3.2 Issues related to China
3.3 Issues related to Germany
3.4 Issues related to Honduras
3.5 Issues related to Israel and Iran
3.6 Issues related to Pakistan
3.7 Issues related to Turkey
3.8 Issues related to the United States
3.9 Issues related to world leaders
Perhaps there is a precedent/ruling re. this? At the moment it seems somewhat arbitrary and unencyclopaedic... Ericoides (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this list would expand, as this Wikileak touches virtually all countries in the world. For instance, Paraguay's Foreign Minister just have a meeting with the U. S. Ambassador, and the local press is running after local Senators and Representatives for official reactions. Go for alphabetic. Aldo L (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree A alpha ordered list seems like a very solid idea. And to address Ericoides problem, I propose that new country sections should only be created when a country has 3 noteworthy items related to it. For anything less than 3, their items could be grouped into continental "other" sections. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's done, although there is now quite a bit of tidying to do. Ericoides (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had the line "German chancelor Angela Merkel is called Angela 'Teflon' Merkel and it is said that she avoids risk and is uncreative." removed from the Germany section, and added to world leaders, but the line about the Afghan President was moved to the Afghanistan section. Seems a tiny bit inconsistent - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Moved her to Germany. Ericoides (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make more sense to have 'em both in the World Leaders section? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are good arguments for both listings. My preference is to read about matters pertaining to a country's leader under the section dealing with the country. A great many of the leaks relate to the leaders so the leaders section, which is a bit ad hoc, would become somewhat bloated if it contained all of them. It might even be renamed at some stage or disappear altogether; we have no way of knowing what other leaks are on the cards. The country listings, however, are very good at separating out all of the material into tidily logical chunks and will almost certainly stay. Of course, there are other ways of indexing the leaks; nuclear security would be an obvious heading, as would finance, drugs, human rights etc etc. But the country method is the most compelling. Ericoides (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not giving a country a section unless it has 3 items, perhaps the world leader section should only have items that don't have a section for that country. Perhaps the 3 item limit is not a good idea. I guess the point to the world leaders section is to show a particular point (diplomats bad mouthing important people), but that is going to be hard to maintain with people wanting the diplomatic view of a particular country to be shown completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 country rule was merely one editor's suggestion, not a Mosaic tablet; with time more leaks will appear and they will fill up. I'd suggest having a section for every country named. Ericoides (talk)

Moreover, the problem with indexing the material is that much of it involves the US and another country, so it could equally be put under the US section or under the other country. Take: "Secret U.S. military missions flown from a UK base, which Britain alleged could involve torture." At present this is in the US section, but given that the leaks are from the US most of them will involve the US in one way or another, so the US section is in a way redundant. I'm moving this to a new UK section; this section could also contain "Criticism of the UK's military operations in Afghanistan", which at present is under Afghanistan. Suggestions please? Ericoides (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we could identify the geographical source of each report (i.e. seat of embassy, consulate, offshore military base, CIA office, etc.) may be we could use it as a parameter for sorting. It would depend on consistency, of course. Or we can center on the political implications and sort everything according to who might feel offended. Aldo L (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particularly good and pressing need to group these countries together?

There are unquestionably issues that overlap, but that's also true of a number of Arab states.

I suggest that they be broken up.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. No need whatsoever. I've split them up, although there's a bit of crossover. It'll settle down in a while. Ericoides (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that i updated the "initial release" subsection. i don't know if a smaller number of cables were already online earlier on 28 Nov. In any case, i've reworked the subsection to put less focus on the idea of a release-by-stages, since it's clear that the policy is for a more gradual (or chaotic or planned-according-to-some-strategy) release. i don't see much point making this into a big issue. The "initial" (for what we have a first-party claim of 219, backed by the Manila 220 secondary source) release seems moderately notable to me, the total number released so far also seems notable. So i suggest that the last sentence of N cables released as of DD MM [YYYY] be updated whenever someone feels inclined to do so. i used 243 since webcitation had a crosslink between two different snapshots of the page.

i haven't tried to follow the section of example cables, but the sentence in the next section:

"Information in the first tranche of cables released on 28 November 2010 included the following:"

will need to be reworked. i presume that by now there is some stuff from cables released 29 November (depending on your time zone). There's no point continually updating this, and nobody's really interested (well most are probably not interested) in the exact time of release of a given cable, so i suggest something like

"Information in the first several hundred cables released included the following".

That should remain valid for some time. [OR (not for article! unless someone else publishes the following incredibly difficult calculation): 50-100 cables/day would mean that the cables would dribble out for... 7-14 years!] Any objections? (To the proposed sentence, not to the OR speculation.) Boud (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see many people/agencies or whatever wanting to twist the artcile to show a cretain POV, shouldn't it be locked to only admins or something? 69.132.79.61 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said of every article. There are enough people ensuring it stays NPOV. I think only if it becomes evident it can't be kept NPOV, would it get such protection. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be paranoid. The "agencies" care of the leak. Wikipedia is only a summary of information, it doesn't leak. --Leladax (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no way should this be locked. there's far too much data coming in. worry about neutrality when input slows down - lexusdominus 11:40 utc, 29th Nov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.240.2 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment this is just WP:OR, but i've noticed that WikiLeaks is in four separate news.google.com topics at the same time as of just a few moments ago 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC) http://www.webcitation.org/5uc51qb6w - the four topics are:

• US unhappy with WikiLeaks
• PRC/North Korea/South Korea + WikiLeaks
• Arab world + Iran + WikiLeaks
• What is WikiLeaks, and who is Assange?

This is clearly related to the cables release. If a media commentator decides that the dominance of (at least) Google-ranked English-language online media by WikiLeaks-related topics is notable, then at some time that could become worth adding to the article. My impression is that it's rare that any single issue gets google-news-considered to be broad enough to be split into four separate news threads. Probably the invasion of Iraq (was google news around then) might have been the only news event that big? Or election of Obama? Anyway, no RS for the moment. Boud (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as the five major newspapers covering the subject show, WikiLeaks isn't the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On another article, the FAQ says:

Q: Why aren't there links to various emails? A: The emails themselves are both primary sources and copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids using primary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and avoids linking to copyright violations. If a specific email has been discussed in a reliable, secondary source, use that source, not the email.

Should something similar apply here? Rumping (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what? In any case, it's not true that "Wikipedia avoids using primary sources". Read WP:PRIMARY and it actually just says you have to present primary sources directly (as in by using direct quotations) rather than summarising, analysing or interpreting. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your summarisation of WP:Primary however I don't know if it matters because we're primarily relying on secondary sources and I doubt this is likely to change given their abundance. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the copyvio issue doesn't apply since works by employees of the the US Federal government on behalf of the government are not copyrighted. Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed specifics relating to the number of files labeled controversial/secret due to it lacking a referecne. Nor could I find a secondary source backing it up. That action has been challenged at my talk page, and I was told to make note of it here. I've given reasoning for my actions there (basically WP:V) and invite comment. C628 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced all over the place, most notably in the NYT.[5] Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has released this to the public domain. I don't think it was ever his to do that in the first place.Also, I can see a copyrighted picture in that clipping. Seems suspicious. What are everyone's thoughts? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I requested for deletion and uploaded it here File:New York Times WikiLeaks.png as fair use. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! However, do we really need that image? Does it help the article in any way? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that someone could add a section for events that span separate countries, par example: Abdullah II, Prince Charles (this is wrong it's actually the Duke of York) and various company hunting in Morocco etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.8.249 (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to start thnking about future cable releases and their content. With only 220 of the 250,000+ cables released we already have an enormous amount under the content section. With further releases of cables coming in the future, this content section is going to become very large. What is everyone's thoughts on making the content of the cables its own seperate page?

Actually, we need to focus more on the quality of the article; this means writing good prose, condensing overly long paragraphs, and removing trivial and unimportant digressions, such as the recent Joe Lieberman data dump that was added (which I have now removed). The best way to approach this is to start reviewing the coverage from the five major newspapers, and to take note of what they consider to be unique. Yes, there's going to be a majority of male editors who want to write about nothing but Gaddafi's "voluptuous" Ukrainian nurse, but these are the very things we need to leave out (unfortunately). Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is possible that they could have made a mistake, there was a detailed news report on SBS World News that in addition to much of what is already said, there is one top secret document among the latest leak. Anyone able to confirm this? I will see if I can find a video/transcript of the news story that said this. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NYT, there are no "top secret" documents in the leak.[6] Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, managed to find the video link. [7] The mention of one top secret file is near the 2.30 - 3 minute mark. Although they do not mention details about the file or maybe they assumed secret = top secret? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no idea that SBS was so unbalanced and one-sided. If you compare it with the BBC, for example, it's like night and day. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just a mistake. There are about 15,000 marked "secret" and none marked "top secret". http://cablegate.wikileaks.org Gregcaletta (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough Gregcaletta. Viriditas, when you said one sided and unbalanced do you mean that they seem to be showing wikileaks in a negative way (I thought I clarify)? If you mean in a negative way, there was another article stating that the Australian media has been giving extremely poor coverage on Wikileaks (as this article mentioned: [8]).Calaka (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SBS did a very poor job of covering the story, and focused mostly on WikiLeaks and Asange and how they were going to "get" him, not the documents. Compare their coverage with the BBC over the last several days, which covered all aspects of the story with a fair and balanced approach, exploring every element of the story within the space of several minutes. I had no idea that the Australian media was at bad as the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Oh yes, the very sad thing is that SBS is usually considered the more respected/detailed news source in Australia when compared to the other news programs which are considerably worse (which is saying something!). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused! Please explain how it is that the the Australian media has this authoritarian streak, when the Australians are known for being anti-authoritarian! Help! Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion, however interesting, seems to have moved off article improvement related issues, and should probably be continued elsewhere. Perhaps the ref desk? --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this addition to the lead is inappropriate for several reasons. One reason is that I do not believe the paraphrasing is accurate, but the main reason is that I think it gives undue weight to that particular comment to put it in the lead. The US reaction is included in the body of the article and the lead already says that governments have almost universally condemned the leaks. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paraphrasing is entirely appropriate per WP:NPOV and accurate. It does not give undue weight at all, and its glaring absence in the lead is a violation of NPOV among other policies. There is a huge difference between the international reaction to the leaks and the reaction of the government who had their data stolen. Please reconsider your position. This information is entirely relevant, appropriate, and accurate. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true if the United States were alone in its condemnation of the leaks, but all governments have issued similar statements. The lead already says that governments have universally condemned the leaks so I don't see what that particular statement adds that is worth the space. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously said, the international reaction and the reaction by the U.S. government are independent of each other. It is entirely appropriate to represent the reaction (a combination of Gibbs and Clinton) in the lead, and it is expected in an article such as this. When we apply NPOV, we must learn to write for the opponent, representing significant views in the lead section in a fair and balanced manner. If you feel that the lead is still unbalanced, please explain how we can fix it, and I'll help. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregcaletta, this edit was not an improvement. The quotes were already in the footnotes, and the paraphrase was appropriate for the lead. I really hate to assume bad faith here, but the only reason I can see that you made that edit was to make the case for removal not inclusion. That's really not how we should be writing. Best practice for lead sections is to paraphrase widely quoted sources such as Gibbs and Clinton. I think it is obvious that you removed the paraphrase and added the quotes so that it would no longer be acceptable to include the material. If this continues, I'm going to raise serious NPOV concerns with your continued edits to this article on the noticeboards. Trying to improve this article is one thing, but making purposefully bad edits to get the version you want is disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the paraphrasing was inaccurate and didn't see the problem with using a direct quote instead as a compromise. Why do you think quoting directly instead of paraphrasing makes the comments more inappropriate for the lead? Gregcaletta (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never explained what was inaccurate about them. When we are dealing with unambiguous, uncontroversial statements by notable figures that are widely publicized, we can choose to quote them directly or paraphrase their main ideas. The quotes by Gibbs and Clinton were both notable and important, and easily paraphrased without losing or changing the meaning. More importantly, paraphrasing and condensing the two quotes together, nicely encapsulates the government POV and saves space. Unless a quote is notable enough, we should avoid them in the lead. That's a matter of journalistic versus encyclopedic style, with the latter favoring paraphrases over quotes. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had many problems with the paraphrasing. One such example is that you said he was defending "enlightenment philosophy", and there was no such thing in the source. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some mentions of the cables on serbia :

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=11&dd=29&nav_id=71203 http://www.belgraded.com/blog/politics/wikileaks-serbia-croatia-bosnia-kosovo-cablegate-embassy

In serbian: http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Politika/220542/Ponos-Odnosi-Francuske-i-Srbije-demantuju-navode-Vikiliksa

mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the english oneLihaas (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article is absoltuely horrid (and that too on ITN). It states opnion as if the us state dept's diplomats are speaking gospel truth, as in gaddafi's "numerous features of him were elucidated"

Then there are redundancies and overlinks and all sorts of problems that need a clean up.Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So go right ahead and make the changes you feel are necessary - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am in the process, but its a long article and takes time though. People could also help in review, hence the posting here adn tag.Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait till you fix the Israel entry. You'll be getting to that soon, right? Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're doing this already, but if you're making major changes, I suggest you save frequently, or you're sure to encounter tons of edit conflicts - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to avoid edit conflicts is to only edit by section. I'm not seeing the point of the tags. If you can fix the problems, great. If you can't, tag the appropriate sections. Stacking tags at the top impedes readability and doesn't tell the editors where the problems are. If someone could tag the problematic sections instead, that would help. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Lihaas on the sorry state of affairs, and recommend turning all lists into prose sections. Remember, we are here to write articles about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you can do with prose you do with a list, so I don't think that by itself would solve anything. But if that's the way we decide to go, we should wait until things settle down. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if editors would familiarize themselves with other similar historical articles written in prose form, such as the Pentagon Papers or even the Watergate tapes. This article should not be in list form. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging the the section about countries adn leader would clear up some clutter, reactions obviously shout be seperate. The former could be more prose, with the latter having a precedent for a list. Ill do it for GOCE tonight.Lihaas (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support turning the region section into prose, but I disagree with merging the countries and leaders sections. A format similar to the reaction section would be more appropriate, for a couple of important reasons. First and foremost, it needs to be emphasized that the personal quirks of a leader do not reflect the assessment of an entire country, only the individual, and should be kept separate. Aliyeva's plastic surgery, Berlusconi's partying, al-Qadhafi's fondness for blondes and King Abdullah's speech impediment, while all relevant and notable, have little to do with the governments they represent. The second reason is simpler: usability for the reader. Keeping the section separate would make it easier for the reader to find the diplomatic profiles of different individuals, without having to dig through the relevant regional sections. --JeremyMiller (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need an article that focuses on unimportant gossip and casual observations, or do we need an article that is structured around the historical significance of the leaks and their impact on the world of diplomacy? We're an encyclopedia. I say, let's get rid of all the gossip and hearsay and stick with the major political issues that have real importance. Cut the fat and get to the meat of the matter. Brass tacks are what we're after, and we need to to avoid the trap of writing lists of anecdotes about the private lives of political figures. We know what the real issues are here. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think renaming the section "Diplomatic profiles of world leaders", or something similar to that, will clarify that distinction.--JeremyMiller (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's precisely what we don't want. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[9] this seems to be the reason for the economists comment (ie- brit criticism of brit journalists), should it be added in?Lihaas (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not supposed to be going from the primary sources, only the secondary. So, cite the news articles about the cable, and use the primary if needed to illustrate a notable point, but avoid going only from the primary. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]