This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	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 articles[reply]

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]

I found an Swedish news article (http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8197705.ab) about Bahnhof, Wikileaks ISP, stating that the DDoS attack started sunday afternoon (swedish time) and ended around the time of the publication. Gamaliel123 (talk) 14:15, 30 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]

The prince’s statements have been printed. http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08BISHKEK1095.html

I concur with Zaq12wsx that the other questions well be answered soon enough so we might as well just wait. -- jfry3 (talk) 15:51, 30 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]

I don't see why you couldn't add Australia's(conspicuously not mentioned in the cables?) opinion, although it seams the fact that the reaction section is gone now. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 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]

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]

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]

Some boy, an acquaintance of mine, is a big fan of Call of Duty an he has this conspiracy theory. Do professional international analysts share his "paranoia"? Aldo L (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request came "from outside the State Department" and it amounts to "almost police booking". (In Spanish) http://www.ultimahora.com/notas/382345-Datos-biometricos-eran-peticion-de-los-servicios-de-inteligencia-de-EEUU Aldo L (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be just to have it. usually they try to collect dna info on people. they did it on Saddam in case they ever have to identify him. I read to get to his computer. I guess the State Dept. has no problem reading other peoples cables :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, man. This request is from cable 08STATE30340: "Information on communications practices of Paraguayan government and military leaders, key foreign officials in country (e.g., Cuban, Venezuelan, Bolivian, Iranian, or Chinese diplomats), and criminal entities or their surrogates, to include telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses, call activity (date, time, caller numbers, recipient numbers), phone books, cell phone numbers, telephone and fax user listings, internet protocol (IP) addresses, user accounts, and passwords." And also: "Details of telecommunications and information systems, networks, and technologies supporting Paraguayan national leadership, military, foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), and civil sector communications. Define Paraguayan wireless infrastructure, cellular provider information, and makes/models of cellular phones and their operating systems." Finally: "Important information often is available to non-State members of the Country Team whose agencies participated in the review of this National HUMINT Collection Directive. COMs, DCMs, and State reporting officers can assist by coordinating with other Country Team members to encourage relevant reporting through their own or State Department channels. ¶3. (S/NF) Please note that the community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide. Informal biographic reporting by email and other means is vital to this effort. When it is available, reporting officers should include as much of the following information as possible: office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet "handles", internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information." Aldo L (talk) 14:07, 1 December 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 had 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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

Apologies Saddhiyama! I will finish of by saying I am not sure of the answer Viriditas. I am sure there would be others more knowledgeable out there that might know (but to be answered in another place). It is fair to say though regarding the topic that the SBS note of a top secret file was a mistake. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying, is that I can't wrap my head around Australian politics. If someone could explain it to me on my talk page, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 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]

I said nothing of the kind. I said that open and transparent government was rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. Is open and transparent government rooted in Enlightenment philosophy?

What is open government? In the most basic sense, it's the notion that the people have the right to access the documents and proceedings of government. The idea that the public has a right to scrutinize and participate in government dates at least to the Enlightenment, and is enshrined in both the U.S. Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Its principles are recognized in virtually every democratic country on the planet.[9]

Why yes, it is! Is this disputed by anyone? Anyone? Is this an encyclopedia where we explore historical concepts and ideas? Why yes, it is! So, what is your "problem"? Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think his beef is that any mention of enlightenment philosophy is wholly inappropriate. Not only does it add nothing to the article, but as written it strongly implies that the White House explicitly mentioned Enlightenment philosophy. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The White House reiterated its defense of the Enlightenment philosophy of open and transparent government". Again, is the concept of an open and transparent government a product of Enlightenment philosophy, and is Enlightenment philosophy at the root of western democracy? Is any of this disputed by anyone? This is an encyclopedia where we explore concepts and ideas, and trace the origins of ideas within the continuum of human history. The "beef" is that Gregcaletta is writing from the journalistic style, rather than from the encyclopedic. Is a source needed to say that open and transparent government is rooted in Enlightenment philosophy? Will the Statue of Liberty do? What does the torch symbolize? Anyone? Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the specific term "enlightenment philsophy" was not mentioned in the US government response, I don't think it have any place in this article. Especially not in the lead. However, since this was a leak of US documents, I do agree that the US response to this leak should take precedence of the responses of all other governments and thus some mention of the official statements is warranted in the lead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we are dealing with a statement of fact, such as the sky is blue, or the Sun is hot. That open and transparent government is rooted in Enlightenment philosophy is an encyclopedic statement of fact important to the historical development of ideas, and gives the reader the necessary background in two words. The confusion here is that one editor is promoting the journalistic style over and above the encyclopedic style, which seeks to put ideas and concepts in their historical context. Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the present term "open government" began in the 20th century as a response to specific events in that period of time. That its inherent ideas somewhere down the line do originate in enlightenment thinking, like so much else in our modern day world, does not make the White House statement a defense of "enlightenment philsophy". Without getting into an academic discussion about what "enlightenment philosophy" exactly means, I would like to add that the term is at the same time very vague and very broad in its scope, so that in this context it confuses more than it clarifies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not a defense of enlightenment philosophy, nor does it say the White House is defending it. It is a defense of the Enlightenment philosophy of open and transparent government". Two completely different statements. The encyclopedic style puts concepts, such as open government, in their historical context. The journalistic style assumes that this is a quote. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, hence, the difference. I tend to write political history articles from the encyclopedic style, not the journalistic. Others, write every article as if it were a news story. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misuse of the concept "open government". By the enlightenment era definition, every Western world democracy is an open government, simply because we have a very wide-ranging press freedom. The political term "open government", as used as a particular government initiative, applies to specific contemporary measures with little or no direct connection to the philosophical enlightenment era concept. Your defence that this is used in an "encyclopedic" style simply does not hold up to scrutinity, because, as I have already mentioned, it is not correct and confuses more than it clarifies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Historically, open and transparent government is directly traceable to its strong roots in the Enlightenment philosophy of Western democracies, and noting its origins is an important element of an encyclopedia; we give the reader necessary, historical background on an idea, and using links, we allow them to discover more information on their own. The number of reliable sources making this connection is overwhelming and undisputed. For example, James Van Horn Melton's The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe (2001):

For Frederick, the affairs of government were necessarily opaque and incomprehensible to everyone outside the king and his inner circle (he himself went so far as to arrange the abduction and beatings of foreign journalists who thought otherwise). The ideology of the public sphere, on the other hand, assumed that private persons could deliberate rationally on public affairs and that indeed, the collective judgments of "public opinion" could make government more rational. But for public opinion to be rational it had to be informed, and an informed public opinion depended on a greater degree of transparency in government. It also required that debate on public affairs be open and relatively unconstrained by censorship.

These values are Enlightenment values, and this philosophy is the foundation for modern Western democracies. Viriditas (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, although I am myself a historian that specialises in the public opinion in Europe in the 18th century and find this subject fascinating, I really don't want to turn this into an academical discussion about the enlightenment origins of this term. That is not what this is about at all. The term mentioned in the reply by the US about "open government" has no direct connection to "enlightenment philosophy", but to very specific contemporary government politics namely the "Open Government Initiative". You are basically synthesising by making a connection to the term "open government" as used by White House officials and "enlightenment philosophy". Unless someone specifically mentions "enlightenment philosophy" in a reliable source in connection with this quote it has no place in this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concept, idea, and term is directly connected to the Enlightenment philosophy, as all the sources demonstrate. This is a historical fact, not synthesis. As for Obama, the "Open Government Initiative" is one thing, and the Enlightenment philosophy of open economies, open societies, and open governments is what is behind it. From his speech at the UN on 23 Sept. 2010:

As I said last year, each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its own people. Yet experience shows us that history is on the side of liberty; that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies, and open governments. To put it simply, democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens. And I believe that truth will only grow stronger in a world where the borders between nations are blurred...Open society supports open government, but it cannot substitute for it. There is no right more fundamental than the ability to choose your leaders and determine your destiny. Now, make no mistake: The ultimate success of democracy in the world won't come because the United States dictates it; it will come because individual citizens demand a say in how they are governed...

Please note what Obama said here: There is no right more fundamental than the ability to choose your leaders and determine your destiny...The ultimate success of democracy in the world won't come because the United States dictates it; it will come because individual citizens demand a say in how they are governed. Where have we heard that before? That's right, we heard it in the very definition of the concept of the Enlightenment. What was the Enlightenment? It was "the major intellectual and cultural movement of the 18th century, characterized by a pronounced faith in the power of human knowledge to solve basic problems of existence."[10] But wait, it gets better! Historically, "the United States...served as a kind of laboratory for testing conflicting ideas about how best to realize enlightened principles...Today, the legacy of the Enlightenment still informs the constitutional questions that face the United States, providing the framework for contemporary discussions of the role of government..."[11] I am not arguing that this should go back in the lead. I am arguing that you are flat out wrong. Viriditas (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some mentions of the cables on serbia :

B92: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=11&dd=29&nav_id=71203

belgraded: http://www.belgraded.com/blog/politics/wikileaks-serbia-croatia-bosnia-kosovo-cablegate-embassy

In serbian, blic: 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]

thanks, dont forget the second one, belgraded. updated formatting. James Michael DuPont (talk) 15:19, 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" and another example

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 that diplomatic evaluations of a leader's competence and background are a "real issue" and should be included. Precisely because they can impact the world of diplomacy, with possible personal retaliations and cooling of diplomatic ties. Especially for the more thin skinned leaders, who also tend to attract the most attention. I wouldn't object to merging the section with the reactions section. However, the section doesn't need to be a list, there's plenty of material being spread around to write one or two paragraphs per leader.--JeremyMiller (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. We need to talk about why cables are important and what they reveal about the diplomatic process. This isn't a tabloid. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how diplomatic perceptions of world leaders are "tabloid"-esque in anyway. They do impact the diplomatic process, providing the reader with insights on American opinions of their foreign counterparts. Your comparison is especially poor considering the Guardian's commentary on how the British tabloids have been pointedly avoiding the profiles on foreign leaders, focusing instead on the royal family.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is apt. The BBC did several balanced stories in the last 48 hours, with most commentators describing the colorful cables as gossip, i.e. tabloid-esque. Which is entirely accurate. To me, it sounds like you want to focus on the unimportant, salacious material, rather than the real, underlying geopolitical issues. Sounds like a huge distraction. Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let us not resort to straw man arguments so soon! I find it difficult to believe that American perceptions of foreign leaders are "unimportant" or "salacious". I agree that the more objectionable content should be removed, but to remove everything is absurd. To repeat, it's exaggerated to say all the profiles are sensational. American diplomatic views on Erdogan's "neo-Ottoman Islamist fantasies", Medvedev's perceived indecivisiveness, and Merkel's inability to take risks are highly insightful, very relevant, and should be included.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's backup. You disagree with merging the leaders and countries, but if we are going to have an article on 250,000 cables, we are not going to have that kind of luxury. Countries and leaders should be merged, under the scope of significant geopolitical issues, under the heading of "Content". The Pentagon Papers article takes a good approach, and I recommend evaluating it for ideas. Viriditas (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The Pentagon Papers were released nearly forty years ago. The Wikileaks cables are being released right now. Keeping the sections separate will make them easier to merge, if the needs arises, or split into separate articles, if the need arises. Let's give it a few more weeks before deciding how best to organize the article and synthesize the information. This is a current event, there's no need to speculate and no reason to hurry.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:36, 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]

I would hesitate to use "we" when there's been no consensus. I understand your dislike of "hearsay", but it does become important when it involves the diplomatic ties and personal trust between powerful nations and individuals.--JeremyMiller (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we discuss that idea in prose form, without having to post lists and lists of profiles of world leaders that distracts from the central thesis of how diplomacy works and why secrecy is important or not. Those are the ideas that we discuss in an encyclopedia. We do not go on and on about the sleepiness of the Italian prime minister due to his late-night partying or the bust size of the Ukranian nurse hanging on to every word of the Libyan leader. There are real topics here and we need to focus on them. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn't have to be a list. There's enough content and enough sources to write well-cited prose. And it's exaggerated to say all the profiles are sensational. American diplomatic views on Erdogan's "neo-Ottoman Islamist fantasies", Medvedev's perceived indecivisiveness, and Merkel's inability to take risks are highly insightful, very relevant, and should be included.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not when we're dealing with 250,000 cables. Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we have no idea what the undisclosed cables contain, and how many have already been redacted. It would be prudent not to speculate, we need context, so let's worry about article size after all the cables have been revealed.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with your assertion regarding the purpose of the article. We have an article that serves as "central thesis of how diplomacy works" at diplomacy and an article on "why secrecy is important or not" at state secrets privilege. This is not the purpose of the article. The primary purpose is to detail this specific leak, to summarize the opinions and perspectives of American diplomats as revealed in the leak, to discuss analysis by experts of their effects and coverage of those effects when they eventually emerge.--JeremyMiller (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion is correct and supported by the sources. The cables show how diplomacy works and have sparked discussion by analysts and government officials as to the importance of secrecy and its delicate balance in a democracy founded on open government. The primary purpose of this article is to discuss the leaked documents in that context, and illustrate the major issues arising from that central thesis. We have 250,000 cables, so focusing on gossip is a distraction from the real issues. Fouad Ajami's most recent op/ed in the WSJ is titled "WikiLeaks and the Art of Diplomacy" for a reason. He's nailed the central thesis. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to consider that more cables are forthcoming. According to cablegate.wl, we're at 281 of some 250k. Certainly, more of this gossip is going to come up, but much more of it will be politically substantive. At some point, we'll need to split this article. The question is: will we split the gossip parts into their own article? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless to say that your assertion is correct because it's "supported by the sources", that statement is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Being an encyclopedia, the focus should be on the relaying of perspectives, issues, and expert opinions brought up by secondary sources, not a synthesis of new ideas based on those sources. I understand your concern for the more sensational content coming from secondary sources, I agree they should be removed, but to completely abandon discussing the diplomatic profiles of major world leaders is unreasonable.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Xavexgoem, I think it's best to wait until the need arises. There's no point in speculating now, it's clear this article is still a work in progress, and will be for quite some time.--JeremyMiller (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of IR, in grad school we were told to study the profiles of leaders (by a teacher formerly in the us govt.) as that is what states/embassies do. Thus this is highly relevant. But i thinkweve come to agreement to convert to prose instead of a list form which seems a good accomodation. We can leave the reactions as such.

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

[12] 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]

250,000+ now, any word on how many more we can expect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.19.141 (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

250,000 is how much we can expect. Right now, only about 300 have been released. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps removing this:

Allegation that Chinese government operatives have waged a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage targeting the United States and its Western allies.^[1]

When? An improved version is in the article right now. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an unfolding story in kosovo http://infokosova.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=174&Itemid=1 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation?Lihaas (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All cables originating from the State Department are signed by the Secretary. Cables originating from an embassy are signed by the ambassador, or in his absence from the country, the charge d'affaires. This is done no matter who wrote the cable. There is some confusion in this article, with documents being attributed to the person whose name is at the bottom of the document, and wikileaks itself being cited as the source. see, e.g., Condoleeza Rice being named the author of certain cables in this section.

If one of the 5 news outlets haven't assigned authorship to the cable, it is original research to do otherwise. In the vast majority of cables, the person whose name is at the bottom of the cable took no part in drafting it.--Jiang (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems reasonable, but you may have problem convincing everyone without hard evidence thereof.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It easy to fix this with a little wording. Some of the news articles have got it wrong too, specifically noting that the cables were signed "Rice" or "Clinton" so justify their assertions that the Secretary sent the directive. Clues as to where the cable originated is usually shown by the classification tag - that proves that person at least had a role in reviewing the cable. But the cable could very well have been drafted by someone lower on the totem pole, while rarely higher.--Jiang (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did they put a neutrality template on this article? It seems to me like most of the information is simply a reference to what most newspapers have released and what is said in some of the already available cables. Where is the neutrality of the article compromised? if it is please point it out especifically or adjust the article but don't be just putting templates for no reason. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is it relevant? Doesnt mention anything about this leak.(Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

The Defense Ministry statement was specifically issued about the cable leaks. Read the source. Limongi (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Donefixed.(Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/30/2010-11-30_daring_doc_fears_for_his_family.html It says they are revealing information that might cause the Iranian government to hurt people's families. Is this credible? I don't see how an old guy riding on horseback to flee his country could endanger anyone. Did they release any information revealing spies or people that helped America? Dream Focus 20:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent series of edits condensed all of the point by point data on individual Countries into amalgamated paragraphs. I understand the motivation behind this to a degree but frankly I think this has reduced the clarity of the article significantly. Especially as more data gets added, this is going to be an utter disaster. For example the Canada section has become a mashup into a single unholy paragraph of a bunch of unrelated issues (eg info on Harassing Hezbollah and lying about foreknowledge of an Afghan prison break doesn't belong in the same paragraph -- they also don't belong as separate paragraphs in some twisted essay linking a bunch of incongruous data). Anyway, I propose returning to the bullet-ed list format since as things stand it is now significantly more difficult to add information and keep things organized. Anyone agree? Egmetcalfe (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at how it was before, and what it is now, I have to agree. The previously bulleted list was far easier to read and sort through for those actually interested in the information. There is a constant effort by some to go around removing bullet list, for no reason at all, other than they think it looks better at a glance. Dream Focus 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree; the bulleted list was much easier to read and select information from. It's going to be a real mess to update... «CharlieEchoTango» 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Condensing the list into haphazard paragraphs makes it less convenient for the reader, hindering usability. I don't oppose switching to prose in due time, but bullet points should be retained until all the cables are released.--JeremyMiller (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who made the changes so we can discuss the situation and reach consensus with him/her/it/them? «CharlieEchoTango» 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm all for contacting who made the changes. In any event, I guess we basically have two options: Try reverting stuff which I would prefer but which may be difficult OR manually revert back to the bulleted list style in a section by section manner (and if it's not appropriate for a certain section we won't). Pending discussion with whoever made the change, if someone can easily do the mass revert I would be very happy, but if this is not possible I can assist with the manual job (starting with the molested Canada section). Egmetcalfe (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then! Once we reach consensus with the involved editor(s), then we can manually make the changes. I doubt that a revert would be helpful considering the amount of information added since the modifications. Did you reach him/her/it/them yet? «CharlieEchoTango» 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this prose stuff is an awful mess, barely readable, and it is hard to tell when additional content has been added. Please revert back post-haste, with or without feedback from editors (who we still haven't established and may not...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.160.75 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I started and then someone uninvolved in this discussion did it at the same time quicker than me... Anyways it's done! - «CharlieEchoTango» 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and inserted the bullet point sections from the last version before Lihaas began his/hers clean up. This version. Feel free to revert if this was too bold a move, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The issue is that it appears you reverted instead of manually re-inserting; therefore it removed a lot of content (I may be wrong but the fact is a lot of content is missing). I was in the process of manually adding the bullets, it might be better that way. «CharlieEchoTango» 22:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that some additions that have been added in between that time will be lost, but the longer we waited the more information would have been added to the article, and the more difficult it would have been to get it back to the old version. Perhaps a scrutiny of the version I linked above and the one before my reinsertion of the bullet points will prove fruitful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well as proposed a bit further up, the better thing to do was to do it manually, although we now can add the missing content by using the diff I guess. «CharlieEchoTango» 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did do it manually. I only replaced the country section with the bullet point list from the old version. And considering that the prose version would probably have added a bit to the size of the article, the 5k difference does not suggest too much was lost. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow you? If you added manually from the "current" (as of then) revision, then no information could have been lost (a few bytes added actually because of the *. Anyways looking at the diff it's nothing that can't be added later. Good job :) - «CharlieEchoTango» 22:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now we've lost several dozen edits in between. Nice move.Limongi (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some content has already been added back, feel free to help! "Nice move" won't bring the content back. He was bold, and that's more than fine : it was much more readable after than before. He could've edit the latest revision instead of an old one, but he didn't, so now let's move on, it's not a big deal. «CharlieEchoTango» 00:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors can review this when its off ITN.Lihaas (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does anyone oppose the creation of a fork for the US reaction? The current section does not give enough room to properly display and quote the US reaction. I'd like to make it at United States diplomatic cables leak (US reaction).Smallman12q (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough for now to warrant a page of it's own in my opinion. «CharlieEchoTango» 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the creation of Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak, which could accommodate a large amount of detail on US reactions.   — C M B J   04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The article is becoming quite bloated so it would be smart to start merging less focused material to a fork. Perhaps create a unique article solely about "reactions" which would be comprehensive and not solely about the US. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Might we also think about doing the same for a content? As future releases come out, MUCH more content is going to be showing up bloating this article further. We could leave a small paragraph here giving a summary of the content, and then a fork to a "Content of US Diplomatic Cables Leak" article. 76.105.160.75 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support an article on reactions. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifted ;) Or alternatively, the contents of the lead can be shifted as that will increase in the coming weeksn and months.Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions fork done. The 'commentary' section should be merged into the reactions article as well, because the two are very closely interrelated.   — C M B J   08:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we filter out less notable reactions to the leak? A reaction from the Ottawa Sun (a daily tabloid style newspaper) hardly seems encyclopedic. I think for the sake of length we need to make sure that reactions are notable to some degree. Thoughts? How should this go about? 76.105.160.75 (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to AGF here, but I can't... The Ottawa Sun reaction is as appropriate as the relatively unrelated (from the current events) Iraq war statement by someone at the NYT that was posted on the article. So let me ask this : how do you judge what is appropriate from what is not? Content war in perspective... «CharlieEchoTango» 06:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What will the Arab public think? >> US mulls legal action on WikiLeaks Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded as per 76.105.160.75.   — C M B J   08:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, oh my word. I said exactly the same thing later and didnt read it. So i guess i support it oo.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

What are the options if this article gets too long? Will we need to make sub-articles, perhaps for different 'regions'? Mar4d (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been voicing my opinion that a seperate "Content of the Cablegate Leaks" (or what have you) article should be created. That way we can leave a summary paragraph here on the content, and leave the actual revelations elsewhere. Same could be done for reactions. Both content and reactions could be easily summed up ("the diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments about the host country of embassies as well as on going tension in the middle east..." and "reactions from the US government and US allies was extremely negative, with other countries showing a mixed response to the leaks"), and forked into their own articles with this page left to give a general feel of what the leaks were about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.160.75 (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above, a discussion in ongoing about a split and your input is suggested and wlelcomed.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

content by region and analysis of world leaders move to another article

i think we should create "contents of leaked cabled" to another article. this way we can have the article focusing on the "history" of the cable leaks, ie when it was released by who etc. and the contents, which is just a list, can be separated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.99.58 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are fourth person to say this. Could someone with a little more skill then me do so at this point? I think it is an inevitable change considering the amount of info that has built up from a mere 291 articles when there are still some 250,000+ to go. This will make it much easier for those just interested in working on the content portion and not the whole article to do so and will remarkably improve the quality of this one. 76.105.160.75 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Secondary commentary and reaction should be removed, but actual content must remain in the article. The fork was premature and a serious edit like that should first be discussed extensively to gain a wider consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content does belong in its own article for WP:MOS and WP:FACR, but Xavexgoem makes some good points as to why we should WP:IAR and keep the content here until the subject is out of the news. I've temporarily undone the split pending further consensus.   — C M B J   20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the split section tag...

Is there anyone opposed or for making a split in this article? I.e. take the current section "Content by region" as well as "Diplomatic analysis of individual leaders" and making them their own article titled "Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak". Yay or nay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnluce (talk • contribs) 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Ok, there's some parallel discussion going on here...but to summarize:

1. Lihaas
2. 76.105.160.75
3. Johnluce
4. CMBJ
5. 131.220.99.58

...appear to be in general agreement that this content would benefit from being split into a new article, so I'm going to go ahead and perform the creation.   — C M B J   11:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   — C M B J   12:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in regards to splitting off all of the content of the cables, I'm going to strongly disagree. The cables are the main issue here, and their content absolutely has to be on the main page. Perhaps as we get too much data, we'll post summaries of the data on the main page, and then list the details on individual pages, by country. But, it seems like a huge mistake to simply ship all of the contents off to a secondary page. 2 cents. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem of having to summarize the stuff there on the article here within the bounds of NOR and NPOV. It's a little meta. The bigger problem is that people are likely coming here for a summary of the content in the cables, not the summary of the leak. At some point, it probably will be necessary to fork or pare down what we have (but how do we determine that?), but at the moment it just makes it harder to get edits made to the content part, since it's inevitably getting less traffic. (And then there's an administration problem, since we now have to watch three pages, blahblahblah...). This ultimately looks great for an encyclopedia, but doesn't really work for a ... Wikipedia. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the content back and redirect until consensus reaffirms the split or until this is out of the news.   — C M B J   20:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Atleast for now, the content should remain on the main article - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this belongs here, or on the reactions page, but I think it should be included. The New York Times has comments from Robert Gates on the leak here: [13] The key quote is probably: “So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.’’

(Of course, one might well say that Gates has an interest in playing down the significance of the leak, but his comments are still relevant.) Robofish (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to anybody who thought my last comment was irrelevent (which has mysteriously disappeared... :/), I was a little harsh that time. But anyways, does anybody know Assange's motive to release the cables? I think that would be a nice addition. I really want to know, too. My freind said it was because Assange was mad at some American law on gay rights. Then again, he also said Assange was French... :/ 97.96.65.123 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you failed to read the banner that says this page is not a forum. «CharlieEchoTango» 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But adding his motive would be a useful addition to the article. 97.96.65.123 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His motivations would be better suited at his own page, or the page for WikiLeaks, to the extent that we know them. This page should be focused on the cables themselves, meaning their contents and the fallout of their release. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned in the Wikileaks article (first sentence): "WikiLeaks is an international non-profit media organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous sources and leaks.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, that's the what, not the why. Any talk about Assange having a personal vendetta against the United States would have to be backed up by reliable sources, meaning not a conspiracy theory on a random blog. As far as I can tell, the motivation is to increase transparency. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was pretty much my point. He is the head of an organisation that "publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous sources and leaks", he gets his hand of what can only be assignated the mother lode of unavailable documents from an "anonymous" source, the "what happens next" seems pretty straightforward. And since we don't really have any reliable secondary sources that questions this version of the story, that is all we can say in the article as far as the subject of a motive is concerned. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need citations for the statements regarding argentine cables.190.51.76.8 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]