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 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

You may want to learn to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE, particularly when you yourself have argued for protection on other pages [1]. Admitedly it's hard to AGF for most of Dalek666's older contribs but hey it's been a year... Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak was originally created a week ago but for a lack of agreement on this action it was soon converted to a redirect. Now, Viriditas has unilaterally taken it upon themselves to reinstate that fork. In an edit summary Viriditas amazingly writes: "Sorry folks, but this needs to be brought under control)".[2] I wonder, are we dealing with some superhero editor here who, embroiled in the contentious conflict du jour (# List of vital sites), still sees it as their task to make swift, rash and extensive changes to the article, without a mandate and without any recent discussion. Splitting off the leaks content has been discussed previously on this page in the section #Proposal for a splitting-up strategy with the last post 4 days ago. No consensus was formed then but nevertheless Viriditas now goes ahead with this action. I strongly urge that this action is redone immediately. __meco (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

And now also User:Amog[3]. __meco (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: transclusion

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

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

I noticed that an editor had removed information about decreases in the number of cables released on the Wikileaks site. This piqued my curiosity. I downloaded several torrents from the main magnet page, verified their MD5s (which doesn't prove much at all, but...) and determined that in fact 32 cables were removed between 14:09 and 18:11 on 2010-12-04, but all but one (2009\04\09cairo746.html) were restored to the archive three days later ([4]), and that one still appears on the browser on the Web site itself. However, the same was not true of cables removed between 00:10 and 17:21 on 2010-12-06: 2007\01\07paris322.html 2008\08\08rabat727.html 2009\01\09madrid71.html 2009\04\09cairo746.html 2009\09\09paris1254.html 2009\10\09paris1465.html 2009\11\09telaviv2502.html 2009\12\09casablanca226.html 2009\12\09conakry797.html 2009\12\09ouagadougou1158.html 2009\12\09ouagadougou1159.html 2009\12\09rabat1009.html 2009\12\09rabat1018.html 2009\12\09rabat988.html 2010\01\10rabat22.html 2010\01\10rabat34.html 2010\01\10rabat5.html 2010\01\10rabat8.html - these appear to exist only in the old torrent ([5]) at least for now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)It becomes increasingly obvious that this can-do-no-wrong editor with 90,000 edits[6] is displaying a demeaning and condescending attitude towards earnest fellow editors, as well as leveling personal attacks at me, which should warrant a community injunction against such behavior. I can only in good faith understand that they may be a bit off balance with all the current discussions going on and regrettably allowing this to cause further bad behavior rather than taking a break, going for a long walk or something along that line. But obviously this cannot go on much longer. __meco (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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