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

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))

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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