Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak

Where is the insurance file?

Is this the insurance file? This cables doesn´t seem to compromise the US security. It´s more like a US´s criticism to world leaders!.Solde9 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The insurance file has a bunch of encrypted documents, probably documents that have not yet been released. No one knows what it contains because the encryption key is only to be released if WikiLeaks are for some reason prevented from publishing. However, WikiLeaks does not say its intentions are to "compromise the US security", rather it says it seeks to increase transparency and create reform around the world. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

the insurance file is their hostage. if it is anything at all, it is probably something big, but probably not unethical. it would be unethical for wikileaks to cover up a crime. not that wikileaks is super ethical, but it would go against their core value. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wired reported that the insurance file was made available, and The Pirate Bay has it. I think this should be mentioned in the article, near the section about the staged release. - Dandv (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The insurance file is several months old and is unrelated to this particular leak. The topic should be discussed more in depth on WikiLeaks, but not on this article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Total amount of documents?

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)

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

Oh, ok i see. Pretty much coming from only 300 documents thou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.19.141 (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

EULEX in kosovo

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)

relevant text :http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Finfokosova.de%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D174%26Itemid%3D1

The documents on Kosovo is of the texts that the EULEX Mission in Kosovo signed secret agreements with the Serbian police . According to the document the Kosova Government was urged to give in on this issue but the EULEX officials in Pristina do not want this to take position on this issue.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the cables

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)

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

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)

"In another interview conducted from an undisclosed location over a Skype Internet phone, Assange told Time magazine that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should resign over a cable that appeared to show the United States ordered diplomats to spy on foreign officials, particularly at the United Nations. / State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said that Clinton did not draft the document and that her name was affixed systematically to many cables out of Washington."[1]--Jiang (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

US/UK or U.S./U.K.

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

Given the number of contributors editing this article and given that information is constantly added, I doubt we can effectively enforce one or the other as of now. When things cool down the article can definitely be copyedited more effectively using a constant style. My opinion anyway - Cheers «CharlieEchoTango» 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with U.S./UK? That's common usage and what is done by the cables themselves.--Jiang (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's using two different styles, like having traveled and fuelled in the same article. That the cables themselves (and 'common usage') are clueless in this regard doesn't mean that we should be. If it's a direct quote, fine, we can tolerate inconsistent usage; otherwise, see WP:ENGVAR, "Consistency within articles". Ericoides (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This "mixed" usage reflects contemporary North American usage (IMO the prevalent usage), as opposed to more conservative North American usage (put periods on everything), and non-Canadian Commonwealth usage (never use periods for anything, including mister). It makes sense to use American English in this article, but American English no longer forces us to attach periods to all acronyms/initialisms. --Jiang (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ericoides (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "non-Canadian Commonwealth usage (never use periods for anything, including mister)"???Where do you get that from? In UK we use both U.K. and UK. U.K. would be strictly correct (and conservative?) and UK would be more "contemporary". I don't think the point is US v U.K. English, as afar as I can see usage is about te same - it's more about internal consistency in the article.DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Forking US reaction

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

-Would anyone oppose the creation of a fork specifically for the US reaction to the leak? There have been quite a few responses, and a single paragraph does not do them justice?Smallman12q (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont think its that big yetLihaas (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Forking of content section

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see how MOS or FACR applies here. The original issue was creating a bloated article. I understand that but moving content describing the actual wikileak documents is dubious at best. Perhaps the fork should act as a more elaborative focus on the content, while the article should maintain a short, but focused summary of each country - or at least most notable countries. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The amount of information is only going to grow, do you really think that there shouldn't be a page separate from the history to summarize the leaked information? 140.146.62.202 (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

How can you summarise a manucripts' worth of original quotes and statements? The section is going to get bigger anyway and at one point, it's all going to have to be put in a seperate article. When that will happen, I think the best thing would be to just put a summary of what the leaks are about (i.e. what they mean etc.) and the focus on the regions should only be diverted on the respective article. Mar4d (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Or rather as I meant it, on their respective articles. Mar4d (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article splits are not over the content (pardon the pun here), but for WP:Article size readability. Ie- big pages take logn to load, particularly on slow connections. So above a certain limit (generally 100k, but not held hard-and-fast) it should be split with requisite summaries (perhaps bigger than what we had for the reactions with mentions of some important/specific ones instead of everything)Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reaction of defence secretary Robert Gates

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: [2] 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)

Definately a reaction.Lihaas (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The reaction of the U.S. Secretary of Defence is (obviously) relevant. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be Secretary of Defense, thank you very much. Please don't Anglicize American titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.79.210 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what just happened to my comment?

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

If a RS says a motivation specifically for this release (and not the general release of other logs), then it is relevant to add here.Lihaas (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, yes. That was exactly what I wrote above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations for the argentine region ASAP

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

Petition to Lock Page

Due to the controversy of the subject of the article, I suggest the article be locked for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalek666 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for this; as I understand it, locks are to be used in response of persistent vandalism, which I don't see here. Visibility itself is not a reason, this would be like giving medication to a healthy person. «CharlieEchoTango» 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You may want to learn to WP:AGF and not WP:BITE, particularly when you yourself have argued for protection on other pages [3]. Admitedly it's hard to AGF for most of Dalek666's older contribs but hey it's been a year... Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for a splitting-up strategy

As stated above, it's clear that with only 505 out of about 250,000 cables released so far, the present structure of the article risks growing from the present 11,000 words or so to 5 million words or so over the next few years... But how do we split off parts while satisfying:

• keeping the content of the cables as a major component of this article
• using secondary RS sources, NPOV, etc to decide how to NOR-summarise the content ?

Proposal: When the two conditions:

1. the number of bullet points on a particular country/region gets too large, and
2. at least a few reliable sources (e.g. academics with appropriate specialties in knowledge of the society/politics/etc. of the country/region) give summaries of the wikileaks for that country/region that can be put together into a cohesive article,

then:

1. Say on this talk page that you'd like to split of country/region X into a sub-article, and see if there's rough consensus that this is justified,
2. if yes, then
   1. put a {{main|US diplomatic cable leaks on COUNTRY/REGION}} template at the top of that section, where COUNTRY/REGION is replaced by the name of the country or region,
   2. start the new article ("sub-article")
   3. when the sub-article has a lead/intro that is sufficiently credible (NPOV, NOR) as a WP:LEAD, copy that lead into this main article (with the minor changes that are necessary), and remove the old content, after checking that the old content has been included in the new sub-article.
3. if no, then wait until/if the situation changes and the country/region material becomes notable enough that it's obvious it can be split off.

Actually doing this is not going to be that easy, unless a number of academic type commentators sufficiently agree on the country/region of choice on which they write a synthesis. E.g. Juan Cole has a Middle East summary from the first few days, but the boundary of the Middle East is fuzzy, and his summary is... a "top ten" list. In fact, it seems to me that West Asian countries (Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, UAE) are more likely to split off as individual country articles, not a single regional article. But again, finding the RS's that publish syntheses is probably going to be the most difficult part.

This proposal does not constrain whether individual sub-articles should necessarily have bullet point lists or not have them. Some countries/regions might more easily be synthesised (by secondary sources), others might not be, or we may not find secondary sources that do the synthesis, in which case prose may be difficult and a long list of points might be easier.

Boud (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that it is of the utmost importance to include information from every cable. That's simply not that case. Only notable ones should be addressed, as a lot of these are probably going to be just trivial matters (ie Khadafi's nurse). Rather, we should develop some sort of criteria on what should be included. Grsz 11 23:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

the criteria is secondary sources. Notability is determined by coverage, not what we as editors claim is notable. Right now the biggest issues are Iran-nuke issues but mostly cables that directly incriminate the US.

I'm wondering if it's best to make an exception for the summaries, if we go that route. My primary concern is the difficulty in editing (or getting editors) for forked articles. I mean, this is fairly unprecedented for even Wikipedia, given the quantity of news coming from this (and with only ~500 cables so far!).

One idea is to move the content to other pages, and then transclude them here. Another idea is, after transclusion, putting them in collapsed (expand/close thingies) divs, according to region. Both of these ideas are entirely against the MOS. (although early optimization is the root of all evil). I think there's a risk of stagnation if we allow the content part to be completely moved to another area, and I think that that should be the primary concern. I also echo Grsz11, that we should have a criteria for what gets included or not, but I'm pretty sure that's just asking for trouble at this juncture. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Grsz11 that we need some criteria for which cables get mentioned in this article. The statement above that "the criteria is secondary sources" is silly today — we should be using secondary sources in order to establish notability, but we can't just mention each cable that is cited in a secondary source, because you will be able to find a secondary source about every single cable at some point. The article already suffers from this — it says that someone called India a self-appointed frontrunner for a permanent UN Security Council seat. Who cares? How is this news, or notable? It is not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should fully contain only the issues in the initial batch(es) and from the later ones only those that raise the most attention. The remaining issues should still be mentioned, but I think they should be grouped say by region: one for Middle East, one for Europe/Western World, and possibly another one for the rest. I don't think any country other than Israel and Iran will ever need a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

People are creating things like this. I have prod'd it. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1. The idea of a separate article for the content of the cables strikes me as a little silly. This recent massive fork only created two articles whose combined quality was less than the original (and made it so anyone looking at the wikileaks main page would have to click through an additional article to find the most pertinent information on the cables). Yes, the content section is inevitably going to get quite large but this issue will plague a separate 'content' article as much as it affects this one. For one thing the size of the other sections should remain mostly static from this point on, at least in reference to the size of the content, so a 'one big fork' solution is going to be increasingly ineffective.
2. I agree that, especially as the content of one region becomes large, separate articles should be considered -- they must also include a higher level summary of the leaks. However, undertaking a mindless forking of each region right now would be even more detrimental than a big content fork and would make it nearly impossible to gleam any pertinent info about the cables (imagine having to click on 20 articles to get the info that's currently on this page).
3. Also, I've already mentioned this but replacing a detailed list of the content of the leaks with some "synthesis" gleamed from an academic source is a terrible idea. I've noticed minor misquoting of one cable in the new york times so introducing another level of indirect summary is only going to be detrimental -- this is an issue fork or no fork. Egmetcalfe (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And that article is certainly right to be speedily deleted, most importantly because it is written like someones weblog collection and horribly named.

For the other points: seems like its consensus to hold off on the content split (i was for it though), 2. agree with 'Egmetcalfe, 3. largely similar, guess we can wait.Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support for now. Forking right now would be premature. We should wait until more cables are released to dermine what scale we'll be dealing with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The current structure of the article does not work, and amounts to a glorified list of diplomatic gossip; This isn't how we write articles. We need to write about the major geopolitical issues and their analysis in the secondary sources. We do not need to keep listing cable items. I'm afraid that people have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia where we write prose articles about topics. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, many a conversation with editors who insist on listing anything like a weblog or timeline chronology. DEFINATELY needs a clean up, where to begin then? (i suggested a wait till this is off, ITN, though its been 2 days without an update meaning itll be longer before this slip down from #2 to get off)Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with both of the above comments. This material IS a lot of diplomatic gossip and I have no idea what 'the major geopolitical issues' are -- but they probably belong in a different article. This has nothing to do with prose vs a list: there's a fundamental disagreement between those that want to present details in this article (and potential future related articles) and those that would prefer shortened, glossed over coverage of a mountain of disparate material (much of it being far more notable than what is covered in any other unrelated wikipedia article). I would hope that those in favour of keeping details in this article rather than dubious 'summary' make their voice heard. Egmetcalfe (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, but list dumping isn't how we write articles, and you won't find a single GA or FA article that looks likes this. We write articles about topics, using standard encyclopedic structure, focus, and prose. This article is not written to our standards, and much of it should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

List o' maybe-un-newsworthy items

Instead of getting bogged down in edit wars and endless talkpage threads, why don't we list here the things that probably don't need to be or aren't in the article. This way, we'll have one thread to refer people to if we get rid of something and then it gets re-added. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ukrainian nurses. Almost entirely unencyclopedic, but has received a lot of attention. Keep or remove? (Kept)
  • Remove! Xavexgoem (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've seen several mentions of it. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep So have I. It's been in the limelight in relation to Gaddafi. Mar4d (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Alright, I've just made it a keep. Obviously, this is a bit of an experiment. Do with it what you will. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think it should be shortened to "personal quirks". The cables included an analysis of Gaddafi's effectiveness as a leader and alleged manipulativeness, which while more encyclopedic, has not been mentioned yet, but should.--JeremyMiller (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't [4]

While it is tempting to dismiss his many eccentricities as signs of instability, Qadhafi is a complicated individual who has managed to stay in power for forty years through a skillful balancing of interests and realpolitik methods."

which I've seen elsehwere as well more meaningful then the nurse bit? Having said that, although still support removal and I raised the nurse bit very early on I think it's going to get more difficult to remove as time goes on since it's ample tabloid fodder and even the more serious papers like to have a bit of the wink-wink, nudge-nudge stuff (and this seems to have been the only one to be revealed thus far), there is already a denial from his daughter of any romantic/sexual relationship Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Here's one. Perhaps we shouldn't include it in the article, but it's still a nice read - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well at least they didn't think vikilikes is related to vikipodium unlike a lot of the other media Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Quite right! Sounds very Russian, doesn't it? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 18:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

more refs for kosovo and serbia

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

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

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

Release rate?

Has anyone seen any info from wikileaks on their planned release rate in more detail then 'in phases over several months'? Something that's been confusing me and I'm sure others since the beginning and as the days have gone on it's became increasingly clear that at their present release rate it's going to be years not months. Pure SYN that perhaps they intend to release them faster once they get to the more mundane stuff. May be also they'll speed up as interest dies down. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of flag icons

this user sees no "added value" in use of flag icons this article and removed them. another editor has reinserted as "adds colour". don't care to get into an edit war.71.183.40.173 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having a State flag next to the name of a country. If nothing else, it helps readers to find desired content a little more quickly. 122.60.93.162 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

US State Departments labeling system?

I downloaded a list explaining the tags (US State Departments labeling system) used in the cable headers and database – and did some original research.

All two-letter tags are location codes, most likely ISO country codes.

The first letter of four-letter tags defines a general category and the three following consist of an abbreviation. From the data I could reconstruct the following categories:

• A – Administration
• C – Consular affairs
• E – Economy
• K – ???
• M – Military
• O – Operations
• P – Politics
• S – ???
• T – Technology

Some of the cables are tagged with codes starting with K or S. None of these tags were on the list I found. Other tags in the cables released so far include UNESCO, UNO, UNSC, UN, USEU, UNMIK, UNGA, and WTO. The following tags appear only on one or a few cables: BRUSSELS, BIDEN JOSEPH, CLINTON HILLARY, EXTERNAL, ITALIAN POLITICS, ITALY NATIONAL ELECTIONS, IRAQI FREEDOM, INTERPOL, POLITICAL PARTIES, STEINBERG JAMES, At least one unreleased cable, sent from Helsinki on December 23, 2009 has the tag HUMOR.

I could not find any verification for the system of four-letter tags. Can someone point to a source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Division of contents

I propose dividing/grouping the contents section into these:

1. International organizations
2. Middle East
3. Europe
4. Elsewhere

Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

4 Categories seems too narrow, as we have yet to see a large cross-section of the cables, and Elsewhere seems like it would be a huge category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.160.75 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nergaal is proceeding along the right path. We need to narrow our focus, not broaden it. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks DNS taken down...

Having trouble finding secondary sources for it yet, but Wikileaks DNS was killed. They tweeted this 51 minutes ago: "WikiLeaks,org domain killed by US everydns.net after claimed mass attacks KEEP US STRONG https://donations.datacell.com/"

EveryDNS.com, their DNS provider says this on their website: "EveryDNS.net provided domain name system (DNS) services to the wikileaks.org domain name until 10PM EST, December 2, 2010, when such services were terminated. As with other users of the EveryDNS.net network, this service was provided for free. The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy. See more.

More specifically, the services were terminated for violation of the provision which states that "Member shall not interfere with another Member's use and enjoyment of the Service or another entity's use and enjoyment of similar services." The interference at issues arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access to almost 500,000 other websites.

Thus, last night, at approximately 10PM EST, December 1, 2010 a 24 hour termination notification email was sent to the email address associated with the wikileaks.org account. In addition to this email, notices were sent to Wikileaks via Twitter and the chat function available through the wikileaks.org website. Any downtime of the wikileaks.org website has resulted from its failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."

You can confirm that the site is down by visiting www.wikileaks.org and the main Cablegate.wikileaks.org webpage.

Should we include somewhere? I suppose this is original research for now, till we get a report on it...but I can't find one. 76.105.160.75 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Once a reliable source reports on it, it should be added into the page on Wikileaks, yes. Not this page though, since this DNS incident has nothing to do with the diplomatic cables beyond the fact that it happened after they began being released, which doesn't mean much. Silverseren^C 08:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been reported by RS for more than an hour, however for some reason, those articles only showed up on the Google news feed in the last few minutes. I disagree that this has nothing to do with the cables. It's got everything to do with them and it means quite a lot. Recommend inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The denial of service attacks and recent hosting troubles have everything to do with this leak. A one to two paragraph section about it would not be out of place in this article. The section already exists, but it needs to be updated and perhaps rewritten. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting and relevant article in Wired, worth checking out if you intend to edit on this aspect of the story: WikiLeaks Attacks Reveal Surprising, Avoidable Vulnerabilities. (Gist of article: at least some of the problems the organization is experiencing are probably because of their own actions or inactions, not necessarily outside attacks.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.79.43 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of information that is essential to this article. We are writing about the leak, including reaction and consequences. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources

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

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

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

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

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

More references to Kosovo

• http://www.emg.rs/en/news/serbia/140517.html

At the end of 2006, France and the U.S. advocated, because of Kosovo, the offering of the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU to Serbia without the Hague condition, and the Partnership for Peace program of NATO, it was written in a message from the U.S. Embassy in Paris, which was published at the WikiLeaks website.

• http://www.emg.rs/en/news/world/140162.html

In a cable sent by the US embassy in Doha on December 21, 2009, Qatar’s Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohamad Al-Rumaihi tells US Ambassador Joseph E. LeBaron that despite their sympathies, they had been asked to by Medvedev to wait before recognising Kosovo.

“The Russian President, however, has asked Qatar to "go slow" in announcing recognition,” the cable says. “Out of sensitivity to Russian concerns, Al-Rumaihi said, Qatar has done so,” it adds

• General info on kosovo recognition http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=12&dd=02&nav_id=71282

The leaked cables show efforts to prepare the unilateral declaration of independence, and then lobbying to get countries to recognize it.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GAN

Nominate article for WP:GA review? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest so. Good articles should be stable, this is a major news topic and new information may be added anytime. It may be better to wait until this become yesterday's news, it gets more stable, and then we may think on improving it to GA status MBelgrano (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple cables leaked to Al Masry Al Youm

Multiple cables have been leaked to the Egyptian Al Masry Al Youm, check here. All marked Exclusive are only published by it.Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WebCite references to cables please

WikiLeaks is changing its domain and servers a lot and any reference to the cables from the website is not reliable. Please use webcite archiving to have permanent archives to the cables you reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can do this both for the cables themselves, and also for news articles, since they might be pressured by governments (or banks etc...) to modify their coverage, e.g.

1. <ref name="...">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title= | date= | publisher= | url= |accessdate=2999-12-31 |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no}}</ref>
2. <ref name="...">{{cite web| last =| first =| authorlink =| coauthors =| title =| work =| publisher =| date =| url = |format =| doi =| accessdate = |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no}}</ref>

Some of the parameters are optional, you can leave them as they are. For a webcite copy, you need title, date, url, accessdate, archiveurl, archivedate, at least. To understand more about this, see: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations.

Please also use check if your source has already been used, and use a repeat reference if possible, e.g. if the first reference is <ref name="obamacable">...</ref>, then in repeat references (may be earlier or later in the text), use <ref name="obamacable" />. Boud (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi did not support Kosovo independence because of ties to russia

• KOHA DITORE http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/kosovo-press-review-december-3-2010

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi did not support Kosovo independence. His close personal relationship with Russian PM Vladimir Putin, accounts for what the daily calls his strange stance. The cable revealed by Wikileaks came from the US Embassy in Rome.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Insurance File

What's in the Insurance File posted to torrent sites? (related to this article's topic). I suspect it's just the whole Leak with a password missing to reveal it. Is it something else? --Leladax (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparing sizes (1.6gb) it appears to be the entire cable dump. The data is AES encrypted, and (from what I know) was sent out to ensure that in the event wikileaks went down before the release, the password could be released to ensure the world had the data. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have a reliable source that says that the insurance file is suspected to contain cablegate material, then this is only useful for the main WikiLeaks article, not this one. (The general net-think seems to agree with the above speculation, but i haven't noticed The Guardian etc. talking about it.) Any RS's? Boud (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there a few zillion or so RS's :P ... Time to do some work... Boud (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The main WikiLeaks article had a few sentences on it in the Afghan War Diary section, but i think it's obvious that it has a more general relevance rather than especially for the Afghan WD - we don't have any RS that claims it contains extra Afghan War Diary info, only that the release date was in that same period. i've reworked that into a separate subsection WikiLeaks#Insurance_file. i only looked into a few of the "zillion" other files, without specifically finding an insurance-cablegate link claim. If someone finds one, i suggest that s/he add a brief comment in this article, and cross-ref to WikiLeaks#Insurance_file for the main summary of insurance file issues. Boud (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge

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

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

New leaks

I cannot edit certain issues per administrative sanctions but here are some links to the latest leaks if anybody wants to have a go:

Diplomacy: The WikiLeaks torrent

WikiLeaks US embassy cables: live updates

IMO editors are becoming too focused on preventing the article from being bloated rather and not focusing enough on including leaks as they are released. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an ITN article, and will continue to shift in shape as more cables are released. We need to be careful that we don't try to shape it's final form too much. I can't think of a comparable historical event to this release in terms of its size, scope, and various impacts. The limits of our format is going to be pushed in the process, and rules or guidelines will have to be ignored at points. For now the only real criteria I think we need for the inclusion of cables is a reliable secondary source, as no other viable option has been put forward that will avoid POV problems. 76.105.160.75 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably start with Brown leaks, Iran training Taliban, Litvinenko murder, drug war.

You guys better get crackin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Cable contents - please add years

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

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

"A Chinese official revealed that both public opinion in China and the government are "increasingly critical" of North Korea, stating that "China's influence with the North was frequently overestimated".[65]"

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

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

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

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

Defining Moment

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

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

Contents section

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

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