Talk:2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks

Requested move April 8, 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus that the proposed title is more concise, more accurate to the article's content, and should be adopted. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2023 Pentagon document leaks – The current title is inaccurate, as the documents include international topics beside Ukraine and per WP:COMMONNAME I suggest this move solves that issue, making the article easier to find. The three words in the proposed renamed title appear to be most often used in a cross section of sources describing this event. Jusdafax (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Quite the fan of the proposed title, and shortly apt. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, having the article creator endorse this move is big. Elijah, we may disagree about the article's suitability for an ITN blurb but I appreciate your backing here. Jusdafax (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom Argles Barkley (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support – The current title is too long, this is more concise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support see also Google News evidence EpicPupper (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because 'Pentagon' is a building. Suggest 2023 Department of Defense document leak or 2023 Defense Department document leak. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Pentagon is both a building and a government entity. Lunare Scuderia (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:EPSTYLE says *formal* language. 'Pentagon' is slang. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  The articles & headlines about it tend to mention The Pentagon, so it seems like that’d go against WP:COMMONNAME. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  The Pentagon is often used as a metonym for the Defense Department & a picture of The Pentagon is even used at the top of the Metonymy article to show what a metonym is. The Pentagon Papers are an example of a previous Pentagon leak. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Please bear in mind, that the English wikipedia has an international audience. Other countries also have "Departments of Defence". Hence, that phrase won't pinpoint the place where this thing happened. The header line should contain one of "US", "USA" or "Pentagon", as well as "2023" (potentially with a month name) because there may be new leaks from the same place. What if there is a leak from the Department of Defence, this time in Britain or in Poland, what would you then call that? The US only represents 4-5% of the world population, while half the world speaks English AND uses the English wikipedia. 85.76.140.146 (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever the case, it was decide that we should use formal titles - that's what WP:EPSTYLE records.

• Support the current title is too long and too vague. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose originally supported but convinced by Buckshot06 that Pentagon is not the formal way to address the related entities. 2023 Department of Defense document leak would be better, or even 2023 US Department of Defense document leak to clearly indicate whose nations' defense department leaked from. Lunare Scuderia (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Support 2023 United States Department of Defense document leak per Lunare Scuderia. DecafPotato (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support since the leaks are broader than just Ukraine --TocMan (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per RS widely referring to the event as 'leaked Pentagon documents'. Yeoutie (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. RS ubiquitously use this title, like CNN's headline "Leaked Pentagon documents…" ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The documents leaked weren't only about Ukraine. IntrepidContributor (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per reasoning of nominator. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 20:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per all the above Tweedle (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and other commenters, the current title implies a narrower scope of the leaks than their full extent. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Stuart98 and others. This appears to be WP:SNOW. HappyWith (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. AdoTang (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasoning of reasoning of Buckshot06. It would be more accurate and formal to label this as a DOD leak given the Pentagon is a building and the outfit who operates out of it is the Department of Defense. - FistsOfFury123 — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parallel article

I see there is a similar article to this one, a four paragraph stub, at 2023 alleged United States classified information leak. I’d suggest a merge, but the process can be lengthy. The easiest solution, it seems to me, is to copy and paste any pertinent info and sources into this article, then speedy delete the stub. Possibly too easy a solution, however. Jusdafax (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how it works. If you take content from the other article, you have to preserve its history for copyright reasons, and link to that article from this one's history. I have simply redirected it here for now. If someone takes content from there, please note that in the edit summary and add merge templates to the talk pages. A merge does not have to be a lengthy process. Just copy-paste usable content and add the merge templates to the talk pages. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: huh? what policy is that? Why would copyright apply in such a way to text content added to a Wikipedia article would prevent it's reuse in another article, or anywhere? See WP:CC BY-SA. This is Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia. - Scarpy (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No idea what you mean. You have almost certainly misunderstood something, perhaps because I have not been clear, but I am not sure exactly where. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As WP:COPY explains, the text of Wikipedia is not in the public domain, and some copyright restrictions still apply. Particularly, all text must be properly attributable to its original author(s) – that's what the article's edit history is for. Taking text out of another article and then deleting the original article would deprive the users who actually wrote that text of attribution for their work, and so would violate the copyright license those users agreed to when they clicked "Publish changes". - Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 20:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Images

There are no images because nobody has uploaded them. RAN1 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are there no images of the documents posted? Would it be permissible according to Wikipedia regulations to post the 100 screenshots of the leaked documents which are being analyzed by journalists, and link here? 223.205.76.87 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) I’m pretty sure that’s borderline illegal 2600:4040:40AE:3900:907D:3870:BA23:BAC7 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Disseminating classified information like that is a federal crime in the United States, and since Wikipedia is hosted there, I don't think that's a good idea. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Isn't it basically public domain once it's been leaked? The video of an American helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq was posted here, despite it having been classified. AfricanHello (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) As a work of the federal government, it's public domain without question. However, public domain ≠ declassified. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a leak would automatically render top secret (TS) documents as declassified. As long as the government still considers the material classified, sharing it is a federal crime. I don't know about the helicopter video. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) For context, they are talking about the infamous Collateral Murder video. This is an important precedent for adding the leaked images to the article. Ps: to the CIA guy reading this discussion, sorry, you are wasting your time on Wikipedia. I'm no senator's son sharing papa's classified debriefings he left on the table :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.217.109 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC) edit: lol, Creedence Clearwater were right, his parents are in the military... It's my understanding that the law only actually applies to the original leaking party, and anyone after that would be protected by the first amendment. I assume the reason the mainstream media aren't currently sharing the leaked documents is possibly due to wanting to stay on good terms with the government or, like you said, they might have ethical reservations. Either way, I think the sensible thing to do right now is to hold off from publishing the documents until some later date. AfricanHello (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) There is also the moral and ethical issue that Wikipedia does not need to get itself involved with sharing secret information about a war ocurring right at this moment. They harbor sensitive current information, much more so than the helicopter video. If people want to share it anonymously on other forums, that is their risk and perogative, but there's a reason why you don't see U.S. news organizations sharing the images. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC) I believe that American news organizations aren't sharing the images because the White House asked them not to, furthermore Wikipedia is not censored I see no reason for Wikipedia not to host the images provided the claim by AfricanHello is substantiated and that it's not illegal for Wikipedia to have them GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Original IP editor who made this section gives heavy indications of trolling, their edit summary is a reference to the Just Asking Questions (JAQ) concern trolling strategy. Don't feed the trolls. How about let's have some awareness for the real world status of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Also let's not have US-based Wikipedia viewers stumble upon such a grey area of content accidentally when they are just seeking information from Google. As for internal Wiki policy reasons there's WP:OR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple conflicting versions/ copies of these leaks

How can it be addressed that there are reportedly many versions of these leaks circulating? One example is the article currently mentions Ukrainian and Russian deaths both at 100k+, but AP referencing this leak says "16,000-17,500 Russian casualties and up to 71,000 Ukrainian casualties" https://apnews.com/article/e351c6613e69bf8d714b03e367543da8

BBC says "It comes as little surprise to learn that the US estimates that between 189,500 and 223,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded. The equivalent figure for Ukraine's losses - between 124,500 and 131,000 "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65225985 Shredux (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

How much classified info to include

@Tweedledumb2, Spinixster, Masebrock, LilianaUwU, and Taishonambu:. There's a mini edit war brewing over these edits. May I suggest that we remove this info for now (WP:BRD), then discuss here the pros and cons of including it?

My personal opinion is that some of this is probably OK to include if the source is really strong and the level of detail is WP:DUE. https://theins.info/ looks like a reliable source at first glance, but upon further review the article makes extraordinary claims like wiretapping of Zelensky with no evidence. This is a red flag to me about the quality of this source. The documents in no way state that Zelensky was wiretapped (a more plausible explanation is that Ukraine told USA the plans), yet this wiretapping allegation has somehow made it into the title of the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've indeed removed the paragraphs out of an abundance of caution, and I was told classified info is in a sort of grey area on Wikipedia (discussion here). I see CNN in the list of sources, which is reliable, but the other sources don't ring a bell to me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was, I quote, "there is currently no specific reason to give links to material classified by any national government special treatment by prohibiting them". As it stands, the decision to remove text based solely on its classified nature is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. This is all old hat, really. Wikipedia has been reporting on the contents of the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, Snowden revelations and such for years. Its not really that grey of a legal area. Masebrock (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Novem said above, though I would like to opt out of this discussion because of certain reasons stated on WP:DISCORD. If it's necessary, though, do ping me. Spinixster (chat!) 14:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And since it has been requested, I would like to apologize for doing what Falcorn suggested I do. I'm still a newbie so I didn't know any better, plus it's hard for me to tell if someone's being literal or not. Hope this can be accepted. Spinixster (chat!) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey guys, regarding editor policy, I have to apologize because off-wiki I suggested to Spinixster to make a revert that removed content. I realize that wasn't cool with Wiki policy to make a direct off-wiki suggestion regarding an edit. I am sorry. I regret making the suggestion and promise to avoid this in the future. The reason it is a one-time event is the heading of this talk page section, and I mention this only to show it is a one-time event and not to explain the unsuitable action of suggesting an edit. GeneralNotability has presented a counterargument about Wikipedia policy which is correct. Sorry to Spinixster and GeneralNotability for the trouble. I apologize and will never suggest specific Wiki edit actions/reverts/etc. off-wiki again. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine for now from me, I have no particular strong opinion on it. I only really reverted because I thought such information would come under WP:NOTCENSORED and should be included if it comes from the documents (and is not a crime to include) themselves but feel free to for the moment anyway. Tweedle (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If there are sourcing issues, then those should be tackled piecemeal, not via mass deletion. The bulk of the text is already written, notable, and verifiable. I cannot support preemptively removing the entirety of the text under the rationale that someone may theoretically have an encyclopedic objection to it.Masebrock (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

First and foremost, New York Times Co. v. United States does not cover documents where their release could result in death.

Onto the more pertinent details, if the legality of a work cannot be determined, it should not be copied onto Wikipedia. No sources were provided for the table, and it's safe to assume they come straight from one slide of the documents. Assuming such a source were to reference this slide in its entirety, I would still find it unacceptable.

The information in that table is not important to expressing the documents. The average reader does not need exact details, especially if it's unsourced and could be altered. Wikipedia is not here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• "New York Times Co. v. United States" does not cover documents where their release could result in death. Yes it does. The Pentagon Papers were released during active conflict in the Vietnam War. Every discussion of a wartime billegierant's capabilities, positions, or movements could result in the the death of people. All wartime reporting could result in deaths. This is inherent to the nature of reporting on war. Abiding by the "no possibility of death" standard would remove all Wikipedia information regarding active conflicts. Your position here is a novel legal theory, not supported supported by Supreme Court precedent, Wikipedia policy, nor Wikipedia consensus.

• The holding is, "To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger". Such danger has been presented. This is the precedent of a Supreme Court case that still applies here, or rather, it would apply here if Wikipedia is a press outlet. Title 18, section 798 of U.S. code applies here in all extents. When Wikipedia talks about the Battle of Bakhmut, it is from reliable sources with intentionally public information, not exact movements, not strategies, and certainly not using leaked documents. When Wikipedia talks about Cablegate, it is with general information that has been extracted and made vague to the public. That much is covered by New York Times Co. v. United States. Because Wikipedia has explicitly labeled itself not a newspaper at WP:NOTNEWS, it cannot be afforded the same treatment as The Washington Post or The New York Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sufficient evidence" of grave danger, according to who? Unlike during the Nixon administration, the government has not even attempted to legally demand that outlets remove this information. You are asking us to submit to a level of self-censorship that is unprecedented on Wikipedia, based on fears of prosecution that are entirely novel and theoretical.

You say: When Wikipedia talks about Cablegate, it is with general information that has been extracted and made vague to the public. But this is simply untrue. Here's a sampling of how Wikipedia presents info from that leak: According to a 28 July 2008 diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Lisbon, nuclear and/or radiological materials allegedly stolen from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant were thought to be in possession of an unidentified ex-Russian general living in Portugal. The cable reports, "The walk-in stated he was approached two months ago by a part-time business associate named Orlando to help sell 'Uranium plates' owned by an unidentified ex-Russian General living in Portugal. This is not "vague and generalized." Because, again I reiterate, there is no policy or consensus to remove classified information from Wikipedia.Masebrock (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: I don't see how you get to "[Wikipedia] cannot be afforded the same treatment as The Washington Post or The New York Times" from the First Amendment ("[Congress shall make no law] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"). RAN1 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• if the legality of a work cannot be determined, it should not be copied onto Wikipedia. No sources were provided for the table, and it's safe to assume they come straight from one slide of the documents. Assuming such a source were to reference this slide in its entirety, I would still find it unacceptable. You may personally find it unacceptable, but the current Wikipedia consensus differs. Let me quote the consensus summary again to remind you: "there is currently no specific reason to give links to material classified by any national government special treatment by prohibiting them". It is Wikipedia consensus that information should not be removed based solely on its classified nature.

• It is 12-year old consensus that covers the use of classified documents as sources, not spooled into a Wikipedia article with extreme detail (and no sources, to boot). This is still very novel territory that requires the involvement of Wikimedia Legal (which I have requested), at the stage it is now. I will abide by the action Wikimedia Legal takes in this case, but until then, we cannot include information that is both potentially illegal and that which can be altered because it is simply unsourced. We aren't linking classified material, we are outright sharing it when there is an ongoing investigation from multiple government agencies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing novel about including details of the linked documents. For the articles that inspired this consensus (Pentagon Papers, nuclear weapon design, Afghan War Diaries), Wikipedia did not just merely link to the leaked contents, but included details as well. The 2023 leak is no different from previous leaks in this regard. "The prior consensus must be tossed, because this time we are including details" has no basis. This is not novel territory by any means. It is well-trod, very much old-hat territory.

Obviously, if the WMF changes their mind on the topic of including classified information then we would follow suit. But until then, we should interpret silence on the matter as evidence that the policy remains unchanged.Masebrock (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving. Yes it is. This information is notable, isn't it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not censored. Objecting to the inclusion of verifiable and notable information because it doesn't align with your geopolitical goals is veering towards explicit POV-pushing. Please cite Wikipedia policy before removal on these grounds.Masebrock (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Starting your argument out with "Wikipedia is here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving" is not a particularly good start if you wish to maintain your image, and accusing me of having a bias towards Ukraine is a complete misunderstanding of the argument at hand. There is a vast difference between bowdlerizing offensive material and refusing to include content that is legally ambiguous at best and likely outright illegal. Again, I fail to see the relevance that an unsourced, large table detailing exact quantities and qualities of tanks has towards an article about the leak of U.S. documents. The reader does not need that information. There are other sources that you have used as well, but this is not the discussion place for that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources that are repeatedly removed include CNN, India Today, Asian Times, and others. "Unsourced"? I don't understand. No one is objecting to the removal of unsourced material, that's just a red herring. The appropriate response to unsourced material is to delete that material, not delete that plus everything else that happened to be included in a particular edit.

You say: "Starting your argument out with "Wikipedia is here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving" is not a particularly good start if you wish to maintain your image". But its true! Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedic source of verifiable and notable information. Encyclopedias help people do things. Whether those things are morally good or bad is irrelevant. That you seem to think believing this gives one a "bad image", makes me question what is it you are here for. Since the classified content is verifiable, and undoubtedly notable (if it wasn't notable, no one would care if Russia knew abut it at all), the content is encyclopedic.

Your argument of "but if we include that information, it will make is easier for [x group] to do [y thing]" isn't really an objection, it's a reiteration of the purpose of an encyclopedia.Masebrock (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You should not be excluding information just on the basis that the average reader 'does not need that information', sure they probably don't but detail should not be forsaken for details sake. Like Masebrock said, an Encyclopedia is here to inform, if the 'Contents' section becomes too large we can split into another article to detail it all.

On the point of "Wikipedia is here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving" is an entirely redundant one (pulling aside from the fact that it should not matter that information helps X side) as I very much doubt any major nations intelligence agency will be using Wikipedia of all places to gage what arms the Ukranians are recieving (and at this point probably already have somewhat of a copy of the original documents anyway). Tweedle (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the entire inventory of equipment already public knowledge prior to the leak of the documents. For example it is already well sourced that 14 challenger 2 tanks are coming from Britain - e.g. https://news.usni.org/2023/01/17/u-k-sending-14-challenger-2-tanks-ammo-to-ukraine-foreign-minister-says

Also all the equipment is already being documented in List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War

And this table is just a better presented version of the information in the Asia Times Article [1]https://asiatimes.com/2023/04/ukraines-spring-offensive-a-likely-death-trap-for-us-nato/ 73.71.209.80 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is already public knowledge actually yes you would be correct. The Asia Times article was used to source for it already in this diff (ref 26). Tweedle (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense thanks. Maybe a bit of overreaction then.

Interesting how there is so much fuss about a list of vehicles when there is much more sensitive information being released by "major" sources like BBC regarding the exact number of special forces in Ukraine.

"According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."

[2]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 73.71.209.80 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw this yesterday but it is not actually in this article currently, I have added this in! Tweedle (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'd add that the very nature of the content being in secondary sources that Wikipedia is able to cite means that the information is effectively already available to Russian military planners; I'd think that any additional risk caused by putting the information in the article would be negligible. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the reason I was led to this article was due to a question by ElijahPepe on the Wikipedia Discord about the legality of those edits. I didn't want to get canvassed into this, but this seemed like an important matter. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(Also found this via Discord but was not asked for comment by anyone) I think the emphasis here should be on 1. Elijah's mention of the "could result in death" aspect and 2. the apparently questionable sourcing, at least from The Insider as Novem mentioned up top. I haven't looked through all the sources myself, but if any of them give any reason to suspect that they aren't being wholly accurate such as with this wiretap claim, then I would strike them as unreliable immediately. This is too sensitive a matter to be anything less than overly cautious with. Personally, I even think it's worth not adding these parts just because of how right-on-the-edge this matter is legally. I'd even suggest revision deletion just to be safe, though not without consensus. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1. There is no Wikipedia policy that says we shouldn't include material that "could result in death", and for good reason. All wartime reporting of active conflicts could result in death. By this standard, the entire Russo-Ukrainian War article should be blanked.

2. Whether Wikipedia can report the contents of classified information is no more of a "legal grey area" than, for example, whether same-sex marriage is legal in the US. It's Supreme Court precedent. Wikipedia has been reporting such information for many years, from the Pentagon Papers, to Wikileaks, to the Snowden revelations. Removing information on these grounds is a departure from Wikipedia consensus. It's not our job to try to be Wikipedia's legal defense team: We edit based on Wikipedia policy and consensus alone.Masebrock (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything Masebrock has pointed out. I'd also like to add on that the reasoning against having these documents because the Pentagon argues that they could "lead to death" is unconvincing, per WP:NOTCENSORED - so long as the contents are being discussed by reliable secondary sourcing, I see no reason for Wikipedia to not discuss the documents. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this is even a question just shamelessly exposes Wikipedia's blatant geographical and systemic bias. Would such a question even still be asked if it happened to a country that wasn't the United States? Why should it get special treatment on Wikipedia? Include everything. Wikipedia is neutral and not censored. 121.136.51.26 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masebrock: I implore you to check out Wikimedia Legal's response on this topic, which shares many of my points. I will still oppose this on the grounds of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A table is unnecessary and way too large for material that is, by all accounts, an opinion that is not sourced. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me quote from the first section: "Specifically, as a hosting venue, WMF does not edit, contribute to, or monitor the content on WMF project sites. For this reason and as noted in the Terms of Use, editors are legally responsible for the edits and contributions they make on Wikimedia project sites, including those made to English Wikipedia."

Doesn't this entirely negate your main concern, that Wikipedia itself may be held liable?

Since this is not the case, and since Wikipedia has no policy or consensus to remove classified material, could you please agree to no longer revert the edits? Masebrock (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

"A subset of documents were sent to Discord servers for a British-Filipino YouTuber and the sandbox video game Minecraft in late February and early March." Just say the youtuber is WoW_Mao Like: " A subset of documents were sent to Discord servers for the British-Filipino YouTuber "Wow_Mao" and the sandbox video game Minecraft in late February and early March." JobinMoscow (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why does the YouTuber need naming? Izno (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not? JobinMoscow (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced claims in the Intro

There are a lot of claims put forth in the intro of this article which are without citation. Of course they could all be stated in the archive of the New York Times article that is cited for the last paragraph, but I have a lot of trouble accessing it. StrongALPHA (talk 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Claims supported in prose do not need to be reaffirmed with references in the lede. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The contents of the Contents section are getting quite large. Should the Contents section be split out into a separate article, perhaps titled Contents of the 2023 Pentagon documents leak? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think so because the article simply isn't big enough for me to want to split it. The article looks to be average sized so there's no real reason to split up the article for it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. WP:SIZERULE guides us that the article is at the length that it "probably should be divided" and I am sure we can all predict it is about to get longer. CT55555(talk) 22:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Campaignbox going out of bounds.

The "Russian invasion of Ukraine" campaignbox to the right of the lede goes out of bounds when expanded. I don't have the knowledge to fix it, so I'd be happy if someone else could.

Thank you! - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "out of bounds"? Izno (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Izno it's been fixed already, or it might've been a onetime glitch. Still appreciate your concern, however! - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 22:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thug Shaker Centeral name

The name is said to change at a very fast pace, and includes racial slurs at some point. The minecraft server in question was called "Minecraft Earth Maps" 172.117.237.102 (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Minecraft Earth Maps" was the discord server it was posted in in March shortly before going viral; Thug Shaker Central was the discord it was first posted in months earlier. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Edge3 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that classified documents of the United States were partially leaked onto a Discord server for the video game Minecraft? Source: NBC News
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: QPQ not needed.

Created by ElijahPepe (talk). Self-nominated at 00:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @ElijahPepe: The refimprove tag needs to be resolved. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

ElijahPepe: What FormalDude said regarding maintenance templates. Otherwise, this is new enough and long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ unnecessary. I'd like to see the maintenance template addressed before I approve this.--Launchballer 23:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• The nominator has not responded to the above review despite a ping last month and a recent talk page message. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Hi @FormalDude and Narutolovehinata5:. I've done some citation work on this article. Would you be willing to re-review this one? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Forgot a ping: Launchballer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this is no longer on T:TDYK anyway and would need to be readded, I note that there is still a tag on the article, in the Contents section. Possibly worth siphoning off?--Launchballer 10:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Launchballer. Thank you for your feedback. There's consensus against splitting on the talk page, so I went ahead and removed that. I also added it to T:TDYK just now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any further reason to hold this up then. Let's go.--Launchballer 10:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Identity of the leaker ...

... has been revealed, per the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/13/world/documents-leak-leaker-identity.html 70.29.86.11 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/13/suspect-pentagon-documents-leak/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.86.11 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources and methods

@ElijahPepe. The "Sources and methods" section was recently removed without an edit summary. Could an explanation be provided please? I'd be in favor of keeping that section unless there's a source/text integrity problem or something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. Should be all set for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and is supposed to be neutral/impartial. Why is this article helping the U.S. government/intelligence by editorializing, downplaying and not mentioning some info about the leaks?

What's going on here? Would the same treatment be given if leaks on a similar scale happened to countries such as China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, etc.? 121.136.51.26 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the title again

Now that the leaks have been traced to a network technican of an Air National Guard base in Massaschusetts, maybe we should revisit if 2023 Pentagon document leaks is the best name for this article. Seems to me like the Pentagon has less and less to do with this leak. Not making an RM yet, since we just had one and I'm not sure what the new title should be, but I do see some problems with the current title. A new title should probably try to summarize the contents of the leaks. For example, are they all intelligence briefings? Then maybe 2023 intelligence briefing leaks. Did they all come from one agency such as the Defense Intelligence Agency or the Air Force or the Joint Staff? Then maybe 2023 Defense Intelligence Agency leaks. etc.

There's also the question of if we should remove the year, or add United States. Similar articles include Pentagon Papers, United States diplomatic cables leak, Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), and July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike. There appears to be a lot of variability. Food for thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)