Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The following discussion 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.

Closing Statement: As is often the case, real life conflicts find themselves mirrored on Wikipedia. The discussion here is somewhat more general; regarding classified material by any government. Wikipedia is an international project, with no aspirations to either help or hurt any national government. In general, it should not matter which entity classified the material for this discussion, whether it be the Chinese, German, Iranian or U.S. government.

Consensus in the questions put to this RfC seems to be:

  • Leaked documents, classified by a national government, are generally the viewpoints of the entity that produced them; they are not subject to the balance and editorial checks that we expect of reliable secondary sources. That does not mean a prohibition on using them as sources, but the guidelines and restrictions on using primary sources apply.
  • Wikipedia is, by virtue of having servers and staff located in the United States, subject to U.S. law, and there is a minority viewpoint which argues that disseminating material classified by the U.S. government is illegal in the U.S. (either by virtue of being classified or by the government asserting copyright) or causes sufficient harm that it should be prohibited. However that viewpoint has not reached consensus. In the absence of qualified legal opinion and no consensus, there is currently no specific reason to give links to material classified by any national government special treatment by prohibiting them.

henrik•talk 20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This RFC is to answer the question "Under what, if any, circumstances may leaked classified documents be used as (a) sources and (b) external links?". Previous discussion includes Wikipedia:ELN#Propriety of linking to WikiLeaks 'released' documents and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#On linking to classified documents. The context for this discussion is the WikiLeaks publication of leaked US cables, but need not be limited to that. Classified material has been referred to within Wikipedia before; we have articles on the Pentagon Papers, on nuclear weapon design, most recently on the Afghan War Diaries; and in the previous articles made on Wikileaks releases, such as the Afghan War Diaries and the Iraq War Documents, the primary source to Wikileaks is included. Despite this, the issue of using the recent cables has sparked enough contention across enough pages to suggest an RFC may be helpful. Rd232 talk 08:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to other discussions

Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 798 U.S. Code

[edit]

FWIW: § 798. Disclosure of classified information --Mike Cline (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Wnt

[edit]
  • According to the ACLU, "The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information."[1] This has long been true in situations such as the publication of the Pentagon Papers and the outing of Valerie Plame.
  • Given that it is legal to host the material, we should not have any doubt about linking to some of the best newspapers in the world, like The Guardian, which republish classified cables from Wikileaks. While Wikileaks is a newer, embattled source, it is publishing the same kind of material, so we should have no more qualms about linking to it. (General note: Wikipedia and Wikileaks both run on the free wiki software but are otherwise unrelated)
  • It may be safest for Wikimedia projects not to solicit the leaking of classified material by a military source, and may be against current policy to accept any direct leak of classified information from a military source. According to recent press reports,[2] attempts to prosecute Julian Assange may depend on whether he became somehow complicit with the original leaker (widely speculated to be Bradley Manning). WP:CENSOR says that "Content that is judged to violate ... the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed." Ordinarily Wikimedia accepts material which may be illegal from a (foreign) uploader's end but is legal from Wikimedia's point of view, but in the case of U.S. classified material the case might be complicated. In any case, Wikipedia has no special competence to evaluate whether a direct leak is accurate or not, and any attempt to do so could only be WP:original research. WP:V indicates that if we receive a secret document, even if it comes from North Korea, we can't do anything with it unless an ordinary user can find it on a website or in a library book or the like. This suggests that there is a clear separation of the role of Wikileaks in directly leaking information from Wikipedia's role in citing and summarizing the documents so publicized for encyclopedic purposes.
  • A leaked classified document is not automatically a reliable source - it could be a forgery, or it could be the work of one ignorant official. However, as explained in the previous point, we should expect to learn that something is a leaked classified document via some other external source, which can then be used to support its authenticity. In the case of Wikileaks the documents have been very widely publicized and accepted as reliable by literally hundreds of newspapers, and Wikileaks itself likewise possesses a very good reputation for checking the validity of the leaked documents. This makes Wikileaks a reliable source to prove that a document is genuine. Depending on the authorship of a classified document and the content it quotes from other sources, it may be a questionable, self-published, primary, or secondary source; but in every case, if genuine, it is a source about itself and any activity it was created as a part of.
  • In the event that leaked classified documents have reached world news items and helped to shape historical events, WP:RS requires their citation as part of a well balanced article: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered" The point of view of the people who created the document with the perception of secrecy will be unique and informative.
  • Claims of copyright over classified documents have been conspicuously absent from recent news coverage of Wikileaks. Such documents are typically prepared by U.S. government employees with a preset date at which they are to become unclassified and generally available. There's no obvious reason why they couldn't contain copyrighted material in specific instances, but even then, Fair Use issues would be significant.
  • I rebutted User:Elonka/Work1 (similar to [3]) at User:Wnt/Work1, and have had some debate with her at my talk page, addressing some other issues such as ad hominem concerns.
  • The most credible claim against Wikipedia's use of the documents is that the U.S. security clearance process might discriminate against people who work with or even read the material. But the process might also discriminate against people who upload photographs of themselves at a gay pride parade or express admiration for Fidel Castro. Also note that P.J. Crowley dismissed such an e-mailed warning as "an overly-zealous employee", saying it "does not represent a formal policy position".[4]
  • Regarding ethical concerns, it is very easy for people to put up bugaboos about how citing or quoting or referring to leaked classified material is supposed to endanger lives. But it's not reasonable. The people who are most motivated to do something harmful with the information are not waiting for it to trickle down to Wikipedia. I strongly doubt they even had to wait for Wikisource. The sad truth is, the U.S. kept documents "secret" by putting them on SIPRNet, available to 500,000 people. A person like Bradley Manning, reprimanded, facing dismissal, was allowed to download them ad libitum. I bet that international spies were able to get to them faster. In my opinion, Wikipedia's role in bringing such information down to the level of voters and schoolchildren helps to put pressure on the U.S. to actually secure such information, not pretend to secure it, and to protect informants, not to pretend no one found out who they are. The security model favored by those opposing any mention of leaked classified documents is one in which the global Herrenvolk - the 500,000 SIPRNet users, foreign intelligence services, al-Qaida, and well connected officials - share access to a vast realm of information, but where the ordinary proles of any country are denied any right to learn about it. That is an intellectual caste system which is starkly and diametrically opposite to everything that Wikimedia stands for. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this position
  1. Anomie⚔ 19:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilverserenC 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cyclopiatalk 20:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Cs32en Talk to me  23:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ThemFromSpace 05:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Cirt (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC) (having considered the clear and concise position that Wnt provided below in response to Llywrch's request for a summary.) Sock indented. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Falcorian (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Count Iblis (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Well reasoned, if a bit longish. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Absolutely true Ronk01 talk 03:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Bit wordy, ;p but on point. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. walk victor falk talk 21:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. well said -- Ned Scott 08:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This is an excellent summary of our policies and responsibilities with regard to Wikileaks information. Dcoetzee 01:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Amalthea 11:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this position
  1. Ozob (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion of this position
Wnt's view sounds just fine. The political class needs to get used to the brave new world, and censoring sources just because they are embarrassing is not acceptable. However, we can only write about what has been covered by reliable third-party sources, and even then, not everything is important enough to be mentioned. The Wikileaks documents are primary sources, which should be used with a great deal of restraint. We need to attend to the pitfalls of giving undue weight. Tony (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is proper. The only thing to consider here are the legal aspects, and the pentagon paper precedents made it clear that it is perfectly legal to publish, republish, and relate the content of leaked classified material. We have no problems using the classified information of non-US countries, and we should as little qualms with using US-classified information. Even assuming the "ticking time bomb" scenario, the wikileaks et al. sources are so widely available that this material is hardly secret anymore. So yeah, it's proper / support / Wikipedia is not censored / whatever. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should feel free to cite or quote classified material if and only if it has been published somewhere else (such as Wikileaks). A piece of classified material may be a secondary source, or a reliable primary source, or a questionable source, or a self-published source - no general rule is possible; a case by case examination is required. In any case I highly value quality primary sources. Wnt (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must take issue with your last point. "In my opinion, Wikipedia's role in bringing such information down to the level of voters and schoolchildren helps to put pressure on the U.S. to actually secure such information, not pretend to secure it, and to protect informants, not to pretend no one found out who they are." This is not and should never be a goal of Wikipedia, to put pressure on or effect change within a government. I agree that SIPRNet may represent a system antithetical to the purposes of Wikipedia in terms of public access to information. However, we also attempt to present such information without bias. If leaked classified information is presented to effect any kind change within any institution, then it's certainly not being presented in a neutral fashion (or at least not for neutral purposes). I hope that I didn't misunderstand your comment, but if I haven't then it's implications fall far outside the bounds of neutrality. DKqwerty (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is true if we accept that the ethics concerns raised by some opposed to using the documents are irrelevant to Wikipedia. However, if we allow ethics to become an issue, then we must think through that issue and recognize that freedom of inquiry is in fact the most ethical policy. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DKqwerty's comment poses two errors in logic,I think. One is to equate "helps to put pressure" with "a goal". I might unintentionally help to put pressure on my City to reduce their education budget by providing e-books to all students; that doesn't mean I had a specific goal of reducing their budget. The second and more glaring, I think, is the assumption that information presented in a neutral fashion with neutral purpose can not effect any kind of change within any institution. Classified maps of the moon and planets,with new and surprising details, might be neutrally presented with a neutral purpose to a University, e.g. emailing it to the President of the University, fully knowing that it would effect changes to a large array of course content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the same supposed logical errors. His point is that Wikipedia's primary goal is to build an encyclopedia. Presenting classified information to "effect any kind [of] change" is a different goal. Building an encyclopedia may have a secondary effect of political change, but that effect should never be one of our concerns. If it is, then we are betraying our purpose to build a free online encyclopedia. We are instead political lobbyists. Even the statement that "freedom of inquiry is in fact the most ethical policy" is in the present context nakedly political. Ozob (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, given WP policy of "no OR", the prospect of accusations of solicitation can be easily refuted; that would be soliciting OR. In addition, IMO, I'd hesitate to use leaked docs for the "no original sources", as well as for their potential unreliability: W. based his "Iraq WMDs" fiction on one flimsy, uncorroborated doc. WP should not do the same.
"the statement that 'freedom of inquiry is in fact the most ethical policy' is in the present context nakedly political" Of course it is. So is the express goal of WP, to make accurate, complete, encyclopedia-quality information freely available to as many as possible. Not for nothing did, do, governments consider maps & census returns classified docs. It could be argued the mere fact of WP existing on the 'net at all is a political statement in favor of freedom of information, freedom of inquiry, & freedom of thought. That's a debate for somewhere else, tho. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to resist the temptation of some to say that "Wikipedia is amoral", or to dismiss moral concerns. That misses the point. Wikipedia is based on moral prime directives that deny censorship and pursue neutral, verifiable coverage of everything from every angle. People didn't donate most of $16 million USD nor immeasurable amounts of volunteer editing time in support of "amorality". They did this to support a clear and compelling vision. But that vision doesn't suggest patience for those who would weigh every source in every article and try to figure out whether it will be "worth it" to allow people to learn about it. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clear and compelling vision that they support is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That vision may have political consequences, but it is not a political vision. Put another way: A free encyclopedia serves no political group and has no political goals. A free encyclopedia does not lobby or organize activists. A free encyclopedia does not contribute money, time, or effort to any political movement. Wikipedia's existence requires certain philosophical premises, and it requires freedom from the current regime, but Wikipedia only makes use of such an environment; it does not agitate for it.
You say that "Wikipedia is based on moral prime directives that deny censorship". But when Wikipedia is restricted by United States law, it does not fight, it gives up: We don't violate copyright, we don't host child pornography, and we don't try to change the law so that we can. There is encyclopedic value in including copyrighted works (which is why we allow fair use) and borderline child pornography (see Virgin Killer [NSFW]). There may be encyclopedic value in including works that are not fair use or that are child pornography. Nevertheless we don't even try. Wikipedia is censored—it's legally required to be censored. It's only as uncensored as the law allows, and it does not advocate changing the law.
As far as I'm aware, there are no legal restrictions on Wikipedia's use of classified documents. So my opinion is that we should treat them as we would any other documents; a cable may be so important as to warrant a series of articles about it, or it may be so dull that it warrants no mention anywhere. When you argue that Wikipedia has some moral reason to distribute the information in the cables, I think you are presuming that Wikipedia has the political goal of advocating for free dissemination of information. I disagree. Wikipedia freely disseminates information; it does not engage in political advocacy. Ozob (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur and add observation - like many situations, users who may be vulnerable to backlash (eg US security clearance issues or military law) are under no obligation to handle any material that might be a problem for them. This is true on many topics though. Users will exist who are unaffected and can therefore take a neutral view and act or not act as their conscience suggests, to discuss the matter or to benefit the project (within US law).

    Leaked material itself is like any primary source - it can speak only for its own plain contents. Reliable sources are needed to confirm its legitimacy and secondary sources to discuss its significance and weight. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with a small caveat: the last point - that information distributed by Wikileaks puts no one at risk who was not already at risk - is somewhat unclear, since the information is now cheaper to obtain than it was before (infiltration and/or social engineering are unnecessary). But citing or distributing information that is already publically available does not significantly decrease the cost of obtaining it any further. One could make the argument that we facilitate the location of such information by malicious agents; but presumably any enemy incapable of using Google is not one that nations are concerned about. Dcoetzee 02:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Classified than Unclassified

[edit]

Perhaps this Harvard Univ. source could be useful to provide some context for making any decisions related to classified documents.

  • "as many as a trillion pages are classified (200 Libraries of Congress)."

Peter Louis Galison, a historian and Director[5] in the Science Dept. at Harvard University, published research [6] showing that the U.S. Government now produces more classified information than unclassified information and that; "In fact, the classified universe, as it is sometimes called, is certainly not smaller and very probably is much larger than the unclassified one.[7] page 1.and that:

  • "..about five times as many pages are being added to the classified universe than are being brought to the storehouses of human learning, including all the books and journals on any subject in any language collected in the largest repositories on the planet."[8] page 2

Peter Galison is the Mallinckrodt Professor of the History of Science and Physics at Harvard University. He was appointed a Guggenheim Fellow in 2009,His main work explores the interaction among the principal subcultures of physics: How Experiments End (1987), Image and Logic(1997), and Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare´’s Maps (2003). Several projects explore crosscurrents between science and other fields, including his coedited volumes.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galison's research,which I see as purely academic and objective, influenced my position. His words: "Bottom line? Whether one figures by acquisition rate, by holding size, or by contributors, the classified universe is, as best I can estimate, on the order of five to ten times larger than the open literature that finds its way to our libraries.The closed (classified) world is not a small strongbox in the corner of our collective house of codified and stored knowledge. It is we in the openworld—we who study the world lodged in our libraries, from aardvarks to zymurgy, we who are living in a modest information booth facing outwards, our unseeing backs to a vast and classified empire we barely know...In the end, however, the broadest problem is that, if pressed too hard and too deeply, secrecy...is a threat to democracy."

Therefore, being a lover of knowledge and democracy, my position is that in order to expand the limits of the general public's access to knowledge and in order to protect,preserve and create democracies, leaked classified documents should be used as sources and external links without discrimination as to their having been "classified" by someone. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NeonMerlin 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support this proposal. It is called accountability. If one does not wish to be held accountable for unethical action they should not perform said action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position

Position of ErrantX

[edit]

I have a number of views on this matter.

  • The issue of legality is one naturally brought up. As Wnt details above I am convinced it is not something we need to be concerned about. Even if it were, no one here is sufficiently qualified to make an absolute judgement on the matter; this is why the WMF exists. We can safely work under the assumption that anything "borderline" will be noticed, considered and commented on by the foundation - and that in lieu of such comments we can assume they have no qualms about our actions. Of course, if editors are still concerned it seems reasonable to explicitly raise it with the foundation.
  • The next issue is one of reliability. In this respect I would not class Wikileaks as a de facto reliable or unreliable source. It is certainly something to judge on a case by case basis. For example; sourcing an article (or a section) purely to a cable with no secondary sourcing is unacceptable. Similarly assuming that just because one of the news outlets has picked up the cables content does not mean it is definitely truth. We should take care to establish (to take some examples) cables that have been verified by secondary sources using some other medium, are reasonably likely to be true or which contain dubious information unable to be verified. We should treat each cable with the relative weight of their reliability, context, contents and verifiability. Where a cable is reasonably likely to contain accurate information and a secondary source has taken the same stance then I think we can safely make use of it as a reliable source.
  • WP:PRIMARY is being cited a lot as reason to preclude the use of these cables as a source. However there seems a critical misunderstanding over the use of primary sources (for example; Elonka claimed a number of times that primary sources may not be used). The truth is that reliable primary sources are 100% fine; they should, of course, be used for neutral factual information (i.e. nothing interpretive) and with care. Additionally; the primary source issue is one to discuss on a case by case basis.
  • From the ethical perspective; there is very little we can do to protect anyone damaged by these cables. Indeed, there is no clear evidence that such danger is present. I am going to guess here, but a huge amount of information is added to the wiki every day - some of that will be damaging in ways even good faith editors would ever imagine. There is no plausible way we can assess the uncertain damage any information can have. We have WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE policies to help keep obviously or overtly damaging information from the site; and those policies will similarly apply to any information in the cables. No extra measures seem needed.

As some final point, I think that:

  1. We should gently discourage use of these documents and their related media within articles due to the problems of WP:RECENTISM and undue weight. The media are picking very insignificant details from the documents and making meals out of them, we should exercise caution in the use of more trivial material, at the very least until some time has passed.
  2. Just because a secondary source has picked up a cable does not verify the content of the cable. And we should always bear that in mind when using them.

Hopefully that addresses most of the concerns :) --Errant (chat!) 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. Endorse Rd232 talk 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regarding WP:PRIMARY, I wish we could just kick that whole section out into an essay so people stop misusing it as policy. It is quite true that we cannot make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims that are not already present in the primary source (modulo the type of issues raised in WP:NOTOR, anyway). But the same is true of secondary and tertiary sources, the only difference is that a secondary or tertiary source is more likely to already contain useful analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. And the issue is further muddied by the fact that the same source can be considered 'secondary' for a statement "X is true" and 'primary' for a statement "source says X is true". Anomie⚔ 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly second this comment. I feel that primary sources have been widely persecuted, not just in this case. I think that it is common and appropriate to consult Wikipedia as a search engine, in which your goal is not to read a well-written article but merely to dive through it directly to the original source for a news story or experiment. Such abuse of WP:PRIMARY greatly hinders this use. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ErrantX has expressed my opinion very clearly, & I commend her/him for it. Leaked classified (or other secret government) documents should be treated no differently from other primary sources -- unless the Foundation has ordered us not to use it. About the only policy ErrantX didn't allude to -- & should be included only for completeness' sake -- is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Just because I (for example) have a leaked government document which no one else has reasonable access to, does not give me special rights to use it as a source. Even if I'm willing to share copies to one & all. -- llywrch (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I lean to this position. If it looks like other organizations are getting in trouble because of this sort of thing (other than Wikileaks, and anyone else who initially publishes classified documents), then we need to ask for a ruling from the WMF. Until that point, this position seems to be the way to go. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per my comments below --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I generally agree with this position, with the caveat that "Recentism" is often alleged where it is absent and ignored when it is present. Proper bias against "recentism" means that you don't update a 2006 world map of fatalities from a disease with data from news stories about five countries in 2010 - you want one snapshot from one single moment in time, even if it is older. Improper bias against "recentism" occurs when people start claiming that you shouldn't document world news headlines when they happen, even though that is the time when you can get the most detailed information the most easily. In general, news reports don't get any smarter more than a day or two after something makes headlines, and in practice, it is far easier to sit on an online news search sorted by date and add new references as they appear than to deal with the mishmash you get once you're doing a web or archive search. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ThemFromSpace 05:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enric Naval (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ozob (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --NYKevin @321, i.e. 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. More or less -- Ned Scott 08:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position

@Anomie; absolutely agree, indeed you hit the nail squarely on the head :) particularly with the last sentence. --Errant (chat!) 19:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If a good secondary source has published a cable, it does verify the text of the cable to the same extent as any other document it publishes. (that, it, that is is authentic--not that what is asserted in it is true) DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Generally agree, with Wnt's caveat regarding "recentism". cmadler (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Ohconfucius

[edit]

There has been much interesting and juicy stuff hitting the headlines, but most of the cache of unreleased material may never see the light of day, as it's just plain uninteresting/un-newsworthy. That does not imply that all that has been released is notable or has a place in WP.

I would add firstly that the information, like the proverbial genie, cannot be stuffed back into the bottle; multiple RS have published on different cables, so I have no problem with copyright. Secondly, I consider that ethical issues are not relevant to us here, for it is WL that released, and one media station per country has done the spreading. Thirdly, as to authenticity, I am happy to say 'The Guardian reports the cable saying [the Sizewell B nuclear power plant] is considered a terrorist target'. Proper attribution is the key here.

Our remit is to write about what's already out there, without doing so in a 'newsy' manner, provided each element is notable, in a manner which reflects each item's relative importance. The leaked information must almost certainly not be collected in an anally-retentive manner, dumped wholescale on Wikipedia. I see particularly Silver seren scouring articles in all languages ostensibly to source minor points about threats to 'Manganese' or 'Magellan Straits'; there is still a real problem with the lack of more than one source in many such cases on that laundry list. I feel strongly that WP should not be used as a dumping ground for the untold thousands of documents released (and to be released) by WikiLeaks, or indeed any other party. That which is included should also conform to WP:SUMMARY - for example, instead of listing each mine/mineral being a potential target in a given country, we should properly summarise (probably in prose) that '[bauxite, manganese, and uranium] mining facilities are listed in the cables as being potential threats' --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Secondary sources, not primary sources, establish due weight. --JN466 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position
There's a general fallacy that has cropped up here: "dumping ground for the untold thousands of documents..." I didn't start a thousand articles, but one (maybe two if you count my Thyrosafe stub, though I think the cable there is more incidental - I just wanted to jot down a few notes about what it was). The primary filter Wikipedia uses to keep out boring or overwhelming coverage is that an editor has to care about a topic enough to start an article. By analogy consider that Commons is sitting on 250,000 geographic distributions for the IUCN Red List, which they have been desperately trying to get someone to care enough about to draw up new maps with notes on the front page. In theory someone could start 250,000 Wikipedia articles about the geographic distributions of species (and nothing else about them). But in practice it doesn't happen. It's not a reason to ban people from having an IUCN map in an article about an endangered species. Wnt (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your creation of the Thyrosafe stub is a great example of the problematic editing at work here. You created this stub because it was mentioned in a WikiLeaks cable. However, none of the sources you've added to the stub demonstrate notability, and out of the six citations you added, only one is reliable, and that happens to be a link to the manufacturer web site, which is a primary source; This is not how we create articles. You know this, and you've been here since December 2007, which is long enough to know how things work. So tell me, why do you keep creating articles based on primary sources that lack notability? Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should choose your examples better. Thyrosafe is referenced in multiple books, so it is definitely notable per WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 02:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should learn how to write articles using reliable sources. Giving me a link to Google books does not solve the problem. Again, we see Wnt creating articles based on WikiLeaks cables and citing primary and unreliable sources to justify article creation. The user has been on Wikipedia since 2007, so this kind of poor editing can't be justified. The article is still not supported by RS. As I said previously on AN/I, users like Wnt are gaming the sourcing policies to create new articles based solely on WikiLeaks cables. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda in agreement here; although without the vitriol of Viriditas. A little searching shows that the drug is unlikely to be individually notable - at least in reliable secondary sources. This is the sort of "creep" to take care of; stuff identified in the cables may be notable, but we should take care to make sure they really are. In this case I cleaned the article up a bit but it may need to be merged somewhere. --Errant (chat!) 09:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Thyrosafe is quite notable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, we judge notability by the sources, not by what we think. Which reliable secondary sources about the subject justify the creation of an encyclopedic article about Thyrosafe? That's what we need before we create articles on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not really the place, but given wnt's reluctance over this article I feel happy to redirect it to the "mother" article with a short line added to it. I tried for a decent time to find sources to establish some form of notability but I simply couldn't manage it :) --Errant (chat!) 21:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the redirection but I'm not going to spend more time fighting over it. Fortunately proprietary services such as Google don't spend their time deleting details, so one hopes that people will be able to get to the bottom of the matter by turning to copyrighted sources, at least for a time. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Silver seren restored the article,[9] so you don't have to worry about "fighting over it". Also note that the secondary sources she added are about anti-radiation pills in general, with passing mention of Thyrosafe. It's obvious now that the reason all of these non-notable articles like Thyrosafe are being created is to justify keeping the article on Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. This pretty much confirms my original concerns that I voiced on the AN/I: there appears to be a coordinated effort to create articles based solely on the WikiLeaks cables, regardless of whether they are notable or not. The pattern is very clear. Whenever an editor steps forward to discuss this, they are immediately accused of "censorship" and their edits are reverted by a member of the group in a highly coordinated manner. We've seen this kind of editing before on many different topics, and this always ends up on arbcom. See you there. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not created any new articles, and I am sure you likely have an argument in terms of notability, but I do not assume that there are any secondary reasons for any article creations. There is, apparantly, now more classified information being produced in the world than unclassified, so I think its important to create new articles whenever we can justify it, simply to expand the body of knowledge available to our Readers (the public,voters,masses) and the release of these cables provides a big stream to sift for little bits of gold. I doubt as many as 1 out of 1000 of the cables will result in an article, but that's still 1 more available to our Readers; which is a good thing I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are preaching to the choir. My contribution history shows my interest in openness and transparency, and I am highly supportive of the kind of "scientific journalism" espoused by Assange. However, Wikipedia policies and guidelines on article creation and maintenance are being challenged, and there is good evidence of a coordinated but leaderless resistance advocacy campaign in progress. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thanks for the heads-up. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View of Rd232

[edit]

Agreeing with ErrantX, I'd add that (i) because of the way the cables have been published, with involvement of major newspapers, we can accept that the published cables accurately represent the documents produced by and for the US government; so they are acceptable primary sources. (ii) but it remains the case that they are documents produced by and for the US government in a particular context of diplomatic communication, and are not reliable for statements of fact; they are essentially statements of opinion. So we can certainly use them as appropriate to say "cable says X" (Source: cable as published by Wikileaks), and especially "it was reported that cable says X" (Source: newspapers; cable as published by Wikileaks), but not "X" (Source: cable as published by Wikileaks). Rd232 talk 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. SilverserenC 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Sock indented. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Cs32en Talk to me  23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Cyclopiatalk 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree, altough noting that secondary sources can make further interpretations of the content of the cables, and check them against other information. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse with common sense exceptions to the assumption that all cables must be represented as a point of view. Some details, even controversial ones, may need not be differentiated from authoritative fact and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.   — C M B J   01:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ozob (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Short and to the point. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 07:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. MirlenTalk 15:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agreed, with the same view as CMBJ. Slon02 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Agreed with CMBJ's modifier. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes certainly must be used in appropriate manner. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position
  • I completely agree with this. This is how sources should be used across all of Wikipedia in terms of information or articles that are based on a statement of opinion. That doesn't mean we should not be using such sources, it just means that we have to make sure they are being used correctly. SilverserenC 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that the cables are necessarily statements of opinion - specifically, the CFDI list is not an opinion, but a copy of a list defined by the government. The Wikileaks cable, once declared authentic by secondary sources, states as a matter of fact, not opinion, that features are on the list. This is clearly even more important with other types of classified information - for example, if an experiment measuring properties of nuclear isotopes were leaked. Wnt (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premise is obviously false, I think . The important stuff, and there are lots of it, are not opinion at all, e.g. "The US and Nato have drawn up plans to defend Nato's Baltic members against Russia, latest US diplomatic cables disclosed by Wikileaks show."[10] Its real important not to "otherize",generalize or slap a collective label on the information because of its WikiLeaks connection. I agree there is a lot of opinion within the dump, and that should be treated as Rd232 suggests. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, perhaps I erred on the side of brevity and/or haste. What I meant was (what I listed as point ii above) that the cables largely represent US diplomats' views of Facts Out There in the local country (what I meant by "fact" above), and are therefore opinionated secondary sources for those facts, whilst being primary sources for what US diplomats wanted to tell Washington. However, in some cases (point i above), where they're discussing US diplomatic issues, they're more straightforwardly primary sources on what US diplomats have been up to. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm contradicting myself, because I'm not. Rd232 talk 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rd232 points out one of the problems with working from collections of official records, even ones intended to be kept secret: there is an awful lot of chaff amongst the wheat, & in many cases it takes an expert to identify just which is which. For example, working through the reports of the Soviet embassy in Ethiopia (which are available online), I gave up after a while because most of them are either notes along the lines of "we had a meeting with X, & expressed our views on this matter" type; in other cases, I have found official records to be little more than a garbled retelling of rumors the official has heard. On the other hand, an expert may identify significant phrases or names of individuals in otherwise unremarkable -- if not boring -- documents which make them highly important. In summary, whenever one is faced with the need to plumb through the dark woods of published official documents, find yourself a Virgil in a secondary source to help you to reach the golden gates of a happy destination. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View of Resident Anthropologist

[edit]
[edit]

It seem to me there is pretty simple solution, The cables really only need to be have external linked on the pages, United States diplomatic cables leak and Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, Afghan War Diaries, and the Iraq War documents leak, or any simliar such pages about the leaks in accordance WP:ELOFFICIAL. Having them on any other pages would likely violate run risks of violating WP:ELPOV and WP:ELBLP. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this position
Discussion of this position
I can agree with this position. Though I do feel that it is almost a necessity to have them be external links, in order to benefit our readers and direct them to that which the article is based on. SilverserenC 19:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have a problem with them be external linked but odds are it is not appropriate Afghan War Diaries needs a links to the Wikileaks site to be complete. General Petraeus though he has lead the war in Afganistan does not need to have it in his BLP. War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article should be decided based its merits at that article. I dont want to lay out broad new rules especially for these document. I think our existing guide lines our fine to guide us here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that, in the articles about the specific leaks, it is a necessity to have an external link to the original source of those links (e.g. to the Wikileaks page for them). We already do this anyways for both the Afghan War Diaries and the Iraq War Documents. I just would like for it to be stated that it is something that should be done anyways. SilverserenC 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great it seems we agree, I should have made that more explicitly stated. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Silver seren must have misunderstood this position, since as I read it it would remove any link to Wikileaks (even external) from the CFDI article. It is also important to clarify here whether this position would apply only to Wikileaked diplomatic cables or to any classified information leaked by any source. For example, the Pentagon Papers would only occur as an external leak in that article, but would not be acceptable in an article about the Vietnam War? Wnt (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am focusing on Wikileaks Documents for our purposes. Most leaks are given to media outlets who then Report on the contents. It is quite different when we have 250,00 raw documents. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how every one of the thousands of these documents can be assumed to be inherently in contradiction to WP:ELPOV. The only thing thats common among all of these documents is how they were released to the public. There is no single underlying point of view to them as a collective whole. That being said, individual documents may present extreme points of view which may not be acceptable as an external link. Of course BLP matter should be taken into consideration if and when they appear but again we can't assume that all of the cases where we may link to the documents will include BLP violations. On both the POV and BLP issues I think the matter should be decided on a case-by-case basis. ThemFromSpace 05:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, give me a day I'll revise to clarify. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As sources

[edit]

We should not use the the documents as sources due to the high risks of misuse accordance with primary sources rule. As much media coverage as there has been and continues to be. We should have no shortage of secondary sources to cover the contents of the documents. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC

Edit

We should not use the the documents by themselves as sources due to the high risks of misuse accordance with primary sources rule. As much media coverage as there has been and continues to be. We should have no shortage of secondary sources to cover the contents of the though the Cables. A Document may be used to supplement an secondary source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
Discussion of this position
I can also agree with this. There is more than enough secondary coverage at this point that the primary sources do not need to be used as references, just as ELs. SilverserenC 19:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I disagree. There are many aspects, and a WP editor might wish to refer to a primary source for reasons other than those of the media. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having having observed ClimateGate here on Wikipedia, I fail to see how many document have more potential for POV pusing and BLP violations. the NYT and Foreign Policy magazine both have WP:NEWSBLOGS devoted to Wikileaks dump publishing article based on the document several times a day. I am sure they are scrutinizing each document released well enough we dont have to have editors picking out choice quotes about their least favorite BLP. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this. The "primary sources rule" urges caution about interpreting primary sources on one's own. But they are still reliable sources. Coming from a scientific background, I always want to look at the actual data for myself. I know I'm not permitted to put my own interpretations of the data into the article, but I feel that the article should invite the next person who reads it to look at it and draw his own conclusions. The general spirit of the Documents section of "The Smoking Gun" applies. You can't really understand what's going on until you've seen the hard facts for yourself. Wnt (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not comfortable with blanket forbidding the citing of any cable. We don't do this with other types of primary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised my statement to Clarify it. I think it will be more agreeable The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Silver seren

[edit]

I am setting aside the classified issue, because it is my opinion that classified information once published is considered to be public access. Wikileaks can get in trouble for publishing it, possibly, but we cannot since we are essentially a tertiary source for the information. The government would have to sue all of the newspapers, magazines, and journals that also copied over and published the information (the sources that we use in our articles) before we could be prosecuted. Of course, that is under the assumption that they are even allowed to prosecute for such as the dissemination of the info, which they are not, per the Supreme Court decision of New York Times Co. v. United States.

Now, as for their use as references or EL's, I feel that it is more proper to use them as EL's than as references, just because the use of primary sources as references is often deprecated. However, I also feel that it is 100% necessary to include the cables as EL's. This benefits our readers by allowing them to view the original source for our information and it is also the standard procedure for primary sources across Wikipedia. Thus, the cables should be used in an External Links section and we should rely upon the copious amounts of secondary sources for the actual writing of the article, as we would for any other article. SilverserenC 19:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Sock indented. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position
  • I think that this is an unwise concession, which might seem tolerable in the case of the CFDI but which generally would be unworkable. Remember, this is an RfC about classified documents in general, not the CFDI article or even Wikileaks. If you are writing an article that needs to cite multiple classified sources (for example, an article about a battle in Afghanistan that needs to cite multiple Afghan War Diaries reports) you will want to be able to link to them inline. (I understand that Afghan War Diaries reports generally are self-published primary sources, not as reliable as the diplomatic cables, but properly integrated with secondary source discussion they should be quite valuable in documenting a battle.) Wnt (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that "the use of primary sources as references is often deprecated" is simply false; we cite primary and secondary sources, each regarding facts for which they are considered to be reliable. For example, citing both a Wikileaks cable and a corroborating local news story in Zimbabwe would present stronger support than either reference on its own. We should however be wary of citing secondary sources whose only sources are, in turn, the primary sources we're already citing, as these don't add much. Dcoetzee 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by Fetchcomms

[edit]

There are two parts to this: whether they are primary sources and should be used as references all over the place, and whether it is actually legal or acceptable to link to the information.

  • Remember WP:PRIMARY. We shouldn't citing the leaked documents themselves en masse but we can add them as external links where relevant.
  • Unless the WMF legal team recommends against linking to these documents, there should be no real issue other than cite them or only externally link them.
  • For cables that the NYT/other news sites/etc. have published and/or discussed, I see no reason to prevent linking and/or citing the relevant NYT/news site pages.

Personally, I don't understand the huge fuss—if the WMF thinks it's legal to link to it, then WP:NOTCENSORED means we should have the possibility of linking to them, WP:PRIMARY means we shouldn't cite them as sources too much, and WP:EL means we may use them as external links when appropriate.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Sock indented. T. Canens (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Cyclopiatalk 00:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongly endorsing your second point about our legal counsel. I don't think the community should be discussing the legal ramifications of this until our lawyers tell us there's a problem with linking to leaked documents. ThemFromSpace 05:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rd232 talk 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cerebellum (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. PleaseStand (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --JN466 02:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. nn123645 (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ozob (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cenarium (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Slon02 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Existing policies, as cited here, are clear enough. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position

Agree. This issue is already completely covered by WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:EL. There is nothing new to discuss here. If the Supreme Court suddenly decides to overturn New York Times Co. v. United States then we'll have something to talk about. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View of the Four Deuces

[edit]

I see them as unreliable primary sources. We have no way of knowing that they are genuine and must rely on secondary sources to determine their veracity. If no reliable secondary sources mention a document then it lacks notability. I do not however see any ethical problems with them, since they are in the public domain, especially if we only report what has been picked up by news media. TFD (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
Discussion of this position
Just because classified documents are leaked, does not mean that they are in the public domain. Classified documents are still classified documents. Permission has not been given for their public display.[11] --Elonka 03:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I understand it this is actually true, but misleading for most of us. As agreed above, third parties have the right to ignore classification under the First Amendment. Where it gets goofy and confusing is whether government security clearance holders are supposed to respect the broken secret, and whether that applies when reading or when republishing them. My snap reaction is that it's just not my problem, and that even the government will have to learn some common sense in this situation. Wnt (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that "just because classified documents are leaked, does not mean that they are in the public domain". The majority if not all are public domain because they were "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" (USC 17 §105 and §101). While it is possible that some may contain fair-use material, or copyrights by assignment, bequest, or otherwise, or even copyright violations, that is unlikely to be a general rule. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In copyright terminology, we can't know if documents with unconfirmed sources are in the "public domain". A document which seems to be a memo written by a government official might be a forgery, in which case it is actually a copyright protected document with the copyright being held by the unknown forger who created it. Although we might refer to the document, we can't use the content in the same ways which we can use material which truly has a "public domain" ownership status. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't be sure that any government document doesn't include copyright violations. Also, as a matter of routine practice, we do not make absolutely sure that government documents uploaded to Commons are really from the government (though some people might check a web link). Nor do we do a forensic study to make sure that people who upload "self-produced" figures and diagrams and photos didn't actually steal them from the Web somewhere - though of course we do take action when we find out. But in this instance, of course, we're not talking about copying whole documents to Wikipedia, but merely using them as references, or in a few cases taking an important section and using it in a way that would be Fair Use if it were copyrighted. We did not delete our article on The Matrix when someone filed a lawsuit against the movie makers for copyright infringement - any objection here would be on the same level. Wnt (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggestion that the U.S. Diplomatic cables themselves, sourced and referenced directly from the WikiLeaks website (and mirrors thereof), are "unreliable primary sources" whose credentials must be established by secondary sources, is absurd. The secondary sources are necessarily useful for providing interpretations of the cables, but they are in no way superior to the WikiLeaks-sourced cables themselves for the purpose of "determin[ing] their veracity" as the WikiLeaks cables. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 07:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leaked cables are reliable primary sources about themselves. Nothing more, nothing less. No secondary sources are going to determine whether they are genuine. What each cable, if genuine, expresses, is the opinion of its author. No secondary sources are going to determine its veracity. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While most of the cables are not doubt genuine, we have no way of knowing that all of them are. Whoever leaked them may have altered some of them, or someone at Wikileaks may have done so. We have no way of knowing. Consider this article from the BBC:

Wikileaks: Pakistan hoaxed by bogus anti-India cables
Pakistani newspapers have admitted they were hoaxed after publishing reports based on fake Wikileaks cables containing anti-Indian propaganda. (BBC, 10 December, 2010)[12]

TFD (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, note that the "fake Wikileaks cables" in that article are cables falsely claimed to be Wikileaks cables, not genuine Wikileaks cables that turned out to be fake. Anomie⚔ 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anomie is absolutely right. It seems that TFD has put the cart before the horse, by a huge margin. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 20:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we still have no way of knowing that all of the (real) Wikileaks cables are genuine. That news article just doesn't serve to show that any aren't, although it does show that some aren't above creating fake cables and falsely claiming they are from Wikileaks. Anomie⚔ 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is another good reason for including references directly to WikiLeaks for verification purposes. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Uncensored Kiwi. We also have no way to know if any given new scientific article contains genuine results or is the result of a fabrication: yet we usually assume they're meaningful unless proven the contrary. The default position of both news organizations and governments is that cables are indeed genuine unless differently declared. --Cyclopiatalk 02:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may already be possible to make a determination about whether WikiLeaks has a reputation for reliably presenting the content of the material, as secondary sources have commented on that issue. The fact that, to my knowledge, nobody has questioned the authenticity of any cable published by WikiLeaks can be seen as an indication that WikiLeaks is reliable in that regard. But it would be best to base that assessment on independent, third party, sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View of Count Iblis

[edit]

I agree with Wnt, but we need to think about adding a disclamer on top of these articles because of the warnings given by The White House Office of Management and Budget to federal employees: "The White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo Friday afternoon forbidding unauthorized federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites using computers or devices like BlackBerrys and smart phones."

A disclamer would then allow such employees to safely browse Wikipedia and read information about the leaks. Count Iblis (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disclaimer would be accomodation. However, the documents are now in the public domain anyways, and also available from any link to wikileaks (documents or not), so theres no real issue ont he use thereof.(Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
The documents are not in the public domain. Classified documents are still classified.[13] It appears to be a common misconception that any work by the United States government is public domain, but this is not true. "Publicly available" does not mean "public domain". Or think of it this way: If someone scans a photo out of a book, and then publishes it on their website, the photo may be "publicly available", but that does not mean that the photo is in the public domain. --Elonka 02:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, a strawman! The claims that the documents are public domain rely on the rather clear wording of USC Title 17 § 105 and § 101, not some vague claim that "publicly available" equals "public domain". But you should be well aware of that by now, so why continue to spread misinformation? Anomie⚔ 04:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in either of those sections that says anything about classified documents going into the public domain if they happen to be leaked. Please use some common sense. Documents that are classified are intended to be secret and not for the public view. Just because someone stole classified documents, does not suddenly mean that the documents are in the public domain and free to distribute. Classified information is still classified information, leaked or not. There are laws against the disclosure of classified information.[14] --Elonka 04:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also nothing to say that classified documents are exempt from § 105. USC Title 18 § 798 has nothing to do with copyright, something could easily be public domain but illegal to distribute for other reasons. Anomie⚔ 14:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would probably be contrary to WP:NDA. Anomie⚔ 04:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the US is it, now that its been released. What is holding it back outside the usa? if it wasnt then there would already have been plenty of ground fortreason to charg on Assange from a multitude of countries where it isnt so.Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what treason means. If Assange were an American who had released classified information, he might be charged with treason, but he is not American, he is Australian. He could, however, be charged with espionage, or possibly terrorism. For more information, see Julian Assange#Espionage investigation in the United States. As for the individual who first leaked the current batch of documents, Bradley Manning, he has already been arrested, and is facing a court-martial. --Elonka 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Assanje could not be charged regardless. He is the head of an organization that is, essentially, the same as a news organization. Thus, under the ruling of New York Times Co. v. United States, he and the organization of Wikileaks is protected. Yes, Bradley Manning is court-martialed and likely rightfully so, but once he gave the information to an external news-like source, it is no longer held under treason laws, per previously stated Supreme Court decision. SilverserenC 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Silver Seren, but I don't think you know what you are talking about here. For example, Manning is not court-martialed. He is facing a court-martial, which is a different thing. As for whether or not Assange can be charged, there is a rather large debate going on about this right now, so it is not helpful for you to state as a fact that he cannot be charged, when secondary sources are stating otherwise.[15] --Elonka 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source is about the rape charges. What exactly does that have to do with this? Yes, there is a statement in there from a US spokesperson saying that they are looking into using the Espionage Act, but looking into is so vague as to be relatively meaningless. SilverserenC 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source directly contradicts your statement that "Assange could not be charged". Just because he hasn't been charged yet, does not mean that he cannot be charged, and as is clear from the source, there are active efforts underway for him to be charged. So it is not correct for you to say that Assange cannot be charged, when sources state otherwise. Please stop repeating false statements. --Elonka 21:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, legally, he cannot be charged. The section you linked to above, link repeated again here, is quite revealing. It says that the government is exploring the possibility, but then it has Biden saying "If he conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the US military that is fundamentally different than if someone drops on your lap … you are a press person, here is classified material." Well, it is quite clear that Assanje did not conspire with Bradley Manning for this information, so Assanje fits under the latter description. The rest of that section is just opinions from commentators and other people, but nothing about legality.
Furthermore, as I have been saying time and again, the Espionage Act of 1917 was made null toward news organizations, which Wikileaks quite easily fits under, by the Supreme Court decision of New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971. These "active efforts" that you are speaking of are singular statements by government officials, when there is no evidence of anything actively being undertaken at this time. The belief that he can be charged and that he will be charged is mere speculation at this point. SilverserenC 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is not clear at all whether Assange has conspired with Manning, or that WikiLeaks qualifies as a news or even a media entity. I believe I've even read somewhere (can't remember where exactly) that the Justice Department was considering whether or not WikiLeaks qualifies as an espionage or terrorist organization. But to your last sentance, your confidence in your own position undermines this statement. In any case, this particular discussion meanders out of the scope of the RfC and the implications for Wikipedia. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:' Treason -- uh, do any of you (not including Bahamut0013: I can't respond to this thread without posting here as if responding to you) know what means under US law? Besides the fact that for Assange to have committed treason, he'd have to be a citizen of the US? It is the only crime defined in the US Constitution -- "shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (Article 3, section 2) -- & I don't think anything he has done falls under that definition. Let's try to make our language more precise here. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can refactor the threading a bit to make it more clear, if you like. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View of bahamut0013

[edit]

First off, I must immediately declare my bias: I am a United States Marine, with a valid security clearance (that I would naturally like to maintain, as I am subject to Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice). My position is that these documents should not be referenced, linked to, or quoted except in a few very stringent exceptions. I am heavily influenced to the recent diplomatic cables leak, but my position is on all classified materials, regardless of origin, content, or method of exposure.

Foremost, though courts have consistently upheld the freedom of press and free speech as overriding prosecution of previously published classified documents, we should consider the word and spirit of Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 798 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §§ 37–798). While it is unlikely that WMF or any reader would be prosecuted for the security violation or espionage, we have an obligation to handle these carefully when we come into contact with them. The intent is the protection of the national security of the United States; while I am well aware that the population of editors and readers are not all U.S. citizens, and not all have the security of the nation as a priority, I would expect a level of respect for our laws and needs. Indeed, many of the physical assets and Foundation's legal status exist under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, so it is a primary concern even for editors who have never set foot on U.S. soil. While legal precedent might shield us from liability (indeed, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment), we have to consider the moral obligations of the law.

Simply put, the release of these documents did hinder the interests of the United States, her government, and her citizens. Some of you may have read the recent TIME article that asserts otherwise, but we are not in the position to make that judgement with any level of competence or authority. I'd wager that very few editors have the proper clearances to view this material, and those that do understand that the methods of release do not authorize them (or anyone) to actually view these documents. The cat may be out of the bag, but classified material is classified material, regardless of whether it has been compromised or not. Simply because we can reference these documents does not go towards whether or not we should. These state secrets may seem benign, but there are consequences that are unfathomable, as none of us are omnipotent. Sources may have been compromised, which could end lives directly or indirectly, intelligence operations may have been compromised, and the plans of the government that should not have seen light for many years are now in the open. For example, the very day that the first cables were posted to WikiLeaks saw the North Koreans scrambling into a diplomatic panic with China, and the relationships between Iran and her Arab neighbors grew strained. Another example of unexpected fallout would be the Plame affair, where one journalist's lack of discretion blew up into a large scandal. When we can't possibly understand all of the subtle implications, do we want to be involved in propagating them?

To those who cite that this leak will fight the over-use of classification, I ask them to consider two points. One, that the public at large should never have been in the position to make this judgement, nor is it qualified to. On the second point to consider is WP:POINT. How can we have an internal policy and not respect it in a broader sense? If we can't GAME Wikipedia itself, why should we justify gaming the government? Wikipedia is here to make an encyclopedia, not to make political change in the issue of classified materials and censorship in the United States.

Lastly, consider the sources themselves. Not many of them are actually of encyclopedic value. They are all primary sources, unverifiable at best, and possibly outright false at worst. Wikilieaks may have been able to verify that the documents are authentic diplomatic cables, but that is it; neither they nor WMF can verify that the contents are true, unbiased, and not part of a disinformation act. Most of what the State Department has generated cannot be used in an encyclopedic manner. The only exception to my thoughs on referencing these documents is when the classified material itself is the subject of the article, such as the Pentagon Papers. Even in that case, we must be judicious in how the material is used; I believe that a simple link to a third-party publisher will work for an external link, and the affiliated media reaction can be used for references on the content of the article. Quoting should be used sparingly in any article, and in this case, only for exceptional educational value, and carefully referenced with the original and some verified third party.

For those of you who want the tl;dr version: using classified materials is dangerous and usually doesn't further WMF's goals. The use of them as a reference is often counter-productive and fails WP:V. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. Well said, and I appreciate that this statement was written from the point of view of someone who works for the United States government and understands the ramifications of dealing with classified material. I would also re-emphasize one point, which is that distributing classified material is illegal in the United States, and since Wikipedia's servers are in Florida, Wikipedia must abide by U.S. law in this matter. --Elonka 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of this position

Hmm. I actually pretty strongly disagree with this position.

  • but we are not in the position to make that judgement with any level of competence or authority. - but you do seem to make this judgement? As a pointed out above; you would be shocked beyond measure of the effect of entirely innocuous material added to the wiki daily in the real world. We cannot make a judgement as to the impact of what we write or include - with the only caveat that if the material causes obvious harm we should err on the side of caution. However; we are not censored. Whilst you make a good point we already have policies to guide us in these matters and I see no reason to treat these documents differently.
  • One, that the public at large should never have been in the position to make this judgement, nor is it qualified to.; this section, I think, is irrelevant because the argument it is countering is a null one that we should avoid. Wikipedia only has one real aim; to record worldly knowledge. However on this issue in general; this is incredibly dangerous thinking, of course we are in a position to judge these things. And only by threatening the limitations of classification can we ensure that the government is doing what it is supposed to. However, this is an argument irrelevant to Wikipedia and these documents.
  • we have an obligation to handle these carefully when we come into contact with them; actually, no we don't. And we shouldn't ever feel anything beyond what our own personal moral obligations make us feel. It is the obligation of the US government to set their rules on classification, and then keep it that way. It is not our obligation to keep it for them.
  • I'd wager that very few editors have the proper clearances to view this material, and those that do understand that the methods of release do not authorize them (or anyone) to actually view these documents.; something of an argument from false authority. I am experienced in the classification, distribution and release procedures of a number of governments (US included) and at best this is legally complex. Once the Whistle is blown it is not an offence to read these documents. Why? Well the main reason (in most countries) is to do with "accidental disclosure". Rules around this were designed to avoid the situations where, if you end up reading something secret, some enterprising government agent doesn't come and stick a black bag over your head. The rules are quit explicit in disclosure; so if you are privy to a secret and pass it to someone without access to that secret then you break the law. Simply viewing and receiving classified material without intent is entirely legal. In the US I'm pretty sure it comes under first amendment rights. Now, where this becomes problematic is not in people viewing this, but in us handing them the links. It will go to court I am sure, and I won't bet on the outcome. However, as you mentioned above, it is not for us to judge. And if legal ramifications exist then the WMF will be able to provide expert advice and tell us what to do. Until they do, let's not second guess legal issues.

All in all, while I see your viewpoint, I do not think it is overly relevant. We should treat these as traditional primary sources and allow proper legal counsel to guide and advise us if there are legal problems with the links. --Errant (chat!) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the following to ErrantX's well-expressed objections to bahamut0013's statement:

  • First, I'd appreciate a link to the TIME article you mention. Not because I doubt you, bahamut0013, but since you base your argument in part on it it would be nice to read the article for myself. (I'm not a subscriber to TIME, & would prefer not to find & sift thru the last several issues.)
  • Your legal arguments really aren't germane here. To repeat ErrantX above, if there is a significant legal problem here, the Foundation will let us know.
  • Any damage to US foreign interests have already been done by the release of these documents. I expect everyone who stands to benefit from their publication -- both friendly & hostile to the US -- have been going thru them with a fine-toothed comb, & have learned far more than anything they could get from a Wikipedia article.
  • While I disagree with you over the sources being "actually of encyclopedic value", I do agree with you that many of the topics discussed in the WikiLeaks documents are not encyclopedic. But we have mechanisms to deal with that issue, & the sooner we can dismiss the concern over classified documents, the sooner we can filter out these unencyclopedic articles.
  • One area where I foresee these sources being invaluable will be down the road from now, when all of the hullabaloo over this affair has died down & the news media have turned to the next big political or celebrity scandal. That is helping to add details to the biographies of foreign politicians & other notables for whom there is otherwise little material to be found. A major block in writing articles on second-tier (& lower) officials in many non-Western countries is that there exists so little available information about them -- not even a resume or curriculae vitae -- & I doubt anyone will be writing their biographies in English soon. If ever. (Which I find odd, since politicians almost uniformly are quite eager to publicize themselves.) These documents will be a significant help in filling that gap. -- llywrch (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Llywrch, I agree with much of what you say, but I have concerns about the statement regarding the WMF. I have seen other people say this too, effectively, "If it's illegal, the WMF will tell us, otherwise we should assume it's legal." I don't think this is a wise, or even correct, course of action. If something is obviously illegal, we don't need to wait for the WMF to confirm its illegality, we should be able, as a community, to use some common sense and follow the laws on our own. --Elonka 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, many users here clearly believe that the information is not illegal, which is more what I think Llywrch is saying. We believe this information to be legal to use and if the WMF disagrees with us, they will let us know. SilverserenC 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If something is obviously illegal, we don't need to wait for the WMF to confirm its illegality, we should be able, as a community, to use some common sense and follow the laws on our own.; just to clarify, it is not illegal to link to this material. I cannot be any more unequivocal than that. If the WMF has specific concerns or decide there will be future risk/damage they will tell us. If you are concerned, ask them directly for advice. --Errant (chat!) 19:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per WP:ELNO, item #3, we are not to link to information which is illegal to access in the State of Florida. Disclosure of classified information is illegal, as Bradley Manning well knows, since he is currently under arrest and facing a possible 52 years in prison. --Elonka 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The disclosure of classified information is illegal, yes, which is why Bradley Manning is being court-martialed. But it is not illegal to view these documents after the fact. You and I, if we were in the State of Florida even, could not be arrested for viewing these documents. It is not illegal to do so, so it doesn't fall under WP:ELNO. SilverserenC 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are stating things as fact, which are not correct. In reality, it is illegal to be in possession of unauthorized classified information. People are routinely detained, computers confiscated and wiped or destroyed in regards to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. In this particular case, the leak is so huge, that the government cannot take action against everyone at once, so there is an ongoing debate about how things should be handled. But just because the government is refraining from acting in this one particular case, does not mean that it is legal to view leaked classified information. Universities and government agencies are warning their students and employees to refrain from viewing the Wikileaks documents, because it could interfere with their employment status. To repeat: Classified information that has been leaked, is still classified. It is illegal in the United States to distribute it. As for how Wikipedia should deal with this, I think it is reasonable for us to write articles based on what reliable secondary sources are saying about the leaks. But we should not link to the classified primary sources themselves, and we should not be using Wikipedia or Wikisource or any WMF project to try and reproduce verbatim the classified contents of these documents. --Elonka 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • [citation needed] And if it is really illegal to publish this leaked information, why the SHIELD Act? Anomie⚔ 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thank you, Anomie. The attempt to push through the SHIELD Act clearly shows that what Wikileaks has done is not illegal at this moment, which means it is neither illegal for other news organizations or Wikipedia to use the sources. Furthermore, if by some miracle this Act actually passes, ex post facto laws would still apply, which means Wikileaks could not be charged for the documents they have previously released. SilverserenC 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Elonka, whilst I am of the belief we are all "non-experts" here, in this case I am very definitely able to give you he correct legal answer; and that answer is it is not illegal to hold this material, only to actually leak or disclose it. This is enshrined in law. I don't like to play cards like this, but you are demonstrating the danger of misinformation. If an in depth examination by WMF decides it is too dangerous or has legal rammifications then fine, till then this is not "clearly illegal" in the way you have been misinformed --Errant (chat!) 21:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I really don't think this is an accurate application of WP:ELNO point 3 which prohibits against linking to material which is "illegal to access". ELNO point 3 deals with viewing published material, not initially obtaining it. What it prevents is linking to websites that are illegal to visit, such as child pornography which is illegal to even have on one's computer monitor. These leaked documents were indeed "illegal to access", but only insofar as it was illegal to initially obtain them. How they were obtained has nothing to do with ELNO point 3, which only deals with whether the documents are illegal to view. ThemFromSpace 22:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the position that this information should have been kept secret. I think that when soldiers or diplomats report the names of confidential informants who could be put in personal danger as the result of a disclosure, that this sort of detail should go straight to a piece of paper kept in a safe in the embassy, and not broadcast on a secret network accessible to 500,000 people. But Wikipedia has nothing to do with the original leaker, or even the decision by Wikileaks and other journalists to report the leaked information.
  • Where I disagree is that I don't think Wikipedia or anyone else needs to weigh the benefits and risks of making public information available to the common people. We have been through all this when we made the decision to allow articles about things like acetone peroxide. There is a fundamental difference between saying that it is wrong to break a confidence and saying that it is wrong for people who have made no promises to come together and share their knowledge. This is not "gaming the system" — it is the central essence of having an open society. You don't apply to the government to be admitted to the Chemist Caste before you are allowed to learn about explosives, and you shouldn't have to apply to be given a national security clearance before you're allowed to learn about leaked classified documents. People have the right to free speech and a free press and they come together and talk and write and make free encyclopedias. And that's why the courts ruled as they did to preserve this right.
  • Now will this lead to bad things? Almost assuredly. But there is an element of faith here, faith not just in the secular sense but in a genuinely religious sense, that "the truth will make you free". It is connected to a sense of democratic humility, in choosing not to judge other people. The faith involved is that freedom of the press is a good tree, that will bear good fruit — that even though some of the risks are easy to speculate and the rewards are hard to see, the rewards will still more than make up for the risks. I think that this is not so hard to see given a little imagination. With the CFDI list we see that, yes, there are some elements on which the U.S. depends economically, and no doubt some of the owners of the mines on the list have been emboldened by it to push for higher prices. But with increased public knowledge of the importance of these elements comes the possibility for people to invent new batteries and alloys that no longer depend on them. Then the U.S. will never again be at the mercy of the countries that produce them, and the people of those countries can be freed from wars and oppressive regimes prompted by the desires of international powers to gain control over the mines. Now that is true counterterrorism.
I have 2 thoughts regarding this View of bahamut0013; 1 practical and 1 political. Practical; had the Pentagon Papers been widely distributed earlier than 1971, some, maybe many American troops who died in Vietnam might still be alive because America's participation in that war may have ended sooner than it did. Political; "To those who cite that this leak will fight the over-use of classification, I ask them to consider two points. One, that the public at large should never have been in the position to make this judgement, nor is it qualified to." I find this to be an extremely profound factoid, the acceptance of which is shared by many,many Americans and others. The rub is, if classified information is as important as bahamut0013 states, then whoever possesses the information is controlling the decision making process for the country, and if,as the factoid professes, that "whoever" should not be the public, then what does that do to the Declaration of Independence's "Government of the People and By the People"? So, at the risk of appearing melodramatic, I believe that the notion that the public is not qualified to judge whether classification is being over used is inherently an unamerican and undemocratic notion, notwithstanding its widespread following. Back to the Practical: I would also add that the USA managed pretty well in wars and other conflicts prior to the National Security Act of 1947 from which most of the current secrecy sprung. In fact, U.S. military engagements were much less successful after the 1947 Act muscled up "secret intelligence" and created the CIA; as evidenced by the Korean stalemate, Vietnam War, and the mother,thus far, of"secret intelligence" driven wars, the "War in Iraq"("Irag has Weapons of Mass Destruction"); a war which has killed many more Americans than the attacks of 9/11(an attack which unfortunately showed the impotence of secret intelligence driven security preparations) . So, I do not think there is any factual,historical or moral evidence at all that keeping U.S. classified information secret from the public has benefited America's war efforts or U.S. national security. I think that heightened governmental secrecy is most exemplified by failed and failing states like the USSR and North Korea and its not a direction Wikipedia should consider facilitating even for a nanosecond, in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There are quite a few more responses than I expected, so I will try to reply to them in turn.

  • To Errant: To me, the matter of censorship is irrelevant. This isn't stifling a point of view that you don't like or hiding a nipple because it might be offensive. It's a matter of lives. next, "threatening the limitations of classification" and "ensur[ing] that the government is doing what it is supposed to" is not a mission of Wikipedia. We are here to build the encyclopedia, not forment change in the government. To the obligation argument: you make prescisely my point: the obligation is indeed moral, not legal. I also note that simply because we would probably escape prosecution does not free us of our obligation to the law (I could use the analogy of driving above the speed limit, which is quite lethal). To your last point: disclosure in the purview of the RfC does not deal with anything "accidental" as far as I know, nor would Wikipedia making use of the material (even if diclosed accidentally) be accidental either. Referencing classified material is quite deliberate, and as has been made quite clear by the government, even disclosed secrets are still classified. I respect that your view is simply as to where we are liable, but I think Wikipedians have think past that.
  • Llywrch: I'm afraid I don't have a link for you; I read it in an actual papr copy, and I don't think TIME publishes them for free online. If somebody else can find it, that would be swell, but I don't think my arguments depend on that reference. Indeed you have a point that the damage is already done, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedians should pile on to the bandwagon. To make use an analogy, one could think of a vending machine that has broken and dispenses snacks for free; you're not likely to be punished for it, and everyone else is taking snacks before the vendor comes and fixes the problem, but does that make it right for you to take a snack as well? I also think that we can filter out the unencyclopedic content regardless of the results of the RfC; AfD can determine notability without regard to the primary sources. Can you expand on your thoughts on these documents being valuable for biographies? I have my doubts that anything the State Department thinks of a foreign leader is really worth much to an encyclopedia.
  • Elonka brings up a very trenchant point reagrding WMF guidance, which I think is the purpose of the RfC to determine. And again the point he raises is that it is a violation of the USC to view and distribute (by linking) to this illicit material, even if prosecution and conviction is unlikely. I think the SHIELD Act is simply an attempt to clarify waters that the courts have muddled by interpreting the current law liberally. However, we can't take the introduction of a bill as any sort of legal precedent (after all, Ohio has passed a law about Hang on Sloopy that would never hold up in court). I disagree with the opinion that the legal ramifications only apply to the initial leak, and not subsequent use.
  • To Wnt: your point about people being able to decide for themselves in an open society rings partly true, but competent authorities have already decided that these documents should not have been made available, and they don't need the average citizen to agree to that. It is bound by law, whether you have pledged to abide by it or not. I think your third paragraph meanders a bit: you are speculating quite a bit and quite optimistically. But I digress, beyond the simple assurance that consquences, bad and good, will happen, but we are in no way really able to predict what they will be, that speculation is beyond the scope of this RfC and Wikipedia itself.
  • To Mr.Grantevans2: I'm afraid that I feel your risk of being melodramatic didn't pay off for you. As I said before, Wikipedia's goal as an encyclopedia doesn't extend into political statement or effecting changes in government policy. We aren't here to change society, we are here to share verifiable information, which the majority of classified documents would not qualify as. While your points about classification may or may not be valid (if you hadn't gathered, I lean towards the latter opinion), that's not our mission here.

I thank everyone that shared thier thoughts. I shall try to check back daily and make my responses. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have an underlying disagreement about which offers moral guidance: a law which has been ruled unenforceable by the courts, or the constitutional principle which struck it down. I understand that in your case this is complicated by the factor that those cleared to work with secret material apparently are still required to treat the leaked documents as secret. But I believe that the basic principle is what matters, and so I don't view the court ruling as a mere loophole, but as a recognition of fundamental freedoms. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bahamut0013, in case it were not clear; my comments about this being a moral problem were... we should make no moral judgement on this material. None. The only consideration we face is "does this present an immediate risk to someone?". So, for example, we'd never record the location of someone under witness protection. But when dealing in discretes such as this information it is impossible to make any moral judgement on the impact of our words. Trust me; stuff written on Wikipedia every day endangers plenty of lives and careers. Some of the most innocuous stuff is probably more dangerous to some than any of the leaked cables so far. We cannot make a judgement on that, and more importantly should not. As you say; taking a stance on the classification of material is not something we should be doing; and yet that is precisely what you have done :) we take neither side; instead we aim to record as much pertinent information as we can and are allowed to do - everything else is utterly irrelevant. To your last point: disclosure in the purview of the RfC does not deal with anything "accidental" as far as I know; I appreciate you have a security clearance, and so will have been told this stuff. However, what you wrote is not actually correct. Referencing classified material or summarising it is not illegal; this stuff is now trivially accessible and "public knowledge". It is impossible to break the laws of disclosure because we are not party to the act :) (this, btw, is enshrined in your first amendment rights). -Errant (chat!) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and to add, again, very clearly; You and Elonka are entirely wrong - it is not, and is never likely to be, illegal to view this material. --Errant (chat!) 20:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the government maintains the view that distribution of classified material is illegal, it is not safe to distribute classified material. That's true even if it's legal, because the cost of fighting the government is more than any one person can handle. WMF would probably survive a lawsuit; I expect it would get lots of donations and pro bono legal help. But you or me? Against the full weight of the United States Government? I think we'd go to jail. Ozob (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errant, my stance is not moral in the sense that we decide what's right and wrong, but in the sense that we recognize that we have no ability to reasonably do so in this case, and thus err on the side of caution; much like we would in the disclosure of personal information, even if that person is a public figure with little reasonable expectation of privacy. Indeed, you say "does this present an immediate risk to someone?" does present using our own limited faculties to make a moral descision. We can consider the moral implications as much as we like, but we will never understand the ultimate consequences of our descisions, and thus, I do feel that it is our best recourse to avoid it all (if we use this material, we will never know what would have been troubling our collective consciences. There is a huge difference between journalistic discretion and simply washing our hands of it entirely, especially since Wikipedia is not supposed to be journalistic (rather, referential and encyclopedic). And my stance on the legality of the matter is not about what I have been "told", because the only guidance I have recieved is simply to avoid it until the folks in Washington decide what to do. I've used my own judgement in the study of the situation in the law and the pertinent cases, as well as the 1st Amendment. You may be certain your view is correct, which I can respect, but neither of us can be proven correct or false until somebody is taken to trial, so please do not deign to tell me that I am incorrect. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I of course mean no offence to your view or interpretation; but I am giving you an expert analysis. This is not a case of testing in court; it is not, and has never been, illegal to view classified material. Only to disclose it. And given disclosure has occured there is no problem [that's only tangentially debatable, there is plenty of precedent]. (Of course, the administration may try to change that, so it may be different in the future). As to your other point; we already have ways to handle this information. There is no need to treat it in a blanket form as if any part of the disclosure could cause danger; that would be impractical and making a moral judgement. Instead; leave it to our current rules on a case by case situation. --Errant (chat!) 17:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. Classified information has no place here. It's just that simple. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
♠bahamut0013, I find myself conflicted on your view. If we were talking about, frex, the release of PURPLE (to take the recent C-Span example), I'd agree with you; if we were talking about the Grew memo on dinner party gossip, not. Moreover, your underlying position "trust us, we're the government" troubles me (& I'm Canadian, so I'm culturally more inclined to trust government than any American ;p). There's such a strong tendency to classify anything potentially embarassing, I find the "people at risk" argument less & less persuasive. (It's up there with the "ticking bomb" defense of torture IMO.) Most of the "secrets" are well known to the enemy, & presumptions of secrecy are frequently unjustified. (Again, to take the WW2 example, both sides believed their crypto systems secure; both were wrong in some degree.) More to the point, there's rampant overclassification (in numbers of docs & levels of security) & growing numbers of people with the authority to classify who really shouldn't have it.
♠Your final point IMO is the best one: AFAIK these are neither 3d party nor reliable, but in the main opinion (of senior officials) or POV (of USG officials or intelligence people). On that alone, they don't bear use. Not, IMO, unless there's a public claim made by someone who's saying something different in one of the docs: like, say, W. saying there are WMDs in Iraq, when the doc says the exact opposite... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really like you summarizing my point as "trust us, we're the government", because that's not my intent. Rather, my intent is that we are not qualified to determine what the consequences might be. You give an example of dinner party gossip being classified, and first glance might be that it would be innocuous. But we don't know for sure, perhaps it is harmless, or perhaps the "gossip" was actually low-level intelligence let slip from an agent who will now suffer at the hands of thier government. I agree with your thoughts on overclassification in general (I myself have bitched about handling material that would certainly not damage national security), but we aren't supposed to be using Wikipedia to effect these kinds of grievances, and certainly not in articles. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • bahamut0013, my responses are as follows:
    1. When I wrote "the damage has been done", that's what I meant -- the damage has been done. If there is any information in those documents which should not be out there, it is out there & has been snatched up by the bad guys long before now. Or, to talk in terms of your example, the vending machine has not only been broken into by the time Wikipedia has come to it, it has been stripped & is no longer good for anything but scrap -- which is what we are proposing to use it for here. (Well, that's what I am.)
    2. What I meant by biographical uses can be shown with a simple example -- the major warlords presently active in Somalia, whom I would assume you agree are notable & worth encyclopedia articles. Most of them have no past in the usual secondary sources; it's as if they walked out of the Ogaden armed & experienced with their private armies summoned like djinns. Journalists, academics & the usual experts can't give us more than a sentence or two about them & their pasts. If we had something like the WikiLeaks documents to give us even the rumors about their pasts -- what the diplomats believe might be true -- it would be better than what we currently have about them -- which is nothing. (And this would not be an unprecedented use of these sources; histories of the 19th & early 20th centuries often have abundant footnotes citing the correspondence of embassies, consisting of guesses & relayed rumors over what is transpiring inside the government of their host countries.)
    3. About the WMF guiding us on this. In simple terms, if the US government thought they could help their position in any possible way by putting pressure on the Foundation to not use these documents, it would. Maybe quietly, maybe in a very visible way, but the serious men would be at the offices & certain words would be said. And they would ask or order us little Wikipedians on the front lines not to use the material -- until the matter was sorted out in court, because even with the EFF the ALCU & public opinion on their side, the government heavily outmatches the WMF. (Last I checked, the government has more lawyers, has the police, has the courts -- oh yeah & has guns & heavy ordinance -- than the Foundation could muster.) So until the Foundation says not to, the law is clearly on our side, & we should not refrain from using the material out of fear of what the PTB might do. -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede to your logic about the irreversible damage being done, but I still feel it is an issue to be considered. We handle the outing of personal information, even to a public individual with no reasonable expectation of privacy, very carefully, such as deleting reversions and WP:OFFICE, and I feel that this is similar ground.
To your biographical point: I see your point about the lack of referencing, this is an unfortunate western bias. However, I have to counter with one of my central points, about the reliability of these documents, especially when the individual is still living. I mean, you yourself used the word "rumor", which makes me cringe to see in a biographical article. Diplomatic gossip shouldn't be used as a reference.
Lastly, my point was that WMF hasn't offered any guidance at all, and that's why this RfC was started, to generate our own. Whether we would be prosecutable or not is besides the point, I'm afraid, to which I repeat that simply because we could get away with it (probably), doesn't mean we should. Like I said, the government is more concerned at the moment with the source of the leak than the propagation of its fruits at the moment, which could change in time; and I don't know exactly how WMF would respond to a request/demand to cease the use of these documents (Jimbo's response to the FBI kiddie porn letter suprised the heck out of me). But all of that is tangental to my point: we ought to be doing the smart and moral thing without having to be told to do it by the governemnt or WMF. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rumours are covered rather well in WP:BLP already: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." No one is suspending WP:BLP for Wikileaks. If a cable written by an embassy employee says that "some people in the expatriate community say Sheikh Abdul is gay...", that is not "presented as true". But if, on the other hand, the article relays that at the meeting Sheikh Abdul explained to embassy staff about the difficulties of living as a gay man in a Muslim country and expressed a desire to set up an estate near San Francisco, well, that is presented as true. It can go either way. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that this RfC is not just about whether or not to link to classified documents, but also about whether to reproduce classified documents here on Wikipedia. For example, the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article is reproducing, verbatim, the classified section of a leaked document. This section lists several places around the world that, if attacked, would cause the most chaos for the United States (undersea cables, certain mines for rare materials, etc.). The information has been deemed sensitive enough that no major news outlet has reproduced the entire document, though a few have quoted from sections of it. I have no problem with creating an article based on information from reliable secondary sources, but we should not be distributing information which is sourced only to a leaked classified document. --Elonka 17:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Elonka, I don't really think that there is much of a distinction from my point of view; damage done is damage done, whether linked of quoted. However, I don't find the regard of major media outlets as trenchant to what we do here, unless your point was to emphasize that the majority views as to the sensitivity differ from community to community, or that our sense of responsibility should probably at least match that of CNN, FOX, and BBC, to which I would say that we have a much higher expectation, since we aren't a news outlet. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View of FT2

[edit]

Most has been said above. The key points to me are:

  1. Wikipedia documents notable matters and facts pertaining to them. It does not choose what matters gain public notice or where facts are stated or verified from. We care that they are stated in reliable sources, isn't original research or synthesis, and can be verified.
  2. Wikipedia is predicated on the idea that hearsay can be unreliable. We already state clearly that primary sources cannot attest to anything beyond the plain facts they contain, and secondary sources are needed to establish significance and notability. This seems as true for an alleged US leaked document as an alleged Chinese leaked one, or an alleged letter by Shakespeare. Existing policies cover the reliance and usage angles well.
  3. The outstanding issues are legal and moral. Legally:
    • We document other views and sources, and information deemed to be reliably published - if major reliable sources treat a source's claims seriously, that's the decision made for us as well. We only publish what's already published.
    • The US law seems to focus on persons who make available knowledge that was classified. Editors here are not engaged in doing that - we are discussing a different process, namely taking already publicized information and linking or commenting on it. As far as I'm aware that is a different action and one repeatedly upheld by the US courts [16]. I would not presume any legal issue unless WMF counsel formally advises it.
  4. Morally:
    • The kind of content we are discussing will have been republished and analyzed in the media. Summarizing it in a Wikipedia article is very unlikely to "do harm". More importantly there is a harm done by censorship - a person wishing to find information on the leaked cables (a matter which was very high profile in the news world) should be able to look it up on Wikipedia to learn about the leak. Indeed this may be one of the few sites such a topic will get a good quality neutral summary, due to the amount of review such articles get while being written.
    • 'Centricity bias needs avoiding. Microsoft, Pentagon, Soviet Russia, China, corporates and governments - we cannot and should not selectively "protect" some and not others, however much some people may wish it. Indeed we actively help people in some countries to edit who otherwise would be prevented, and we link to "forbidden" human rights reports which would be a matter for the internal police in some countries. We do not seek "leaks" from any source, and we aren't a publisher of original research which largely prevents us from being used to distribute leaks - but if there is a leak and if that leak does get significant independent attention and its content meets our standard for notability, or it is reliably published and its facts are salient to an article, then we should consider it information open to the world, like any other, and any exceptions should be argued from that default starting point.

FT2 (Talk | email) 08:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position
  1. This is a well-supported statement. (I'll reserve that classified documents, even Wikileaks cables, can be secondary sources, but FT2 didn't actually say otherwise) Wnt (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For details on FT2's comment on "centricity" bias, see WP:BIAS. For a guess on consequences in this case, see my comment below. Boud (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilverserenC 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There isn't any further harm we can directly cause, but even if there was, WP:COMPREHENSIVE. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Very well written. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. well said -- Ned Scott 08:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A good and well-supported summary of the issues. Dcoetzee 02:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Good summary, with the quibble there are special case where primary sources document sufficiently to make notability clear--but that's not really relevant here DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • The systematic bias in the English-language wikipedia has been analysed and discussed and strategies of correcting the bias have been proposed; see WP:BIAS. Regarding the point raised by FT2, i suspect that FT2 is right, i.e. there is very little pressure in the en-wikipedian community against sourcing to documents that are considered to be illegal by the judiciary systems or governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, North Korea or P.R.China. Should we ban links to those sources out of respect for the judiciary systems/governments of those countries? Boud (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might or might not be reasonable, but I'd like to learn more about it, because that isn't something I'd ever heard of. Do you have any wikilinks for some examples of this? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prediction: on the practical side, if the WMF dependence on Florida law were seen by the Wikipedian community to lead to censorship, then the community would probably demand that the WMF Board shift the legal basis/defence of the WMF to a place where freedom of speech is better respected, e.g., thanks to WikiLeaks — Iceland, under the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI). The alternative would be a fork from wikipedia, e.g. ImmiPedia (after the IMMI). My (subjective) impression of the reactions to Cablegate releases is that while political elites from many countries around the world want to discourage knowledge of the cables' contents, the vast majority of ordinary people see the cables as being part of the public's right to know. In online comments, my impression is that support for the cables' publication and usage is much more one-sided than any similar recent issue. Given this massive popular—especially online—support, my guess is that a serious decision by the en-Wikipedia community to censor direct references to the cables would dramatically go viral once it had reached an initial level of credibilitiy/verifiability/irreversibility. Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, Paypal and others have suffered from a loss of reputation and the starts of boycott campaigns because of their failures with respect to WikiLeaks. DDOS's are temporary technical annoyances, not long term problems for these organisations. Loss of reputation as being "internet cool" is probably much more serious to (at least) Amazon and Paypal. IMHO the prediction here is probably self-anti-fulfilling: among those en-Wikipedians who would oppose linking to the cables, many of them would probably realise that it would be self-defeating, and would only cause wasted energy in the shift to Iceland under the IMMI. Boud (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with much of this prediction. While I am greatly heartened to see the passage of the IMMI and I think Iceland will see real benefits from it, Wikipedians would want to scrutinize their laws on pornography, hate speech, and Holocaust revisionism before making any quick conclusions about moving the whole project. Also, unfortunately, there is the issue that those in the U.S. seeking unconstitutional enforcement of secrecy have not been expressing any great respect for international borders, due process, or the Geneva Convention for that matter. If President Palin (shudder) said she's going to "hunt you down like an al-Qaida terrorist", then what's the point of moving to Iceland? The good news is that most Americans are not looking for a new McCarthy era, and most Wikipedians are not looking to arbitrarily censor content. The WMF will not be forced to censor coverage of formerly secret papers, and if some lunatic jurisdiction tried to force them, Wikipedians would stand by the WMF and advocate for them throughout the U.S., while (perhaps more importantly) poking at every edge of the restrictions with pointed objects. For example, if covering the content of a Wikileaks cable is beyond the pale, then what about covering a news story by the Guardian (which prints the cables) about the cables? Or covering a story in another paper that reports the story by the Guardian? Or covering a new book by Noam Chomsky that is all about the cables? (You know that barring death, stroke, or gulag that there'll be one) In a true totalitarian country, they have a resolution for that: you're not allowed to let on that you know Noam Chomsky wrote that book, or that Julian Assange ever existed, or that there is a free press beyond the border. But not many people are on that boat, so any initiative - legal, WMF, or otherwise - would literally come apart at the seams. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an if clause in my prediction! But your point is taken. I should weaken my prediction a little, i.e. s/would probably demand/would very likely erupt in anger. It might, for example, demand/. But since Chomsky has been brought up, it's probably worth following his advice regarding sociological/political predictions. AFAIR, he considers sociological/political predictions to have a fairly low success rate, and instead recommends taking action to solve social problems (organise!) rather than investing a lot of time in making predictions. So any discussion on Template_talk:Cite_web#proposal:_cable_parameter for extending the cite web template to include a parameter like |cable= would be good over at that talk page. i suspect that there is a mishmash of citation methods used at the moment. If consensus could be reached regarding a recommended citation style, then that would make it easier for Wikipedia editors and for all the meta-uses of Wikipedia content. Boud (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
citation template: Done. Someone over on that talk page recommended cite document rather than cite web. That includes the already existing "id=" parameter. Adding in a URI format template for cablegate id's, and we have a string that you can copy/paste/correct/fill-in: <ref name="01CITYNAME1234">{{cite document| last =| first =| authorlink =| coauthors =| title =| id={{cablegate|01CITYNAME1234}} |work =| publisher =[[WikiLeaks]]| date =| url = |format =| doi =| accessdate = |archiveurl= |archivedate= |url-status=live}}</ref>. Since this uses a template, the displayed version can be debated and changed without requiring individual edits on the citations themselves. Boud (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Use_of_classified_documents&oldid=1142569416"