Talk:2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks at the Reference desk.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations: Law B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / Post-Cold War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: History / Military B‑class Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine B‑class Mid‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crimea Task Force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions
Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

Requested move April 8, 2023

It has been proposed in this section that 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks be renamed and moved to 2023 Pentagon document leaks.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

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

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

Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Argles Barkley (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The current title is too long, this is more concise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support see also Google News evidence EpicPupper (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because 'Pentagon' is a building. Suggest 2023 Department of Defense document leak or 2023 Defense Department document leak. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pentagon is both a building and a government entity. Lunare Scuderia (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EPSTYLE says *formal* language. 'Pentagon' is slang. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles & headlines about it tend to mention The Pentagon, so it seems like that’d go against WP:COMMONNAME. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please bear in mind, that the English wikipedia has an international audience. Other countries also have "Departments of Defence". Hence, that phrase won't pinpoint the place where this thing happened. The header line should contain one of "US", "USA" or "Pentagon", as well as "2023" (potentially with a month name) because there may be new leaks from the same place. What if there is a leak from the Department of Defence, this time in Britain or in Poland, what would you then call that? The US only represents 4-5% of the world population, while half the world speaks English AND uses the English wikipedia. 85.76.140.146 (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case, it was decide that we should use formal titles - that's what WP:EPSTYLE records.
Support the current title is too long and too vague. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose originally supported but convinced by Buckshot06 that Pentagon is not the formal way to address the related entities. 2023 Department of Defense document leak would be better, or even 2023 US Department of Defense document leak to clearly indicate whose nations' defense department leaked from. Lunare Scuderia (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2023 United States Department of Defense document leak per Lunare Scuderia. DecafPotato (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the leaks are broader than just Ukraine --TocMan (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support per nom. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The documents leaked weren't only about Ukraine. IntrepidContributor (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasoning of nominator. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 20:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per all the above Tweedle (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel article

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

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

Images

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

Why are there no images of the documents posted? Would it be permissible according to Wikipedia regulations to post the 100 screenshots of the leaked documents which are being analyzed by journalists, and link here? 223.205.76.87 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure that’s borderline illegal 2600:4040:40AE:3900:907D:3870:BA23:BAC7 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disseminating classified information like that is a federal crime in the United States, and since Wikipedia is hosted there, I don't think that's a good idea. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it basically public domain once it's been leaked? The video of an American helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq was posted here, despite it having been classified. AfricanHello (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a work of the federal government, it's public domain without question. However, public domain ≠ declassified. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a leak would automatically render top secret (TS) documents as declassified. As long as the government still considers the material classified, sharing it is a federal crime. I don't know about the helicopter video. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context, they are talking about the infamous Collateral Murder video.

This is an important precedent for adding the leaked images to the article.

Ps: to the CIA guy reading this discussion, sorry, you are wasting your time on Wikipedia. I'm no senator's son sharing papa's classified debriefings he left on the table :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.217.109 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the law only actually applies to the original leaking party, and anyone after that would be protected by the first amendment. I assume the reason the mainstream media aren't currently sharing the leaked documents is possibly due to wanting to stay on good terms with the government or, like you said, they might have ethical reservations. Either way, I think the sensible thing to do right now is to hold off from publishing the documents until some later date. AfricanHello (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the moral and ethical issue that Wikipedia does not need to get itself involved with sharing secret information about a war ocurring right at this moment. They harbor sensitive current information, much more so than the helicopter video. If people want to share it anonymously on other forums, that is their risk and perogative, but there's a reason why you don't see U.S. news organizations sharing the images. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that American news organizations aren't sharing the images because the White House asked them not to, furthermore Wikipedia is not censored

I see no reason for Wikipedia not to host the images provided the claim by AfricanHello is substantiated and that it's not illegal for Wikipedia to have them GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original IP editor who made this section gives heavy indications of trolling, their edit summary is a reference to the Just Asking Questions (JAQ) concern trolling strategy. Don't feed the trolls. How about let's have some awareness for the real world status of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Also let's not have US-based Wikipedia viewers stumble upon such a grey area of content accidentally when they are just seeking information from Google. As for internal Wiki policy reasons there's WP:OR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple conflicting versions/ copies of these leaks

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

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

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

How much classified info to include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"New York Times Co. v. United States" does not cover documents where their release could result in death. Yes it does. The Pentagon Papers were released during active conflict in the Vietnam War. Every discussion of a wartime billegierant's capabilities, positions, or movements could result in the the death of people. All wartime reporting could result in deaths. This is inherent to the nature of reporting on war. Abiding by the "no possibility of death" standard would remove all Wikipedia information regarding active conflicts. Your position here is a novel legal theory, not supported supported by Supreme Court precedent, Wikipedia policy, nor Wikipedia consensus.
if the legality of a work cannot be determined, it should not be copied onto Wikipedia. No sources were provided for the table, and it's safe to assume they come straight from one slide of the documents. Assuming such a source were to reference this slide in its entirety, I would still find it unacceptable. You may personally find it unacceptable, but the current Wikipedia consensus differs. Let me quote the consensus summary again to remind you: "there is currently no specific reason to give links to material classified by any national government special treatment by prohibiting them". It is Wikipedia consensus that information should not be removed based solely on its classified nature.
Wikipedia is not here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving. Yes it is. This information is notable, isn't it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not censored. Objecting to the inclusion of verifiable and notable information because it doesn't align with your geopolitical goals is veering towards explicit POV-pushing. Please cite Wikipedia policy before removal on these grounds.Masebrock (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

This edit request to United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Unsourced claims in the Intro

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

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

Splitting proposal

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

Campaignbox going out of bounds.

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

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

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

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

Thug Shaker Centeral name

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