Talk:WikiLeaks

May need to revisit splitting up article again soon

Hi-just a note, this article is getting pretty big >140kB again. We may need to revisit splitting off sections to the related pages, or paring down the article a bit. When you click on the edit button, the page takes awhile to load, and I'm sure it's getting a lot of hits. Would like your help and/or suggestions, please! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as I mentioned above we could split off any attempts at censorship/lawsuits into a separate article. Reception of WikiLeaks is another option, but this could perhaps be dealt with better by moving statements about specific leaks, rather than WL in general, to the specific articles related to the leaks. SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of the statements in the section are about Wikileaks in general, though I may be misinterpreting it all. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea about moving the more detailed information about the specific leaks to their related articles. That would be a good place to continue to pare down the article, as you guys discussed above. This article will continue to get bloated, and it shouldn't be just a collection of all the published news source quotes from around the world, without any real focus. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's 9,000 words of readable text, which is at the upper end of the range on Wikipedia:SIZE#Readability_issues.--Chaser (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I also favour splitting the censorship/lawsuits to a separate article, as mentioned two times above. I quickly scanned the whole article and it seems that there is far too much weight on administration and reactions by others, at the expense of what Wikileaks actually does: leak. I would therefore favour simply moving the leaks sections from 2006 to 2010 up to just below the History section (or to within the History section). My view may be motivated by the fact I first heard of wikileaks in connection with Kenyan scandals, and then later by leaks about toxic dumping in Africa. From my European viewpoint the current article is, understandably considering wikipedia's demographics, too oriented on matters concerning the USA. -84user (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone fix the spelling errors

"Organization" is not spelled "Organisation". Will someone please fix this mistake. It is made multiple times.

See WP:ENGVAR, this article currently uses British English, so it is not a mistake. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not read this engvar policy. it's sounds like something out of orwell. but i do know what british english is. so, why does this article currently use birtish english? is there some queerball english that's neither british nor american but perfectly non-offensive and straddly? that seems like it would be perfect for wikipedia. S*K*A*K*K 03:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, no. And such a hypothetical dialect would involve quite awkward circumlocutions to avoid using non-dialect-agnostic terms. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The word is spelt "Organisation" in the U.K. variety of English. While it is understandable that people around the world will be unaware of how English words are spelt in all the different varieties of English, it is unforgivable that some people remain ignorant that different varieties of English even exist, (have a wild guess at which country breeds such woeful ignorance). Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 13:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I rissent dat. FWIW, the majority of the business-doing world isn't English speaking so that they can communicate with the UK. Nonetheless, this debate is silly and just requires a touch of education. It's just spelling; the words mean the same. Ocaasi (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As a user of neither US nor British English (although I do admit my Australian version is closer to British) I see two kinds of "incorrect" spelling corrections in Wikipedia. There are those where the author knows that more than one version of English exists, and uses the wrong one. These mistakes happen through misunderstanding and are made by users of all versions. Then there are those who don't know that another version beyond their own exists. I have only ever seen the latter mistake made by Americans. This little thread is but one example. As a global encyclopaedia, our job is education (ignorance can be cured), so that must be our approach to such errors, but gee they're frustrating! HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It only seems to be Americans who are unaware that other varieties of English even exist. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be pointy at what country is ignorant of the different spellings. People could view it as a personal attack. But could we all be in consensus that there are different variants of English and that they are acceptable in this article per WP:ENGVAR? Phearson (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia policy is to use only one spelling variant in an article, and where applicable, this should be based on the preferred usage of the subject matter. WikiLeaks is an Australian organisation, and as such uses 'British' spelling. (It calls itself an 'organisation' as another poster has already indicated). I think I've already commented on the fact that with a rapidly-changing article like this there is bound to be some inconsistency, and that it may be difficult to keep everything entirely in order, so we need to be a little tolerant for now. Note also that the tag {{Use British English|date=December 2010}} appears at the top of the article edit page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This chart in pay prove helpful to this discussion.

Phearson, I have no problem with someone being unaware of the different spelling for different words in different English-speaking countries. But, some of us a bit fed-up with Americans who automatically assume that every non-America spelling for a word is simply wrong, (even when they're in foreign jurisdictions!) I encounter that kind of ignorance/attitude in the business world all the time and it pisses me off (and American firms frequently lose my business because of it). Rant over. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't get upset about the spelling errors! It's not worth it. I know that many Americans don't realize that there are spelling differences out there; that's a fault of our education system. I realize that an article like this will have both the versions in it, as someone stated above. I would like to point out that even the WikiLeaks site isn't consistent: on their main page, see: wikileaks.ch, they use the spelling "organization"; and on their About page, see: wikileaks.ch/about, they use "organisation". Also, I'm not sure that WikiLeaks can be considered an Australian organisation, they seem very elusive about their mailing address, and the original wikileaks.org was registered in California, and sunshinepress.org was registered in Stockholm, Sweden. But I'm fine with using British English throughout, but just want to remind editors that if it is a quotation, WP:ENGVAR states to use the spelling form from the actual quotation, even if it differs from the rest of the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

info is repeated in this article.

in paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 (under history) this phrase appears:

"founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa".[2]

can someone please remove one of these instances? I tried, but must have funked up a citation in a bad way in the process. I don't know, but someone undid my edit. help. S*K*A*K*K 03:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it. The phrase is important to the general lead-in on what WikiLeaks is and to the history section on WikiLeaks founding. –TheIguana (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

google pushing wikileaks site down!

http://213.251.145.96 used to be top result, and now it is about 5th [1]. please put back this main ip in the side box on the article. thanks. 216.80.93.67 (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The new main address seems to be wikileaks.ch, and there are many mirrors, which the infobox no longer lists. People do not usually access websites via the IP address, so there is no need to give these while there are plenty of active mirrors. Wikipedia is not responsible for how Google lays out its results, and they change frequently so it is hard to keep up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider putting http://www.dazzlepod.com/cable/ as this is coming top in Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeowch (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be helpful. Listing the main address is really all that needs to be done. We don't need to worry about the current top result on Google unless there is proof that Google is doing something to lower it. Phearson (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

lede is pro WikiLeaks, not neutral

Given the intense criticism that Wikileaks has received from so many unrelated quarters, the glowing praise of the lede seems biased. And as mentioned above, I am not sure why the article does not mention that Jimmy Wales & the Wikipedia Foundation has been critical. Do others object to moving a summary of criticism to the lede? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I teeter back and forth sometimes with this. My only concern with giving criticisms in the lede is that it would be NPOV. Though wikileaks has received intense criticisms, it has also received a lot of support. Would you have any specific rewording in mind?74.83.33.194 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added 'controversial' to the first sentence, which probably helps a bit, though maybe it needs more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this has now been reverted (with a less than helpful edit summary:diff). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Describing it as controversial in the very first sentence is major POV. Something to the effect could fit in one of the other paragraphs further down, though. Nymf _hideliho! 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that there is little question that WikiLeaks is controversial. How is stating this POV? Note that I added it in response to suggestions that the lead lacked neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial is an adjective that can mean many things. It doesn't tell us that many governments and large corporations hate it. The controversy could be over something entirely different, such as a display of pornography, or blasphemy. And it is inevitably someone's opinion, even if it is many peoples' opinion. Such adjectives may make editors feel better, but don't really inform the reader. Adjectives rarely help at all in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, you wouldn't describe the U.S. as "The United States of America is a controversial federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district," even though they undoubtly are. See the problem? It is not neutral. Not even Islam mentions any controversy in the lead. Nymf _hideliho! 19:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that Islam is any more 'controversial' than Christianity, but then, as an atheist, I wouldn't. The USA is another matter. I'd see nothing wrong in suggesting that some of the reactions to WikiLeaks from US sources were controversial, but the USA does a lot of other things other than reacting to leaks. Given that WikiLeak's actions are designed to cause reactions (positive and negative), one might suppose that they'd not object to the description. Still, if the consensus is that my edit was incorrect, I'll accept that. I still think that the OP's point that the lede needs balance needs addressing though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it does mention support of wikileaks more than criticisms. There is mention of the support of Russia, and awards it has received. Maybe moving the comments made by the government of Russia? There is still the talk of awards, which do seem to show wikileaks in positive light. Then again, they are relevant to the article. Does have an opinion about these? 74.83.33.194 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "Several of Wikileaks publications have caused (major) international controversies." with approriate sources?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that that would really lead to an appearance of neutrality. The way to make the lede neutral would be to remove all the gratuitous praise I think, e.g. the Russian government's opinion that Assange deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. A simple sentence along the lines of, "While many have commended the work of WikiLeaks, others have criticised it as being irresponsible". The rest belongs in the support section. At the moment, it looks very pro-Wikileaks. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

it is relevant to the lede that wikileaks has won awards. I would suggest it would be more fruitful to add some instances of criticism to provide a more rounded lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that a sentence like "Several of Wikileaks publications have caused (major) international controversies." would do the job. I would also remove the statement from the Russian government, which only seemed to be eager to score some extra points. The rest of the lead is fine and does not deserve a POV tag.--spitzl (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly it would be a start if the statement from the Russian Government (which according to WikiLeaks cables may be a mafia state) was removed. Such a statement looks to be an obvious geopolitical ploy to damage their strategic rival, the United States, rather than sincere.

Then, it needs to be at least clear that all of the awards were given before WikiLeaks started getting a lot of criticism from governments. The recent revolt within Wikileaks is not mentioned, the release of names of Afghan & Iraqi informers which drew criticism from human rights groups and Reporters Without Borders, the damning critiques of Assange by Daniel Schmidt & a number of others who have resigned citing Assange's irresponsibility & bias. And of course, the fact that these recent actions -- especially the 'Cablegate' -- has been condemned by many governments. I think all of this is too much for the lede, so in the interests of neutrality, it would be better to cut back on the praise. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that statement by Russia, we were having a similar discussion over at Assange's bio and have removed the nobel info from there, so it seems stupid to mention it here but not there. I think we should probably try a major rewrite of the lead somewhere, as it is currently too short for such a long article, but don't think the POV tag is necessary at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I added criticism, which it did lack entirely. I also updated the description of the kind of media they publish. Check it out. Ocaasi (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism you added was unsourced and another has reverted it, can you add sourced criticism? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While I concede there is a problem with the lede, I have removed the criticism just added by Occasi, as it seems unsourced, and vague. Which Government is making criticisms? Which Journalists? And who's 'public opinion'? The Amnesty criticism needs to be put into broader context too: they were not criticising WikiLeaks per se, but the release of particular details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a draft, paraphrased from this article's own criticism section. I beefed it up with new sources and added some more specific phrasing. Please work with it to make it sufficiently detailed. The NPOV problem is there and needs to get fixed. Ocaasi (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Do recent edits justify removal of the neutrality tag? Ocaasi (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't realise you were still working on it, though really with an article getting this much attention, drafts are probably best done on the talk page. I've added 'in the United States' to the section about negative public reactions (per sources), but otherwise it seems somewhere about right to me. Others will no doubt wish to comment, but I'd say the tag can go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The changes all look good to me. My concerns about bias have been mostly addressed with the new wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not really happy with the sentence "Negative public reactions in the United States have characterized the organization as irresponsible, immoral, and illegal". It is definitely true but it is also true that media reports have also praised WikiLeaks for supporting public accountability, breaking the heavy veil of government and corporate secrecy that is slowly suffocating the American press, and improving democracy in general. Either we include or remove both, positive and negative reactions from the lead.--spitzl (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember, that this is part of the criticism overview, specifically the part dealing with polls. If there is praise, we can include that as well where it fits in the first half of the paragraph. Also, if there are polls which show public support, we can include them. The current phrasing isn't even intended to imply that all public reaction was negative, only that the subset of reaction which was negative had those reasons., which from my quick glance showed that about 60% of people surveyed thought WL was harmful and in the wrong. What's you're suggestion? Ocaasi (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

...See 'Opinion poll results in 'Criticism' section' below for more on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx Ocassi for changing the lead. I'm ok with it now.--spitzl (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence regarding 2009 needs a little help with its grammar

Currently: "These were originally created to prevent access to child pornography and terrorism, but the leaks revealed that other sites that are unrelated to these." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.80.210 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion poll results in 'Criticism' section.

An editor has just added the results of a poll conducted in the USA by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. I'd like to ask other contributors whether they think this appropriate? Personally, it seems inappropriate to me, as only of passing significance, and as only reflecting the opinions of US residents - this is an international encyclopaedia, after all. I'd also ask whether it should go in a section entitled 'criticism' in any case, given the fact that the results are mixed pro and anti. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Think this shouldn't be included on the basis of a primary source, at least. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We can easily find secondary sources for stuff like that.

Public opinion is relevant because it shows the character of the times. There will be more polls later, and we can cite them, too. We have entire articles on public opinion of certain issues.

The fact that it's only about U.S. opinion doesn't matter. Just because we don't have one yet on non-American opinion doesn't mean we won't have that eventually.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion its not about the source, since int. media has already picked up on the topic (see e.g. the Washington Post [2]). The real question is, whether we should include national polls to the article at all, given the risk that we might add too many country specific polls. Above all we also have to answer the question, which country polls we should and which ones we should not include. Are polls from the US [3], the UK [4], Germany [5] noteworthy? What about polls from other smaller countries? Personally I have a rather mixed feeling about this. At the one hand I do believe that such polls add interesting/valuable information. On the other hand I can't really answer the questions raised above. How was this solved in other articles? --spitzl (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC) (I added the poll to the article)

Wikileaks isn't all about the USA. Find a global poll and I'll be happy. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All points mentioned above are reasonable, with the exception of the absence of one point: the majority of leaks have focused on US foreign policy, war-making, and diplomacy. That gives US public opinion particular relevance to this article, though not exclusively of course. Ocaasi (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? In Australia, our media is giving us lots of stuff from Wikipedia about our government. Maybe it's a reporting bias in each country that leads to you only hearing about the American stuff. (I'll concede an assumption on my part that you are American. ) HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That goes for Sweden as well, but it´s still reasonable that US opinions has somewhat more weight since all the leaks are from their diplomats (I think). Opinions from other countries are of course also interesting, as and when they become available. I´ve only seen web-polls in Sweden though.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that U.S. opinion has more weight. We shouldn't need to hold off on documenting public attitudes until Botswana's population is polled.

That would be like saying we can't do an article on Wikileaks until they've posted leaks from every country.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks has published information from sources worldwide. Though the recent leaks are from US diplomatic cables, they have hardly reflected well on many other countries. Wikipedia is an international project. US public opinion does not have more weight over this issue than any other - to suggest it does would be to set an extremely bad precedent. (And I happen to think the population of Botswana is more likely to be objective about the issue than some of the participants here) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant in the particular case of the United States diplomatic cables leak. I assumed that was what the poll (which I haven´t read)mentioned. But even if it is about Wikileaks publications as a whole, the US-related ones have been, imo, the most notable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote no. Phearson (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the average Botswanan probably cares more about the Geneva Conventions than the average Wikileaks supporter, but that's hardly the point.

Wikileaks is worldwide but its impact is not. The U.S. and its allies have troops in the field who've been put at somewhat greater risk.

Still, editors are free to include surveys from any nation as far as I'm concerned. It's even important for Americans to know which side the rest of the world is on. I just don't think some of them should be back hostage until those other surveys are in.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Americans are not the only ones to visit the English WP. Just wanted to point that out. Phearson (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's indeed worth pointing out. I would think that when Manning is presumably tried, and perhaps never again sees the light of day, I would think non-Americans would be interested in knowing why most Americans are glad of it.

Likewise, I would think that Americans would be curious to know who non-Americans feel.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that citing exclusively "American" (i.e., U.S.) opinion estimates is very dubious for the purpose of this page, particularly as "criticism", which it isn't. It is, at best, a snapshot measure of general opinion of one particular segment of people, and which may change rapidly, and can not even reflect any general opinions outside of one particular arbitrary segment of the world, even temporarily.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider discussing edits here first then, rather than ignoring Wikipedia WP:BRD policy? I agree absolutely that the opinions of US citizens shouldn't be taken in isolation, but blatant editorialising isn't the way to rectify this. What we actually need is a wider perspective on the question. How about looking for some opinion polls from elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee these won't be forthcoming. Opinion polls are done to measure the opinions of "consumers" who are relevant to profit-making. There won't be any wider perspective because there are not enough businesses who care to fund the acquisition of that wider perspective. Mark my words.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'guarantees', I'm interested in evidence. Have you actually looked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

...If you had, it probably wouldn't have taken long to find this, from Angus Reid. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Eh, a couple 'America Juniors' is not quite what i had in mind by "wider perspective". Was thinking more like Africa, South America, Asia. Won't hold the breath.Ronaldc0224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Given that we now have another opinion poll (above), covering Canada and the UK, as well as the US, Would it be worthwhile creating a 'public reactions' section, where we can report both pro and anti-Wikileaks poll results? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have a "public opinion" section, where we can add the other polls from Britain, Canada and Germany.--spitzl (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving problem

Have I missed out on something, or have some of the old talk page threads been deleted rather than archived?

This edit by MiszaBot I said it was going to archive conversations into Archive 2, but it didn't do so for those ones. Not even for threads that had many replies.

A similar bug seems to have occurred with 9/11 conspiracy theory talk page archiving.

Either that, or MiszaBot I is really a CIA operative... Andjam (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I see you have already posted a message at the bot's Talk page. The bot's contribution history for 2010-12-10 around 15:43 shows that it normally copied sections of other talk pages to their archives before deleting, but in Wikileaks case it appears to have just deleted. I then manually archived the lost talk sections from this revision into Archive 2 - I got a "Spam filter notice" referring to leaks dot viviti dot com, so I had to obfuscate that link. -84user (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would be because that was being spammed, and was added to the meta blacklist after being added here. Good catch Andjam! SmartSE (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.207.199.34, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

easyDNS was never subject to a DOS attack with respect to wikileaks. easyDNS was never knocked offline as a result of these non-existent attacks.

What did happen was an internet backlash ensued against the company until it got the word out that it had been confused with everydns. Later, the wikileaks fallback domain wikileaks.ch (operated by the Pirate Party of Sweden) and wikileaks.nl started using easyDNS for DNS services.

See the timeline of events from easyDNS http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/07/timeline-of-an-epic-fail-the-wikileaks-takedown-fiasco/

66.207.199.34 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please offer a specific suggestion of what should be changed, and what it should be changed to? --Elonka 03:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks.org link

wikileaks.org is now linking to mirror.wikileaks.info which, according to Spamhaus [6] may contain malware, and is not listed on the official list of mirrors sites. Should we consider deactivating the link, per WP:ELNO #3 (Sites containing malware) until the situation is resolved one way or another? SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It would do little harm, I'd think, given the existence of other mirrors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew something was going on. I thought, why it has a different design than the other mirros? Since .org domains are in usa, they probably deleted the domain and someone else registered it. I have added a note saying that the domain is no longer related to WikiLeaks. I think we should keep the address there, but without the link, not because 'it has malware' (because it doesn't), but because is not WikiLeaks. Just a non official mirror of how WikiLeaks looked years ago but with some news added.--Neo139 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, then it is bloody disturbing that a well-recognised (and valuable) URL can be re-registered by anyone else just 5 minutes after it has been deactivated by the censors. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 01:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Any thoughts on adding to the notice as follows: "original domain; now contains malware"? Neo139, why don't you think it contains malware? What did Spamhaus get wrong?--Chaser (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there appears to be no evidence that the info site contains malware, and that is not what Spamhaus claimed. See Trend Micro's blog on the subject at http://blog.trendmicro.com/wikileaks-in-a-dangerous-internet-neighborhood/ and follow the comment there by Wolfgang Bleh. For those that can read German [7] covers the situation somewhat better (IMHO). -84user (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with what Neo139 wrote above, and at the risk of mis-using this talk as a forum, the DNS of the .org domain changed to dynadot after EveryDNS pulled its own NS. One can see how the .org site changed over the years at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wikileaks.org . See also [8] and [9]. -84user (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't contain malware because I didn't saw anything suspicious in the js files included in the home of the webpage.--Neo139 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the intent of many of the posts in the above section is black propaganda and should be removed. It is entirely off-topic for the article content and containing only talk, discussion, and speculation. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from I9avici7a5, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I9avici7a5 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what change do you wish us to make? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, either this is vandalism or a mistake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

New Air Force image

See right, picked this up off Huffington Post (PD due to being a US federal work). Feel free to use if useful. I'm in the process of obtaining a higher-quality version. Dcoetzee 00:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether the image is valuable or not, but think the phenomenon could do with better coverage in the article. It's not a minor thing that's going on IMO. It would be nice to have a catchy name for it too (as with Great Firewall of China). The best I can think of at the moment is to say that this employee has encountered a Nyet-isburg Address. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Giving it your own name is original original research, FormerIP, so I'm glad to say we won't be using that ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pah! Don't nobble my meme before it can even walk. --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks US Flouride Document Release

Inappropriate promotion of unnotable content. Not for this article anyway.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33280 http://fluoridealert.org/re/wikileaks.crs.2008.report.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisheyesawr (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC) What are you asking us to do with this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC) This is a WikiLeaks document release about fluoride in drinking water that is posted on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) student's Portal. http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33280.pdf as well as the Fluoride Action Network. I do not suppose I know what you mean by asking what I want us to do with this WikiLeaks Fluoride in Drinking Water Document Release CRS-RL33280. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisheyesawr (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC) This is a talk page for discussing the Wikipedia article on Wikileaks. Do you wish us to edit the article in some way to include a reference to this document? If so, can you explain why you think it is of any particular significance for the article? As you are probably aware, WikiLeaks has released many documents, and we cannot refer to them all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC) This WikiLeaks document is talking about the drinking water in the United States of America and that makes this WikiLeaks document notable.(Fisheyesawr (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) Yes please do include this WikiLeaks document in the main article.(Fisheyesawr (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) Has the leaked document been referred to by the mainstream media? If it hasn't, I doubt that it would meet the requirements for notability. I see you have already attempted twice to get this document added to the Information published by WikiLeaks article, and were informed in the edit summary that you'd need secondary sources to include it there. This article will only include the more significant releases in any case, as a fuller list is in the 'Information...' article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC) The first source for the document is this one http://fluoridealert.org/re/wikileaks.crs.2008.report.pdf and the second source is this one http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33280.pdf . WikiLeaks is a Whistleblower type news operation that covers issues the mainstream media won't touch so I am not sure to the logic indicating it does not meet the notability requirements. As you said WikiLeaks has leaked many documents but this one is about the U.S. water supply that WikiLeaks thought of high enough importance to include in it's news along with all the other news they have leaked. Students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology think this document is important as they posted it on the student portal. I think a mention of the document in the article is acceptable.(Fisheyesawr (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) The document helps describe the type of news WikiLeaks informs the public about.(Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) Sorry, but two links to the same primary document are of no use. Unless it has been discussed by the mainstream media, it seems of no particular relevance to this article, which is about WikiLeaks not the US water supply. We can't possibly discuss every document they've released. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Yes the Information published by WikiLeaks article was requesting a 2nd source for the article so I added the Massachusetts Institute of Technology source for the article when before I had only posted the Fluoride Action Networks source for the article. http://fluoridealert.org/re/wikileaks.crs.2008.report.pdf Of all things this WikiLeaks document describes the scope of articles that WikiLeaks will report on which is descriptive in WikiLeaks description. So yes I do think it is important. (Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) I think you misunderstand. We don't need two sources for the document. We need references from media articles etc referring to the document. Unless the media has referred to it, we won't. It just won't have been seen as significant, and we cannot decide to include it on our own initiative. This is normal Wikipedia policy. We don't do investigative journalism, or other primary research, and as I've already stated, we can't list every document WikiLeaks has released, so we discuss some of the ones that have attracted the most interest. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC) So what your saying is that a news source known as the main stream media has to do a broadcast about this WikiLeaks document or it is not significant enough to be on Wikipedia? (Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) I found the document on the Fluoride Action Networks Twitter page http://twitter.com/FluorideAction# which I thought was the new main stream media along with WikiLeaks news. (Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) Articles referring to it in reputable newspapers or similar might do (Twitter certainly wouldn't), but frankly, unless it has had significant attention in multiple sources, it is unlikely to be included in this article. Take a look at some of the leaks we do describe to see the sort of response we need. As for other Wikipedia articles, it might perhaps be relevant to some, just not this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC) I will message the students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT and WikiLeaks's Julian Assange about this situation to see what we can do about this. (Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) Please wait for the response from WikiLeaks and MIT before removing this subject from the WikiLeaks talk page as they will need time to respond to meet this requirement. Than You.(Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) I think Julian Assange may have more pressing concerns at the moment. I don't know much about MIT students, but I suspect you won't have much luck there either. Note that what I'm saying has nothing whatever to do with what is in the leaked document. I am merely explaining how Wikipedia works: we don't decide for ourselves if an issue is important, instead we reflect what the outside world thinks. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a forum, blog or campaigning website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC) I assure you that certain individuals in the WikiLeaks group that authored the article will respond accordingly to meet the requirements to bring this article the notability it deserves. The MIT students might do something to get this article noticed as well. Please wait for a response from these operations. Thank You. (Fisheyesawr (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)) It appears that Fisheyesawr has nothing more constructive to do than try to get publicity for the fringe anti-fluoridation campaign here and elsewhere. The document that got released, among millions of other unnotable documents, is nothing new and is available elsewhere. There's really nothing to do here, unless we wish to help Fisheyesawr misuse Wikipedia to advance a fringe POV. This also has nothing to do with the purpose of this article. It should also be noted that using the Fluoride Action Network's website is more than dubious. It's a radical fringe group promoting unscientific ideas. Its use as a source would only be allowable as a primary source on its own article. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I assure you that certain individuals in the WikiLeaks group that authored the article will respond accordingly to meet the requirements to bring this article the notability it deserves. The MIT students that posted this WikiLeaks document on the MIT student board will respond to meet these requirements. Please wait for a response from these operations. Thank You. Please note that due to the complex process required to contact these operations while maintaining absolute anonymity will take time and then a time period for them to respond so for know it is just a matter of time for a response. A response will be made that meets the requirements as requested. Thank You for your cooperation for this communication and the time required to respond. (Fisheyesawr (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)) This all sounds very conspiratorial and Wikipedia doesn't use such sources unless they are published in reputable and reliable sources. This document was already available. It's not new or unusual in any manner. Why do you think that a "Wikileaks group" "authored the article"? They don't "author" anything. They just leak it. BTW, please indent your comments. Just use the appropriate number of colons. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Please be patient as requirements are met to communicate with these operations in a manner that is anonymous. A response is made that meets the requirements as indicated. Yes we know what WikiLeaks is and the nature of the information it provides but thank you for the insight.(Fisheyesawr (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)) Please indent properly. On 7 February 2009, WikiLeaks released 6,780 Congressional Research Service reports. Why on earth should we give this particular report more attention? It's one out of 6,780 CRS reports! Just drop this or you risk getting blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposed lack of discretion

The lede contains this line: "Some journalists have criticized the lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis"

Shouldn't that be perceived lack of discretion? WikiLeaks does redactions, after all. It's simply a matter of whether you happen to believe that the redactions are sufficiently thorough. Sonicsuns (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, the (obviously WP:POV) phrase is so innocuous —- what does "lack of editorial discretion" mean? what exactly are they referring to? —- that the comment should probably be removed from the article. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 07:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair point on the phrasing. Reword it to be more nuanced/accurate if you can. This is significant because it's from a Reporters Without Borders, not exactly a press-enemy. The key paragraph is this: Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media. I think we should keep it, but maybe rephrase the timeframe, since over time WikiLeaks has been doing more in the areas of redaction and journalistic selection/involvement with traditional media oversight. Ocaasi (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The description of WikiLeaks' cable distribution methods as problematic and irresponsible is uncalled-for. To draw an analogy, WikiLeaks acts as a wholesale distributor of the cables, and uses its journalistic partners as the retail distributors of the content where notability within the cables is identified. Evidently, we can find a few reporters from Reporters Without Borders who support censorship of the cables just as readily as we can find a few lawyers from the ACLU who support the censorship of hate-speech. (I realise that this post probably breaches WP:SOAPBOX, so take from it what you will). Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 09:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't take much from this. The RWB article was written by the secretary-general of the organization as an Open Letter, featured on the website's homepage. If you want to soapbox, I won't begrudge you the opportunity, but check it out yourself. Ocaasi (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Reporters Without Borders is a generally a good source, but in that particular quote they make a blantant error. WikiLeaks did not indiscriminately publish 92,000 reports from Afghanistan. They received 92,000 reports, but only published 75,000 of those. The other 17,000 were withheld as part of a "harm minimization process". (Bizarrely, RSF does mention the withheld documents, but they still seem to think that 92,000 were released, which doesn't add up.) So it is absolutely false that WikiLeaks "indiscriminately" published "92,000" classified reports. Moreover, WikiLeaks has done an ever better job with the more recent redactions in the Iraq War Logs and the US Diplomatic Cables. In light of all that, I really think the line in the lede should have the word "perceived" in front of "lack of discretion". Sonicsuns (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sonicsuns, if the sentence is to remain, then I agree with adding the word "perceived". Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 15:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RWB was acknowledging that WL withheld 15,000 documents for review, but that in the end 92,000 would be released. The criticism was not just with the redacting process but with the dump-nature of posting thousands of documents (92,000 or 77,000 both being a lot). Specifically, "Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media." I agree that it's not black and white, and that this criticism has gone down somewhat as WL has been more careful about redacting and releasing leaks. We need sources that describe that, though. Meanwhile, I'm okay with rephrasing it to be more specific, but not fundamentally different. Ocaasi (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but RSF/RWB did make an error in that statement. It talks about "92,000 leaked documents" that were "posted" on "25 July". But there were actually only 75,000 posted on that date. (Granted, the Guardian also got this wrong, initially.) RSF's acknowledgment of an additional 15,000 documents would imply 107,000 overall, which is more than WikiLeaks has ever claimed to posses. So RSF/RWB had their numbers wrong, and indeed WikiLeaks was involved in "the selection of information". Some cables were withheld, and would only be released after "further review" (and presumably redactions). Assange also said ""We don't do things in an ad hoc way [...] We've tried hard to make sure that it puts no innocents at harm. This material is over seven months old so it's of no operational significance, although it's significant for journalistic investigation." So again, it's not as if WikiLeaks is putting in no effort at all as far as "discretion" is concerned. When you say "I'm okay with rephrasing it to be more specific, but not fundamentally different", does that mean we're ok to add "perceived" to that sentence? Sonicsuns (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing government reactions

Lihaas cut out two good chunks of info about government praise, government criticism. Just think we should discuss that change, since it was a lot of interesting (if not critically relevant content). I'd be interested in trying to shorten the sections rather than getting rid of them whole. (Lihaas, you mentioned this being more appropriate for US Cable Leaks; are you thinking of copying it over there?) Ocaasi (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a massive change (read: cut) requires a discussion on this talk page. If you hadn't reverted, I would have. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 11:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We should probably just make a separate "Reactions" article.Sonicsuns (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sonicsuns, we have: Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 14:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm not wed to keeping this info, especially if it gets put somewhere else. Just want to make sure it doesn't get lost in the mix. Ocaasi (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be written that as soon as Hugo Chavez found there was cables about his government he changed his point of view about wiki-leaks. You can read it on every venezuelan newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.199.24 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange's Claims of Netanyahu Support

I would like some opinion as to whether this content should go into the article: source "[Benjamin] Netanyahu of Israel seems to welcome this material, in fact said leaders should say in public what they say in private. So as far as the peace negotiations with Iran and the Middle East, it seems to be a step forward," he said. "In general, it is a step forward for everyone to be on the same page and not be running around behind each other's backs, telling lies about each other." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if it is being sourced from Assange, I'd think. If Netanyahu has said this, and we have WP:RS, it certainly should go in though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think it should go in. Given the amount of press coverage this is getting, a single paragraph in one article indicates including it would give undue weight to this solitary quote. The balance of coverage indicates that there are more important things about WikiLeaks to cover here.--Chaser (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be included in Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 21:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

...But only if it can be sourced from WP:RS, rather than Assange himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

put the story also in a historical context

let me copy the part AndyTheGrump removed probably because part of the source is in german:

The historian Karl Schlögel recommends a historically sound view onto the debate. Already after [[World War I|World War I]] the two revolutionary powers,[[Bolsheviki|Bolsheviki]] and the [[United States|United States]], fought against secret diplomacy. All the available documents were published, just what WikiLeaks tries to do today. He also references the [[Fourteen Points|Fourteen Points]] of [[Woodrow Wilson|Woodrow Wilson]], especially point one saying "... there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view." http://orf.at/stories/2031541/2031508/ Von WikiLeaks zu Woodrow Wilson], ORF, 2010-12-18, with references to "Das Russische Berlin: Ostbahnhof Europas“ (1998), Karl Schlögl, and „The Evolution of Diplomacy“, (1954), Harold Nicolson.

what do you think, should this go into the text? currently i find the story less interesting to read as there is a lot of information, and no context. why reference an espionage act, and not the forteen points of wilson, both addressing the same topic?--ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a detour for the article. If you want to incorporate it into the article about Espionage, Political Transparency, or Diplomacy, maybe it fits there. Otherwise, it's more like one historian's general commentary on this very concrete issue. I see why it was removed. Encyclopedia articles often lose 'interesting pieces' that don't represent sufficiently notable or relevant commentaries. Maybe an external link? Ocaasi (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is off-topic, editorialising, and speculative in my opinion, which is why I reverted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

as it is a personal view it was put into the "receptions" section of the article together with the other personal views. as it is not clearly for and against, i put it on top. andy then removed the receptions header alltogether and put the personal opinions now under investigations and cencorship. i am unsure if you really wanted that? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Receptions is generally for government responses, major media responses, major public opinion polls, and other highly notable commentaries. I don't want to exclude academia from that at all, but this particular piece is pretty speculative and I'm not sure why it's notable for the article. This would also, fairly or not, be much easier to evaluate if we had an English translation of the article. I think for now it's fair to exclude it merely for length reasons, unless this particular historian is especially prominent in the field. Ocaasi (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

i'd be glad if you could make a better formulated statement and a better place in the article which includes a reference to woodrow wilsons 14 points, and „The Evolution of Diplomacy“, (1954), Harold Nicolson (who was part of the wwI peace negotiations). after the october revolution trotzki published secret diplomatic documents from zaristic russia, france, and the british empire to show that the war is an "imperialistic capitalistic war". which then triggered the u.s. president wilson to publish the 14 points and led to do "diplomacy in the public". so wikileaks did something done by trotzky, then the post ww1 soviet union, the post ww1 united states, later ellsberg. not mentioning this in the whole article leaves the article somehow incomplete, imo. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me just make sure I have your summary right. You think we should include, more or less, that: One response to the leaks has been to see them as a step towards doing diplomacy in public, a process advocated by Leon Trotsky who published secret documents from WWI, Woodrow Wilson in his 14 point plan, Harold Nicoholson's 1954 book 'The Evolution of Diplomacy', and Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers. Something like that? The problem is that we already have the basic idea that Wikileaks has been praised for exposing state secrets, and increasing transparency. That's already there. The only addition you'd add to that is A) a Historian's placing of Wikileaks on the timeline of increasing diplomatic transparency and B) some historical antecedents along that timeline. I don't think A adds much to the article, and B is kind of tangential. We're not historians and can't really make those claims. The fact that one historian did is interesting, but why is it a notable view for this article? Why is that historian's opinion notable? Also, why does it belong in this article as opposed to the article on, say, 'Transparency and Diplomacy', or 'History of Diplomacy in the 21st century', etc. rather than here... Ocaasi (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

imo some statement belongs here citing the leakings in the past, to put it into context. the trotzki leaking is missing here, and i think you are right, in wikipedia in general. i also agree that we are not historians and wikipedia is not here to make claism, therefor Harold Nicolson would be one reference for the effect it had. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not sure if it fits. As a reception piece, it's just not really appropriate. It's not his opinion of WikiLeaks so much as just general historical background about other Leaks. Which, if we have it, should probably be part of the beginning of the article, such as in a Background section. I'm not familiar with those, and hesitate to add it to this already lengthy article. Maybe another editor can weigh in. To summarize, I don't think it fits in reception, and I'm not sure how we'd do it as background. Ocaasi (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More POV work on the lead

Following above discussions, I wanted to include in the lead a comparable summary of the praise WL has received, like we do for the criticism. To do this efficiently, I shortened the descriptions of the awards (keeping them all, though). Then I added: "Supporters of Wikileaks in the media have commended it for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, supporting freedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions," (with sources). I also did some minor rephrasing in the criticism paragraph. I think NPOV is improved. Bare links remain. Ocaasi (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty International

The $700,000 blackmail attempt of Amnesty International should be mentioned in the section where AI is discussed.99.231.217.26 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We'd need a source for that. Ocaasi (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What blackmail attempt is being referred to, here? Uncensored Kiwi ^Talk 09:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

About format, style, content, etc.

A couple of things that I wanted to notate, and would like input and assistance with:

1. The "out of date" template in the Hosting section - is there someone that could update this section, so this template could be removed? Or maybe the out-of-date content should be removed? It sure seems like it's been there a long time.
2. Use of flags in the By countries sections--probably not a good idea, because of the reasons listed at MOS:FLAG. Maybe section headers should be used instead? Also, in the "Praise by governments" section, the United Nations is NOT a gov't, it's an organization, so that needs to be moved somewhere else.
3. Regarding the sections scheme of the "Investigations, censorship, harassment, and surveillance" section and then, later on, the Support, praise by gov'ts, and then the related Criticism and Criticism by gov'ts-- this is getting a little confusing to readers, including myself. For example, in the many paragraphs about the USA's involvement, there is significant overlap with the Investigations section, the Criticism by gov'ts section, and the Potential criminal prosecution sections. The chronology of the sections doesn't seem to follow either. Whereas the Leaks section is listed by year, the Praise and Criticism sections seem to be mostly about the "new" praise and criticism out there, mainly after the last leak. There needs to be more continuity between all these sections.
4. The article is getting too big again (over 157 kB), and the emphasis on recentism needs to be pared down. Just opening up the edit button tends to freeze up my browser at least 15 seconds, if not crashing altogether. If we keep reporting in the article on every single thing that happens, we could write a book.
5. Regarding the Hosting, Name Servers, and Site mgmt issues sections, maybe these could be combined, since they're all about related topics concerning the infrastructure of the website?

Looking forward to your comments, help is always appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:#4, Editor Lihaas previously removed the government praise and criticism sections entirely. I reverted, since I wasn't sure where that content should be, but on second look, I think it indeed would be better at the Reactions to Cablegate article, especially, because it is mostly recent responses as you said. That's a big chunk, like 10k, so, a start... Ocaasi (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea--the info about the reactions to Cablegate is probably already duplicated at the reactions article. Maybe the amount of info about that subject on this article could be pared down and moved over to both the contents and reactions articles? It surely would be a start! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunshine Press?

What's the Sunshine Press, and why is it notable enough for the second sentence of the lead if we don't have a wikipedia article on it? Which one of those is the problem? Ocaasi (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The person/organization owning/operating any media property is a basic fact which merits mentioning. However, I do agree that it would be nice if the lede's flow could be adjusted to not require a separate sentence for this information. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I more mean, why can't it just be in the section on History or Hosting, rather than in the lead. Or maybe in a footnote, or a refnote. As is, Sunshine Press gets mention but the fact has zero import, since it's not even wikilinked. It's like, oh, sunshine press, wonder what that is--next sentence... Ocaasi (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it works like this: A bunch of people got together to make a transparency group called the Sunshine Press. The Sunshine Press came up with a project called WikiLeaks, and a website to match. Since then, Sunshine Press has spent 100% of its energy on the WikiLeaks project. This has led practically everyone to talk about an "organization" called WikiLeaks, when technically there is only a project called WikiLeaks and the organization is Sunshine Press. (Or at least, that was the original intention.) The two terms are basically synonymous at this point. The only time you see the words "Sunshine Press" is in the account ownership field for the WikiLeaks donation fund. ([10] "Sunshine Press Productions ehf"). Hope that answers your question. Sonicsuns (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A case of weasel-wording

Currently, below the text reading "his practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the Web site to have "blood on our hands." we have the text "In 2010, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks have left the website." This reads like a weasel-worded attempt at implying that those "dozen key supporters" left because they considered that the website will have "blood on its hands". In reality, the source for the second claim states that they left because Wikileaks had neglected "reams of new exposés because so much attention has been paid to the Iraq and Afghan conflicts" and was thus was not being faithful to its original concepts. So that "In 2010, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks have left the website." sentence should actually be placed in the site management issues subsection of the Administration section. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The "blood on our hands" is also quoted out of context: [11]. aprock (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the first part: the supporters leaving is in it's own paragraph. I think we just need to add a sentence to it so that it stands more on its own. Check it now, I've edited it a bit.Ocaasi (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Idea for re-ordering: Move section 6 (Leaks) to between sections 2 (administration) and 3/4/5 (responses,criticism, spin-offs). Reason: currently we talk about the responses and even copy-cats before describing the actual actions. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And me SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards section

Currently, Awards has its own section at the end of the article (like it's a discography or something). Should we make it a sub-section of Responses:Praise rather than have it hanging? Ocaasi (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, ditto for the TOC above. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the UN response shouldn't be under the "gov'ts" secion, that needs to be moved to be under "Organisations". --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The UN is a Governmental Organization, though. It is a government, or at least a multi-national governing body. It has members and laws and courts (kind of) and such. It's more like the U.S. than it is like Mastercard. So, I'm not sure on your suggestion. Ocaasi (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The UN is not a government, by any reasonable definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Maybe we can change the wording to include governmental organizations? Also, since the bit about the guy who left & is forming OpenLeaks has been added, I'd suggest to move the info from the Spin-offs section up there, and delete some of the red-linked details, by just saying that in addition to OpenLeaks, sites were also started in... I don't think Spin-offs needs its own section, and it's not placed very well, either, in the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected, by WikiAnswers no less. So, [Governmental Organisation] could be used for the first half, although it is a bit non-specific for China, US, etc, but it does work for the UN. [Governments and Governmental Organisations] is more specific but even longer. We could have a separate header for the UN under [Governmental Organisations] although it would be the only one listed, since we don't have any others, really. I'll take a look at the spin-offs. I could go either way on it. Once those orgs are actually up and running, it'd be nice to have the spin-offs section. Now it's a bit of an eyesore. Ocaasi (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS question about TOC

More of a general query: the final 5 sections are all [end-stuff] related:

• 7 See also
• 8 Notes
• 9 References
• 10 Further reading
• 11 External links

And each one has its own H2 header. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an overarching H2 header like, Addendum or something, and then have see also/notes/refers/furtherreading/external links be h3 subheaders? Ocaasi (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it done where Notes, Refs and Further were combined under References, and then each sub-section was made by using a semi-colon ";" in front of the words, like

Notes

so that would eliminate the h3 headers, and there'd only be 1 H2. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. WP:APPENDIX covers this, but I'm not 100% sure if it's saying H2 is standard or not. Not a big deal, but it seems a bit excessive to have 5 appendix sections in an article that has only 6 content sections. Ocaasi (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried it with 5 h3 headers under [Appendices]. It looks ok to me, but I bet some MOS sticklers won't care for it. Ocaasi (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph order

WP:LEAD suggests we summarize the body, presumably in the order of the body. It also prefers max 4 paragraphs and we have 5. Re the first issue, I'm thinking about moving the Leaks paragraph above the praise/criticism paragraphs to mimic the recent body re-order. Re the second, that last paragraph about the Wiki/DNS status is kind of bugging me. I kind of want to put it with the first paragraph or kind of want to just chuck it from the lead, since it's a bit technical. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Put the Wiki/DNS stuff under either Hosting or Name Servers. Also, since you added the add'l section headers under History, I think that Funding and Operational issues needs to be moved to the Admin. section, where there's already sub-sections about the same stuff. That would leave Founding & Purpose under History, which makes more sense. The Appendices section looks fine. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved Wiki to the first paragraph and DNS to Hosting. Not sure about History yet. If we take out Funding and Operations, it's kind of empty. The History parts are also written more in timeline form whereas the Admin section is more general. Feel free to have a crack it. Ocaasi (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Header Title

I previously changed the section title [Investigations, censorship, harassment, and surveillance] to [Institutional response]. Mr. Grantevans2 changed it back. I prefer the former for being shorter, more general, less POV, and I think also accurate. Headers are not supposed to be lists, IMO, although I am open to better phrases than Institutional Reponse (though I don't understand why it's so objectionable). Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something in between? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

When reading the section, it incudes all 4 things in the older heading. What do all 4 have in common? They are all negative perhaps reaction,,intimidation, I think I have it "pressure". What about "Reactive Pressure"? or maybe "Institutional Pressure" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd think "Institutional reactions" would be better, but it still doesn't sound quite right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Institutional backlash and pressure? Institutional reaction and pressure... Ocaasi (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Institutional backlash and pressure" is perfect,I think. Covers it all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

gotta go; whatever you 2 decide's ok. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks Document Release http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL33280 February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RL33280

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33280.pdf