Talk:United States documents leak of the War in Afghanistan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: see #Suggested move, part 2. harej 09:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The War Logs → Afghan War Logs

Besides getting rid of the unnecessary 'The', it would make the title more descriptive. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be still early to see how it plays out in the secondary sources. I saw some sources with Afghan War Logs but i saw also a lot that use Afghanistan war logs or simply The War Logs. We may need just a little bit more time to watch the sources and see how it plays out. IQinn (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like both the New York Times and The Guardian are calling the documents "The War Logs." We should wait a few days and see if this catches on as the common name. - SimonP (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Afghanistan war logs is the sensible title. The Guardian are calling them the "Afghanistan war logs", when they refer to it in a historical context. The Guardian and the New York Times are using titles like "Afghanistan: The War Logs" or just "The War Logs" for their websites, but this is a marketing term; it is not how they are being referred to from a historical context. It's fairly obvious that "The War Logs" will not ever ever be used to describe them in a historical context; it's not specific enough, certainly not for an encyclopaedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph uses the term "Afghanistan War Logs" and it now appears that the Telegraph is but one of many. At the time I initiated the article "War Logs" seemed to be the only terminology in use but that has since changed. I don't think the NY Times and the Guardian have necessarily reserved naming rights.Bdell555 (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait and see what title becomes the dominant one. no need to rush. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make the change:

The War Logs → Afghanistan war logs 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see on the front page of the Guardian that it says "Afghanistan war logs: latest developments". There is also "Afghanistan war logs: live blog" on the site. In fact, all Guardian stories related to the topic appear to be prefaced with "Afghanistan war logs:". The very widely read HuffPo calls them "Afghanistan War Logs", although I admit that HuffPo also says "dubbed 'The War Logs'" . Before reverting back to "War Logs" alone reverters should provide some evidence or argument beyond "wait and see" because there is no reason why the burden of proof should be on one choice of terminology over another. A link to this Wiki article appears on news.google.com's front page such that Wikipedia need not just follow the others anyway but can name it as Wikipedians think it should be named and on that front "Afghanistan War Logs" is more informative. "War Logs" by itself does have elements of marketing such that the New York Times would like to see the leak as being on the same status as the Pentagon Papers i.e. something that one can more easily imagine having a "TM" superscript after it as opposed to something more generic. The NY Times apparently wanted "The War Logs" to stick but it now seems that most other sources are not just going to run with that, in that they will specify "Afghanistan War Logs" or, even more commonly, use entirely generic terminology that doesn't capitalize or even mention "war logs" at all.Bdell555 (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to rush the discussion usually runs for seven days and many people here have explicit ask for more time. You might be right but we are a community so please try to reach consensus and let other people also have their say. IQinn (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is consensus. Bdell555 was the creator of the article, and has now decided that Afghanistan war logs is a better name. No one has yet given any arguments against this. Can we please make the move? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The one who start an article get's the final right to choose the name? Actually Afghan War Logs has been also use quite a lot and The War Logs are big in the secondary sources. What's the pushing for? Can we at least have 48 hours? So we can watch and check the sources as many editors here have ask for. IQinn (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No - This is the nomenclature preferred by major news organizations, no reason to prefer anything else. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean that Bdell555 had special rights. I meant that up until that point he was the only person who had supported the name "The War Logs", and he changed his mind. But it now appears there others who object. The point is that "Afghanistan war logs" is the most common name, and "The War Logs" is used only as a marketing title, not as a descriptive or referential title. I have not yet seen anyone address this argument, so I feel there is rough consensus to move the page. If anyone want to give arguments as to why "The War Logs" is a better name than "Afghanistan War Logs", but there is no reason we necessarily have to wait for a particular period of time before making the move, in no one gives any counter arguments. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't base my opinion on Bdell555's opinion though, I made my comments based on the very recent NYTimes publication of the same, so that's the form I'd prefer. The NYT blog, and probably the paper for tomorrow (unclear to me) uses the "war logs" name, so that's probably the best approach for now. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Give us a break. No reason to threaten an edit war. That's your opinion and i as others here already said that this might not be the best choice and many said the best is to wait a little time to see how the sources play out and that the name is perfectly fine for them. As said i highly suggest you wait at least 48 hours to give the community time to react to your argument. Better would be to let an administrator close it. What's the pushing for? IQinn (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it here for now Folks will find the article either way, so I see little reason to move the article immediately. Also, if those does get moved again, may I suggest a move lock so that wherever it ends up it remains until such time as things cool off enough that this can reasonbly be expected to stay in one place. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not threatening an edit war. I was saying that consensus building is about discussion, and no one has yet produced a counter argument to the arguments for the move. There is no need to rush, but there is no need to delay either. If the move turns out to be a mistake we can always move it back. But no one has yet given an argument as to how it could be a mistake. Durrecentisming World War II people obviously just referred to it as "the war", but that clearly would not be an acceptable title for the World War II article. The term "The War Logs" is used as a marketing term, it has not yet been used in a single reliable sourced as a term of reference. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Recentism. Consensus building is about discussion. You can't simply ignore the arguments and then revert the move because there is "no consensus". If you hadn't reverted the move, we would already be closer to consensus, because there have been virtually no arguments as to why "The War Logs" is a better name. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, "folks will find the article either way" is not an argument. If someone want s to oppose the move, they have to give reasons why "The War Logs" is a better name. The reason I am reluctant to wait for "48 hours" is that more people will view this page in the next 48 hours than in the following 10 days combined. We need a non-ambiguous name during that time. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually all of the discussion above is about how it has been used in a reliable source. For the English sources it's been referred to verbatim as "The War Logs". The British and German versions, I don't know, but you can't claim, as you did after my edits, "there have been virtually no arguments as to why 'The War Logs' is a better name". Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not an argument as to why it is a better name. That is merely stating the the term "The War Logs" has been used by reliable sources, and it is not even true as far as i can tell. The term "The War Logs" without the word "Afghanistan" only in the New York Times as far as I know, and there it is only used as marketing title and recentism, not as a term of reference. It is used in the same sense that during the World War II people just said "the war", including newspapers, but that does not make it an acceptable name for a encyclopaedia article. And in any case it is not even the common name. Again, as term of reference the reliable sources that I have seen, including English ones, specify "Afghanistan war logs" as in here in the Guardian, here in the Telegraph and here on BBC. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you keep pushing and threatening again even people have ask you not to do so and ask for time so they can check the sources and address your argument. I highly suggest an administrator put an move lock on the article now as this is not the right atmosphere anymore to discuss. As said i will address your argument shortly. A lot of newspapers have not even come out and what i can see "The War Logs" is what reliable secondary sources use that's what i can say so far. IQinn (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Pushing and threatening"? This is called discussion and it is an important part of consensus building, which is an major policy of Wikipedia, which you are currently ignoring.

Move lock is good for a temporary time. I'm sorry Iqinn, I don't understand who you're addressing, or what your ultimate conclusion is. I agree though that some temp move protection is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why is a move lock necessary if there has only been one revert, followed by discussion on the talk page? Gregcaletta (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree on move to proposed title or 2010 Afghan War Documents leak. Current title far too short. Figureofnine (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just "2010 Afghan War Documents leak"

2010 Afghan War Documents leak Seems much more sensible There we avoid the media spin of the "war logs"Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (I support). SethWhales^talk 12:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer1157 (talk • contribs)

War logs is better ~ Adam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.223.232 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a matter of time until the media decides to go with "Logsgate". Staecker (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Afghan War Documents leak is much better title. Figureofnine (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)b

Oppose: Not widely used in media. Current title is much better. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was typing something lost in an edit conflict. But it express strong support for a move. Who came up with war logs? the media articles? wikileaks? If neither then it should be moved, if one of them is sources as saying it (esp. wikileaks where it was created) then how about the "The War Logs (Afghanistan)" to clarify.Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

NYT and Guardian are both using "War Logs". Wikileaks calls the collection "Afghan War Diary" (the site is simply named wardiary.wikileaks.org) and is also using "war logs" and "Afghan war logs" when talking about it. Will we see other war logs in the future that we'll have to DAB? At this point I'm certain we don't want "The". Thundermaker (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

~~Oppose and wait:~~Move to Afghan War Diary: This is the official name used by Wikileaks, and per my comment below, is the most widespread name used as well. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We have no idea what it should be called thus let choose a Neutral Generic Discrpetive name Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks has clearly stated that they are keeping 1/6th of the documents hidden for now as they redact all information that is dangerous to release. This doesn't seem to be noted in the article despite the fact that it has been mentioned in the press. Perhaps this should be noted before the link to the leak.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Support a move. "The War Logs" has been used only as a marketing title, not as a term of reference. Oppose this particular title. Afghanistan war logs is what the media organisations are using. It's the "afghanistan war" not the "afghan war". "Afghan war logs" implies that the war logs themselves are "Afghani". Also, there are no other war logs that I know of, so giving the exact ear is probably unnecessary. So Afghanistan war logs seems appropriate. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Move to "Afghan War Diary" or "Afghan War Diary leak"

Wikileaks titles the documents "Afghan War Diary", and so are a few other media outlets. Currently, Google lists 156,000 results for "Afghan War Diary", while listing 42,600 results for "Afghan War Logs". I think that, if there is a move, the title should be consistent with both the name of the source documents and the most popularly-used title, which seems to be the latter. The addition of the word "leak" could be used to help note what the title is about, but I personally prefer strictly keeping the article title to the name of the documents. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Afghanistan war logs" gets about the same amount of hits, 141 000. Combining the two shows that "war logs" is overall about 30% more common in this context than "war diary", and "logs" is more encyclopaedic than "diary". Gregcaletta (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Afghan war diary" without caps gives 172,000 hits. But I don't think Google should really be a factor here because it's quite tight, nevertheless. I still think "War Diary", regardless of being encyclopedic, is the name used by Wikileaks, the publisher of the documents in question. Consequentially, it is the official name for the documents. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Per above i support anythign with the addead clarification of Afghan and then whats officially used (wikileaks)Lihaas (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well as for now I support any move to anything with Afghanistan or Afghan in the title. I prefer Afghanistan war logs to Afghan war diary but I we can have such discussions about the specific name later. I prefer anything more specific than the current name. The current name is not suitable and the move to something more specific should be made ASAP. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I also support this move. prat (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. prat (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry all did not realise there's a bot process! Taking a break now :) prat (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...there definitely was not enough discussion before the move. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but – and I don't want to sound biased – there hasn't been a fuss to the move yet. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bsimmons666: "there definitely was not enough discussion before the move." There is no reason why you cannot continue to discuss it. If you think the page should be moved back, or prefer another title, feel free to make your arguments. Personally, my favourite is still Afghanistan war logs. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I started this move discussion in the first place (see above...). Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

This article reeks of bias. Shouldn't a tag be applied until these "logs" can be verified as truth or as fiction or even as embellishment?Splashallison (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)splashallison

agreed this article is too quick too say all 92,000 paint the war as a failure the, opinion or view point is more likely reflected differently in the different years. Readers should as of right now be the ones to determine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidit1 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the logs are false. THe military itself has at least tacitly acknowledged that they are genuine. Where does the article say "all 92,000 paint the war as a failure"? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the lead and found one statement that appeared biased and not included in the sourced material. If there any more specific statements that you find inaccurate, please point them out to us. If there are any significant POVs that are missing from the article, please feel free to provide the quotations with the source. Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

the article is not here for itself as truth, its also important of thye notability it gets. Granted no one is disavowed the truth of it either (except some media saying it has "not been independently verified" --> which is also something to put in)Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"NATO forces in Afghanistan have made little progress in stabilizing the country" would have been less contentious than what is currently found in the lead, which alleges "cover up". I haven't checked to see who, in fact, added the "cover up" charge (sourced to Russia Today) but if it wasn't you, Greg, I would still suggest it was naive to delete the "little progress" sentence because users with long experience with how articles develop in Wikipedia would understand that if some sort of summary statement about the content was not in the introduction, it will inevitably be added, and without a moderate statement in there already that would require reversion for a stronger statement to be inserted, someone who disapproves of US foreign policy (ie most Wiki editors) will add wording more extreme than what one would find even in moderately left-leaning papers like The New York Times. How can Wiki claim "cover up" when the NYT says "[o]ver all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war"? Well because Russia Today says "cover up". Yet Russia Today is but ONE source. There ought to be multiple sources for something like this (which in turn suggests the statement need not repeated word-for-word from a particular source but rather be a rough paraphrase of what the median source suggests). See this article for what Reporters sans frontières says about Russia Today. See also what this CBC story has to say about RT. During Russia's war with Georgia, RT claimed that "At least 2,000 people, including many children were killed within the first 48 hours of the conflict (i.e. by Georgians before Russia intervened in force) yet subsequent investigation found this figure to be massively inflated. But whether Russia Today is a WP:RS or not is really secondary to the fact that it is but ONE source, reliable or not.Bdell555 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's nothing in the lead on a "coverup." Figureofnine (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"cover up" WAS in the lead. Someone else removed that. I've subsequently removed the citation to Russia Today since its reliability is contentious, as I have noted, and there should be a gazillion other sources.Bdell555 (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today with regards to the removal of the Russia Today source.Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Russia Today is fine, but if it is a contentious claim it should be a direct quote placed between quotations marks, and not in the lead. Put it in the "commentary" section. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I removed that content, Bdell555. You can add it back again if you really like. I generally find direct quotes are best for building consensus over contentious claims, because they avoid claims of bias or misrepresentation of the sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've explained at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today why RT is not "fine." It can potentially be used as a reliable source, but is far more problematic than most truly independent media sources.Bdell555 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine if you place the content in quotation marks and include it in the body rather than the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a direct quote of the content in question here on the talk page please? Gregcaletta (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove easy access to the papers from wikipedia

These documents posted here were not legally obtained. How would you like it if the police raided your house, found your private information and posted it online - even if the raid were illegal the damage would be done. This is what Wikileaks did to MY country! I believe in the freedom of speech, but I will fight to the death to protect my privacy and the legitimate privacy of my country. If these documents could be legally obtained, then wikileaks could use the Freedom of Information act. I am certain that at least one NATO troop is going to die because of these leaks - which give away allied tactics and positions. These are not the Pentagon papers; they are the records of the hard working troops who trusted the USA to keep these records private! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.160 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of policy, not moral outrage. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikileaks documents are widely available, and removing it from Wikipedia would accomplish nothing. Figureofnine (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Even the New York Times refrained from publishing everything. Wikipedia may be one of the easiest sites to access this information for those with little familiarity with the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.160 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

From the New York Times, "We have not linked to the archives of raw material. At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html?pagewanted=all) I think that Wikipedia should use similar discretion. 128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor. If you really believe that the material is illegal and/or that linking to it is illegal, that's something you should take up with the lawyers (I think WP:OFFICE would be what you want). I'm confident that this is not the case though. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not illegal to publish, it is immoral to publish. However, stealing the information was criminal, and I'm sure any American that is found to be involved will be punished.128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AMORAL might give some helpful info, hm? --Yair rand (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Pentagon Papers were top secret documents and so even more sensitive of a leak than The War Logs. So, in a way, removing the link for this article would argue for removing it for The Pentagon Papers. Also consider that simply using the title of the article for a Google search would bring someone to the source material. This isn't China. There's no need to "protect" people from otherwise readily available information. --Sstrader (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam war was over before wikipedia was created so including the Pentagon Papers on wikipedia does not put troops in danger. Anyways, these documents are in a completely different category - they reveal much more details on the ground that may be useful for insurgents and much less new policy detail. The Rolling Stones article about McCrystal was more similar in character to the Pentagon Papers than these documents. 128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is constitutional for the U.S. government to have secrets - particularly military secrets. It is the type of secrets that distinguishes us from China.128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that any adverse interest has the documents in their entirety by now. Why deprive everybody else? They're not secret anymore. Figureofnine (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Taliban fighters hiding in caves may not check the internet every day.128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way. We have to be neutral, so even if linking to the material put troops in harms way, it isn't a factor we should consider. Your assumption that all editors and readers support both the war and the troops is something I find offensive. We aren't here to consider foreign policy or to be discreet or to take sides, we are here to inform. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not assume that everyone supports the war. However, I do assume that none of the editors want NATO troops killed. Perhaps this is a mistake.128.118.147.160 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are wrong. I guess many people want Taliban fighters to be killed, so of course there are many people who want the opposite. Wikipedia should take a neatral point of view in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.109.118 (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The documents are not contained on Wikipedia, so including a widely disseminated link has nothing to do with "put[ting] troops in danger". See the case of Genie v. Bottle. --Sstrader (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance that you don't understand, everyone here except you is opposed to the removal of these external links. Your latest attempt at removal and any future attempt at removal is unacceptable. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only among people currently active on this page. The wider wikipedia community might agree with me. 128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only four people have disagreed with me so far, which is not a statistically significant sample of the community.128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So why not discuss it with the wider community? See WP:DISPUTE for the various options. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits. I will consider it an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.160 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to attempt to remove the link without even citing a valid reason. Everyone else considers it to be disruptive. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have cited valid and urgent reasons to remove the link. I do not believe that your reasons for keeping it are valid. There are still only four people who disagree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.160 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In order to remove that link, you need to cite a policy consistent with Wikipedia practices. I've examined WP:EL and not found any applicable. If you feel that there is a significant reason apart from Wiki policies, you should take it up with higher authorities. Figureofnine (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:EL "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." Clearly the copyright was owned by the soldiers who wrote the reports or the United States Government, and was not given freely to wikilinks. Therefore, wikilinks violates copyright and the link to their site must be removed immediately. 128.118.147.160 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Documents produced by the US government or by US government employees operating in an official capacity are typically not protected by copyright.[1] In any case, this would be a matter for WP:OFFICE to hash out. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a silly argument if there ever was one. Clearly, it is illegal to post secret information, regardless whether Wikipedia mentions it in its policy or not. This is urgent, because we can't wait for the Wiki Office to find the time to reply to a request. You should thank those who remove these links for keeping you out of big trouble. God Bless America (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The links are not going to be removed without either some sort of consensus or administrative intervention. Take your pick. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Links are not the documents themselves. A link to illegally obtained documents is not itself illegal. Your argument is invalid and as misinformed as the anonymous IP that keeps attempting to remove those links. Removing a link does not delete something from the internet, and declarations of urgency and patriotism does not make it so. --Sstrader (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above editor, links should stay. Best wishes --ValenShephard 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sstrader, does your name "Sstrader" make you any less anonymous than an IP address. 128.118.147.160 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Within three clicks from my sig link, I got to my email addresses, phone numbers, and home address. Googling "sstrader" brings up four of my accounts on the first results page alone. So to state the obvious: yes, it does make me less anonymous. --Sstrader (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the link should stay. The argument that the documents were obtained illegally is irrelevant. It is neither the first nor the last time that documents regarding the military have been leaked to the embarrassment of the governments involved. --Panzer71 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this rubbish actually being discussed? Some jingoist saying "it hurt my country" in his opinion is never valid grounds for anything here. Maybe a media campaign to take out of the global spotlight would be a better action that telling wikipedia not to add it.

per the not a forum not above this thread should be removed.Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. A lot of things in this thread don't belong, but there's nothing wrong with the thread itself. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

These documents posted here were not legally obtained.

Actually they probably were legally obtained. They were illegally released to someone who was not allowed access, but I do not think that person who received it is liable for anything unless the leaker was acting at said individual's behest. In other words it is all perfectly legal for us.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point raised by someone. These are U.S. government documents and therefore are in the public domain. I'm glad that's settled. Figureofnine (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we end and collapse this distracting discussion? There are bigger issues, some of which we can actually control (unlike whether other people will find a link to the documents). --an odd name 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They are US government documents marked "SECRET". I agree with 128.118.147.160. However I actually was the first one to add a link directly to Wikileaks because I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that a direct link is absolutely inevitable so best to quietly link once before multiple links and boldfacing appear. Fact is, Obamaphile and JournoList alum Joe Klein is right: Wikipedia is leftist. I would just say that left-libertarian is more accurate. The upshot of of this is that there is a great deal of concern about causing visible pain. Hence WP:BLP, which reflects a community obsession with eliminating "negative" material in biographies. But on the flip side there is a very little concern about negative outcomes that are more abstracted (ie removed in time or place), which is a typical obsession of "heartless" conservatives. An Afghan informant gets a bullet in the back of the head because Wikipedia made it so easy for the Taliban to find material that exposed his or her identity? Such is what happens when you're ultimately working for US imperialism! The New York Times says ""We have not linked to the archives of raw material." That ought to be cause for pause. But my advice to 128.118.147.160 is to accept the reality that is Wikipedia which means deleting the direct link would be a losing edit war that does make anyone's life happier.Bdell555 (talk)

WP:NOTCENSORED-Wikipedia is not censored....unless the wikimedia office decides otherwise.Smallman12q (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I could say copyrighted material is censored here, but you would presumably object, saying that the policy you cite refers to "general social or religious norms" as opposed to legal norms. And I would agree, and add that the issue here is also one of legal norms. An editor above is claiming this material is public domain which it is not.Bdell555 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Revealing classified information after swearing the oaths required to gain official permission to acquire classified information is a federal crime in the US. Those who do not have any security clearance are unable to violate it. At this point, regardless of any harm you think this may cause, these documents are in the public record and even those with a clearance likely could not be prosecuted for linking to them, though their clearance might be reviewed based on the content of what they posted. I do not believe that the Secret clearance which is reflected in these documents is applied to particularly sensitive information, like the identities of informants or the agents of CIA officers - while this certainly hurt the USA, it did not do so by anything so blatant. Even if revealing information existed, Wikileaks has held back a large fraction of the material in order to be fully redacted - yes they are free-access-to-information promoters, but are not without ethics. As for copyright law, they are a product of the US Government and thus Public Domain. 130.85.53.18 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard is not probability of prosecution but whether public domain (or variant thereof) or not. Is it OK for Wikipedia to link to a "Warez" site even if only the original uploader to the internet is the party likely to be prosecuted?Bdell555 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is typical:

All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential.

Again, Wikipedia has WP:BLP to deal with "individuals", but a general anti-authoritarianism lean on Wikipedia means a reluctance to acknowledge and respect the rest of the sentence.Bdell555 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite your armchair psychology re pro- or anti-authoritarian leanings, that sentence is in reference to "articles incorporating text" and in fact says nothing about the legality of links to sites containing text. --Sstrader (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I also support removal of the links. If they are so easy to find there is no reason to link to them, is there? Consider that the documents may name persons in sensitive positions and actual harm may come to them as a result of these documents. I suggest that those who believe that Jimbo's policy of "first do no harm" applies to individuals but not to governments or servicemen examine their personal motives. - OldManNeptune (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about data contained at a Wikileaks URL. To talk about the contents of the URL yet elide the actual URL itself would be almost Orwellian. I can find out how to make a fertilizer bomb on many web sites, why should it then exist as a Wikipedia entry? Linking to a well-known site in no way adds to any harm that may-or-may-not be done. --Sstrader (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're really going to argue that declining to link to stolen government documents is somehow Big Brother? Seriously? So I suppose you're saying that the news outlets that suggested the documents should not be so readily available are equally supressing our right to free speech? I repeat: Jimbo has deleted entire articles in the past because he felt they were harmful to the subjects. I'm not proposing we delete this article but it makes little sense to argue on the one hand that we are obligated to protect living persons and on the other suggest we should link to stolen classified documents that may name informants, putting their lives at risk. - OldManNeptune (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When a Google search produces the link on the first hit then yes, I'm arguing that to create an article that basically says "there's a link out there that contains what we're discussing but we won't list the link here" is Orwellian. It exists. But it doesn't exist? Bomb-making material may be harmful; listing all NSA programs may be harmful; many articles contain information that may be harmful. However, all of that information is publicly available and wikipedia is not the only source. I'm really not sure what part of that you (et al.) don't get. I never said anything about "free speech". That really has no relevance here and you trying to turn this into some free speech crusade is a red herring. And not a very clever on at that. This information is out there in it will never go away. A link from Wikipedia does not add to or take away from any risk the documents may (or may not) have created. --Sstrader (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, however I thought Linking is not a crime in the US User A1 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because we COULD link to child pornography doesn't mean we SHOULD. Where is the harm in a policy that Wiki should not link to nonpublic material until an entity under editorial control first does so? If the NY Times or Der Spiegel had direct links despite US government objections I wouldn't have a problem with it. But they don't, and people here want Wikipedia to trailblaze with the bloggers, a philosophy that is not generally consistent with how Wikipedia policies consider content.Bdell555 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If linking to said child pornography provided no informational value it would be against Wikipedia policy anyway. However, there is nothing immoral about linking to this material and it violates no element of policy or law. Any information that could be used, if there was any (there most likely wasn't), is undoubtedly already in the hands of those that might use it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

from WP:ELNEVER:

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors...

Did Wikileaks license this material or otherwise get owner approval for distribution?Bdell555 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this returns to WP:NOTCENSOR. The link provides an excellent destination for readers to continue seeking knowledge about the subject at hand, which is exactly what an encyclopedia stands for. Besides, FOX News links to the documents, the Wall Street Journal links to the documents, the CBC links to the report, the BBC links to the report, and I could take a few more minutes to find other outlets, including American ones, who have done the same thing (besides, large outlets like AP, Reuters, and the NYT would rather link to their own articles than link to the website). As a previous post mentioned, the mere mention of the words "Wikileaks", "website", and "public access" are sufficient to send readers to Google and find a direct result to the War Logs. We provide a link as a reminder that the website is free to access, and that further information on the controversy can be found there. I don't think I can explain this much clearer than that. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOR does not apply here, as I explained above. The CBC links to ONE report of the tens of thousands. Wiki policy clearly states "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors" AND Wikileaks disclosure is in "breach of federal law". Consider also that "The Australian communications regulator has issued a stark warning that websites who link out to 'banned' hyperlinks are liable to fines of up to Aus $11,000 a day" and Wikileaks is one of those websites. That said I do find the fact the WSJ and FOX provide links convincing, because it means Wikipedia is not taking the lead here.Bdell555 (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Jimbo's page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Afghan_War_Diary_links.Smallman12q (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already started a discussion at the External Links Noticeboard. Currently, the advice advises the link to remain in the external links section. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind here that Julian Assange has an agenda. He says he "enjoys crushing bastards". And who are the "bastards"? "The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped" says Assange. According to Assange, these War Logs provide evidence for war crimes prosecutions. How is it neutral for Wikipedia to drop the "war logs" terminology used by some of the media in favour Assange's term, "war diary"? How is it neutral for Wikipedia to be linking to his site when the Australian government threatens to fine people who link to it, when the US government says the material on his site was illegally obtained, and when the New York Times, which is presumably neutral between the governments and Wikileaks, does not think it prudent to link to Wikileaks? And not just a link but mirror(s). Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral. If so, then it FOLLOWS the subject as it develops, it does not crusade by getting out ahead of the rest of the media in terms of the extent to which Assange's material is promoted.Bdell555 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) His agenda is irrelevant unless that agenda fabricated the posted data. No one has called the documents' authenticity into question. (2) The laws of the Australian government affect Wikipedia in Australia. Linking to illegally obtained data is not illegal in America. (3) Linking to newsworthy and valid data is in no way politically biased. (4) Wikipedia is not "ahead of the rest of the media" when Fox, WSJ, CBC, and BBC (listed neatly above) have included links to the source. (And I will assume that last point was made with the intent of willful fabrication, since you list only one news outlet and ignore the many others that nullify your complaint.) --Sstrader (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bdell, you clearly have something against Wikilinks and its founders. I would like to note that we do not base our decisions on whether or not they are rational or whether or not the person is a good person. I really don't want to see this issue get very POV-ish, especially seeing that Julian Assange does check talk pages; and the least we want to have happen is to have the owner come and join the debate for some reason. To address your points alongside Sstrader's, (1) the title move was basically proposed because the documents in question are entitled the "Afghan War Diary". That's it. It isn't "his site", it's Wikilinks' site. Assange is a founder (and I remember reading that he considers himself head editor), not the organization. His thoughts don't make the content any less valuable or credible. (2) Again, Australian laws do not apply in Florida; you have been told that at WT:EL. We don't ban Nazi symbols from the site even though Germany prohibits them. (3) The reason we have mirrors is because the traffic at the site is very high (currently the subdirectory for the Diary is down, emphasizing the point), thus why we have mirrors available. Other articles have archived pages in addition to sources; does that make us non-neutral? (4) Sstrader excellently covers this point. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for your contention that "Afghan War Diary" is not a naming convention chosen by Wikileaks? How do you know that the actual authors of the material did not leave it untitled? If it is truly a "diary" then why are several media outlets calling it something else? Obviously a mirror is provided to minimize the amount of traffic to Wikileaks. I wasn't asking for an explanation but asking why Wikipedia is sympathetic to the Wikileaks project (they can go get their own extra servers, no?) when a neutral stance with respect to Wikileaks and the US government is appropriate. If there were no issues involved with linking to the material then I would think the New York Times would have done so. I'm not going to say that Wikipedia IS out in front of the media in this particular case but rather that it OUGHT NOT be in general.Bdell555 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the collection of leaked documents compiled by Wikileaks, not the entire catalog of US Army logs. Therefore, the naming convention rests in the hands of Wikileaks. It's a "diary" (in the sense that diaries are collections of daily stories) because they named it that way. We are linking mirrors for the exact same reason a web source on any Wikipedia article can have archived links beside them. The website is always under high traffic and, to my knowledge, has been down three times today, hence the entire point of a mirror. There is no other reason, and it has absolutely zilch to do with POVs. The New York Times have already stated that they made an agreement to not post any direct material relating to the documents, which includes linking to the source documents. Now, as per WP:BAIT and WP:COOL, I'm going to back off before I blow a fuse. Your arguments are going nowhere and are not going to change the outcome of the debate. AFAIK, the links are staying, per both consensus and policy, and that's it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Provided this isn't Encyclopædica Moronica or (equivalently) a site in Australia, we should recognize that there is no sacred essence imbued in the "http://" suffix. Saying "Wikilinks" is fully sufficient for any web user who has heard of, say, Google? Unless they switch to a policy of censoring politically sensitive web sites for the ~~Chinese~~American government, at least. And they'd land straight at a main page featuring the documents. So if you want to rewrite history so as to avoid the user being able to find the site, it is not sufficient to avoid an http link: you'd have to avoid saying that the leak was published on Wikileaks. Better avoid any mention of a weird name like Assange while you're at it... Wnt (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Jimbo replied with at his talk page on the matter. I think the consensus was already here, but nevertheless:

"The only thing I really have to say about it is that I wish people would stop citing WP:NOTCENSOR all the time. It almost never answers anyone's actual objections, and it may seriously mislead people who hear it for the first time. It sounds like an "in your face" kind of "we don't care about what happens" when in fact, we in general can, should, and do follow thoughtful, careful, respectful, serious linking policies that do involve - at times - declining to link to material that is in some way illegal or harmful.

That doesn't answer the question of whether we should link in this particular case - I think we should - but it does say that those arguing for linking can't simply say WP:NOTCENSOR and expect that to carry the day.

There are various factors that we should weigh thoughtfully, and one of them is the potential for a link to these documents to cause harm. That's actually a completely valid question that deserves an answer. And I think it can be answered quite well with two points: first, the documents are already all over the Internet and in global news headlines - anyone who wants to look at them can, no problem, and Wikipedia won't make a bit of difference in that regard. Second, President Obama himself said ""While I'm concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield, that could potentially jeopardise individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed our public debate on Afghanistan." [2]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)"

I'm in disagreement when he says that WP:NOTCENSOR was being thrown out there; as long as we explain why it's being used and for what reason, it is a valid claim. In this case, we don't want to censor linking to documentation simply because it's immoral or harmful to the war. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

About the lede

It is my understanding that Wikileaks had the documents for some weeks or months before July 25. So, the documents weren't leaked on July 25, but rather made public by Wikileaks on July 25. Also, the Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel had the documents for several weeks prior to July 25. I'm not changing the lead because I might have some of this wrong.InspectorSands (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for noticing this error. Figureofnine (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding. Wikileaks had the information for weeks or months (I can remember some Twitter posts from around April hinting at something like this) and then gave it to a few news agencies. NYT reviewed the material for "weeks". ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording. Figureofnine (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

US, UK, Pak denounced the action and other actors ither praised or condemned this action. This needs to be logged.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CNN has World powers react to WikiLeaks' documents which covers Af/Pak/US/UK government reactions. It could be a good source. Thundermaker (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CTV also has an list of reactions. This could add Germany and EU ("wants to stay as far from this as possible.") to the list. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to be WP:Bold and add it? (Lihaas (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspected whistleblower

They have a suspected source for a large part of the leak. Watching the news, there was his name, but I forgot it. Finding sources for now; apparently he may get up to 55 years in prison. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning? What he did or didn't do isn't very well established. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought it was new. My bad. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

His name is Bradley Manning. He was arrested a few months ago.. he basically confessed to someone, but they haven't actually proved it was him. Should probably be mentioned in the article. 24.85.243.172 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I question this. Supposedly, at issue in the Bradley Manning case were 260,000 diplomatic cables in addition to military videos. These do not appear to be diplomatic cables, and the number of documents is off. This needs investigation - it's a rather large coincidence that Wikileaks releases these just weeks after the Manning issue exploded. 130.85.53.18 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Weren't the cables retrieved from Manning used for other uses, including the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes? Also, Wikileaks has had the documents for who knows how long, because the NYT supposedly had them in their possession for a few weeks now. Publishing it now does not necessarily mean they didn't have it before. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Manning appear to be the source of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike video, and a bunch of other stuff that Wikileaks have not released. Manning has not been charged or confessed to anything that fits this war logs, and no media organisations have yet pointed to him as a suspect that I know of. I think this was probably a separate leaker. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to "it's a rather large coincidence that Wikileaks releases these just weeks after the Manning issue exploded". Democracy Now! had Julian Assange as a guest during or just after the release of the Collateral Murder video where he stated that (not verbatim) they planned a massive release at the end of the 2010 summer, clearly alluding to this leak. The approximate release date has been in the works for around six months.--128.138.64.41 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

largest/biggest leak -- What's the source?

I have a problem with these two phrases from the article:

considered to be one of the largest in US military history
one of the biggest leaks in US military history

Largest by what measure, gigabytes? Sure, this leak probably contains more data than all WW2 communications combined, but that's more due to technology improvement than anything else.

There have been many more damaging leaks in the past. For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg gave nuclear weapons technology to Russia.

The second phrase is actually attributed to the Guardian but does not appear in the cited article. Unless we can find a source, these should be removed. I'm going to stick them with cn tags for now. Thundermaker (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a reliable source for that. Figureofnine (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the BBC specifically stating that the leak is one of the biggest in "US history" ([3]); however, as noted, the Guardian states it as the biggest in "US military history" ([4]). The sources are reliable, but they are a little conflicting, IMO. Also, I presume the measure is by documents released, i.e., the number of classified case records released to the public. 92,000 would make sense. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They sound approximately the same, and are probably both guesses. Figureofnine (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that they are not saying it is the most significant leak in US history, but the largest. "Largest" is quantitative, and if there are no other historical US leaks which match or exceed 92,000 documents, then I think they are quite spot on. So both sentences are well sourced, but I suppose a second source would probably be helpful in verifying the accuracy of the statement. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I originally cited the wrong guardian article for that, but I fixed it when I saw the citation needed tag.Gregcaletta (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I included it in quotation marks,in order to avoid to much contention, but now it appears twice in the lead, once outside of quotations marks. the one outside of quotations marks could be removed. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a source, Russia Today, in my original edit. The source was then removed twice...there's also a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today. Also, for those not aware...you can do a revision history search with wikiblame.Smallman12q (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the cite, Greg. I still think measuring leaks by size is sort of dumb but if the Guardian prints it and it's MHO against theirs I will defer. Thundermaker (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How to get past .z7 format?

I downloaded the main "CSV" (comma separated value) file last night, but neither the stable nor the beta release of 7Zip recognized it as an archive. Is some unusual maneuver needed to decode the file, or did some Great Firewall of America mess with my download? Wnt (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that is a question best asked on wikileaks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind - I just tried again, and today received a larger file that did decode with 7Zip. Perhaps the interruption was innocent in nature. Meanwhile I think it is fair to include some mention of 7Zip in the article for convenience now that I know it works. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, 7Zip isn't going in the article. On a side note, you might be more interested in the full (i.e. searchable) reports: http://hotfile.com/dl/57690164/6970a22/afg-war-diary.html.7z.html ButOnMethItIs (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that Go-oo will open the CSV document, but plain OpenOffice.org for some reason has remained permanently crippled so that it can't open Excel files with more than 65536 records. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Excel is similarly limited. It will open the file, but only the first 2^16 rows. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Excel can open 4 billion rows or something silly, that limit would only be true on older versions. --86.162.15.165 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

The CBC is noting the document referencing a friendly fire incident killing four Canadian soldiers, which had originally been announced as insurgent-caused deaths in September 3rd, 2006. This is the one thing (other than the main leak) they talked about during their news segment today, but I was wondering if it would be notable to place in the content section. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely notable! If it's in the content of The War Logs, why not include in the article? It's different enough from what's already in the section, it supports the broader picture, the death and cover-up of those soldiers as a consequence of war matters (think of the US gov't lying to the soldiers' Canadian families about how the soldiers died!), and the article needs beefing up! (and I mean beefing up, not fattening up ;)173.27.156.150 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The general rule is to place anything in the article if it comes from a reliable source and is relevant to the topic. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Charges of hypocrisy move

I think this section should be moved to the wikileaks article. It's simply an observation on the 'ethics' of wikileaks and their way of operating. It is therefore unsuitable for this section. This article talks about the War Logs, not about what wikileaks should or shouldn't do or their ethics and a POV judgement on their methods in this article is misleading and unneeded. If there is no clear headed opposition I will remove the paragraph and place it in the wikileaks page.--ValenShephard 02:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it isn't appropriate for the article. It's merely stating the leak as a part of a "series" targeting the U.S. government. I don't even thing it is very notable in its current state, even for the Wikileaks article, due to the fact that it is only states one charge of hypocrisy, and not multiple, as the section title indicates. AFAIK, this is just one opinion. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed, have removed the section. Best ask in Wikileaks talk section first, if wanting to move it there. Arfed (talk)

Thanks guys.--ValenShephard 12:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Commentary Section

I feel this article should include commentary from people who hold large-scale decision-making positions in governments, businesses, and organizations, perhaps in addition to big award-winning leaders in the entertainment world. I feel this article should not include commentary from bloggers - unless it's important, and the article should tell why it's important. (I don't know what "the website of Foreign Policy" is! I don't know why I should care what some blogger named Blake Hounshell has to say! In fact, I don't think I should care!) It's a NPOV issue. Hounshell and Claudia Rosett's comments on The War Logs aren't any better than mine. Or yours. Or Amy Goodman's. Why not include "Lorelei stated that The War Logs shouldn't be any surprise because we've known all along that U.S. militarism is unacceptable. Wikileaks is a model citizen, wish everyone were that decent." Lorelei is just as important a person with valuable opinions and organization membership as the bloggers, as far as I can tell from the article. Better to get rid of those. Also, it annoys me how the different sources of commentary are presented all blended together within and between sections.173.27.156.150 (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I second this, particularly Claudia Rosett's opinion in this article is absolutely irrelevant, and should be deleted and disregarded. It looks to me like nothing more than propaganda, "propaganda" I say! JulianParge (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I had the same gut feeling, then discovered that even on that very site (Foreign Affairs mag, blogs section) there are completely differing opinions to his own. In comparison to the others offered there, his is more of a quip that reeks of attention seeking than a properly collated set of points and a real argument. I therefore removed his stuff for the moment. If it is re-added, I think we will need to include an awful lot of alternative perspectives to balance things. Base point: blogging doesn't make you a journalist, print media or major online sources should probably be our major references until things quieten down a little. prat (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blake Hounshell is a professional journalist writing for a notable news organization. When he says that the leak has less significant information than other journalists assert, that should absolutely be included in the article. If you know of similarly noteworthy comments, please add them. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of opinions from individual journalists. If you want to build up an article on what journalists are saying about certain topics, then I suggest you do it on your own page, or build your own Wiki. I might also point out the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources to anyone else who is thinking about propagating an irrelevant opinion. JulianParge (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A journalist publishing under the editorial control of Foreign Policy magazine constitutes a reliable source. If you disagree with this or find the content objectionable for some other reason, please cite the policy or guideline that supports your position. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have Readded the Forign policy part. Users please review WP:NEWSBLOG as this is the type it is. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Rosett, journalist and member of the think tanks Committee on the Present Danger and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated that this disclosure by Wikileaks is part of a pattern in which the group goes after comparatively safe targets such as the U.S. government instead of other regimes. She wrote that "to get hold of the document troves of America’s enemies" involves going against "a collection of tyrants and terrorists who respond to unwanted leaks not simply by trying to spin, deny, or appease, but by threatening, jailing or murdering anyone discovered disclosing secrets to the world public". She highlighted the Syrian, Iranian, and North Korean governments as targets that Wikileaks hasn't touched, but should.^[1]

^Posting above what is too "hot" for Wikipedia (just like some stuff is too hot for TV). 173.57.61.233 (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See the section just above this one. We've removed a prior occurrence of that text, due to the fact that it doesn't relate to the Diary, but to Wikilinks itself. If you want to place it at that article, make a new section on its talk page to see if it would be appropriate. Because I don't see its notability. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate section on Times

To be fair, we need separate sections on the commentary of the other two recipients, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. Figureofnine (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Abundance of mirrors

This is the second time I remove the excessive amount of mirrors to the documents. The main, dedicated site and the mirror provided by Wikileaks via Facebook and Twitter are sufficient for the external links. We don't need four mirrors. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the most recent removal because I didn't see any explanation in the edit for that removal. I must have completely missed the wardiary subdomain link that was still there. Apologies. --Sstrader (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I don't normally use the edit summary when I edit. My bad. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Amin

So... who is that? What's the story on Osama Bin Laden's advisor by that name? 173.57.61.233 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the source article and I've changed the name to Amin al-Haq, per the update on the source. Apparently he and a political party leader went to North Korea and bought missiles to use against coalition fighters. I tried to find the source document from Wikileaks, but I don't know what date it was published; in December 2005 or January 2006? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Amin has been arrested since 2008. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericleb01 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

I have recenlty removed a cited passage from the lead because I have reason to believe the cited source is mistaken. The cited passage said that Manning was definitely the source of the leak, and the source was CBS. Now CBS is normally a reliable source, but there are more recent reports by a number of other news agencies, such as in this article by the WSJ, which have said rather that the military have said "[Manning] is someone we are looking at closely]. Which means he is only a suspect. I believe CBS were merely being a bit careless with their language. I will place the statements from the other more recent sources in the body of the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You just cited the CBC, which wasn't the link in the lead. The link in the lead was the WSJ one. Now I'm confused. Just saying :P _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No sorry I added a WSJ citation when removing the CBS one. I have now added a section in the article called "Source of the leak". I think, as it stands, it still implies too heavily that Manning is definitely the source until he is actually convicted with it in a court of law (so far, he has not even been charged with this particular leak). In fact, I think it is likely that Manning is not the source of the link. THey do not fit the description of "democratic cables" that Manning apparently said he leaked. It would make sense Wikileaks for to release something that was not released to them by Manning at this time, considering the separate charges that Manning is currently facing. In any cases, I am going to look for some more reliable sources on what statements have actually been made so far. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. According to what information we have right now, though, the best we can do is have the article coincide with the accusal of Manning, and hope for later developments. To be honest, I would personally hate to see another whistleblower be thrown in prison, regardless of the method used to obtain the documents. He (at least for the Collateral Damage video) and Wikileaks are pretty much what we need in this time period. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Randy: It's not a matter of whether or not it's notable, but rather that it doesn't fit with the existing prose. You can't just slap a sentence in its own paragraph at the top of a section like that. That's what I was trying to accomplish. If we place it in its own paragraph, it should be extended with more information on the matter. Do you have other sources we can use to elaborate on the statistic, to make a sufficiently-lengthened prose? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure more info will turn up in time. My point was that it's a different type of casualty, and there are a lot more of them. This is especially important after the lede had stressed the numbers killed by the coalition. (Some balance needs to be applied there, too.)

Literary style isn't as important as clarity.

I don't see how the matter of isolated sentences matters much. There are other paragraphs in that very section that are only one sentence at the moment.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that the fact should not be there, because I agree that there has to be a balance between Taliban-caused deaths and Coalition-caused deaths; I was simply trying to integrate it into another paragraph, which didn't exactly work out. It's just that you want to keep the prose clean, that's all. I'm just proposing that we either integrate it with the existing paragraphs, or we find more details on the civilian deaths. I'm wondering if there is a specific document in the leaks which outlines the number of deaths, or if the "2,000" number was compiled by counting the number of deaths recorded throughout the entire stack.

And sorry, I meant one-lined paragraphs. Kind of like this. You just want to get rid of them as much as possible to make it smoother to read. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really just want it kept separate so that everything is obvious to the reader.

You make a good point that we do need to figure out where that number comes from. It's also interesting that this is just the roadside bombings. That implies more, but we don't know what else there is, if anything.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't covered by MOS so it's a matter of editor consensus. I would argue that notability is ultimately what should shape the article. More than 95% of this section is dedicated to civilian casualties due to coalition forces. It's what reliable sources are covering (notability in the WP sense), which means it's what we're covering. The totality of notability on the one side massively (as in 95+%) outweighs the notability on the other (I'm not implying that any one item is more or less notable than any other). To lead with the 5% strikes me as misguided. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that, basically, nobody cares about those 2,000 deaths. I wanted them on top because it's small. Otherwise the eyes-glaze-over-effect comes in before they get to the 2,000, and they don't realize it's a different class.

It would be better if we turned this into two subsections. Then it's fine to put it on the bottom.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's going to take more than one or two sentences to warrant a sub section. That much IS covered by MOS. It doesn't matter that people may miss what's at the bottom. The main subject should be addressed first and then any miscellanea (which is what it is) can be addressed after that. If the subject of Taliban casualties never amount to anything, maybe it can be rolled into an introductory paragraph (i.e. Coalition casualties: x, Taliban casualties: y). As it stands, I'm convinced that the sentence should be moved toward the bottom. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The source we use is a general article about the main topic, and this is one of four bullet points. That shows The Guardian thought it was signifcant. Most of the other items we have in this section are minor items.

I still think it merits a prominent position, but I'm glad at least that the editor who moved it wrote it in a way to show it wasn't simply another regular item.

This doesn't mean I'm satisfied. I'm just not going to argue it now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

July 29th revert

Not trying to pick a fight, but I find the admonition used when reverting the last edit to the Civilian causalities section to be a bit curious. The source used for the information on the Taliban murders of civilians through the use of IEDs clearly states that it came from the leaked logs. On what basis then is this information judged to be “old” and the civilian casualties caused by coalition forces considered to be “new” when all the data is coming from the same logs? And as to the directive to “contextualise”, exactly what context is being suggested that this information be presented in, particularly since it appears that a far greater number of civilian casualties have been caused by the Taliban’s indiscriminate use of IEDs than through the variety of questionable actions by coalition forces? Hammersbach (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either fact is new, for those following Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). The civilian deaths caused by US forces are more embarrassing to the US, but that doesn't make it a more important fact. Thundermaker (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should be about these incidents as the "war logs" saw them

The sections that are supposed to be about the report itself aren't really about the report.

For example, the parts about the 2007 Shinwar shooting and the Nangar Khel incident are about The Guardian's opinion of what happened. We should at least be talking about their opinion of how the "war diary" handles those items. We don't need to recap the incidents themselves.

Go from this article's paragraph on the Shinwar shooting to the original report and you'll see it's completely different.

The subject of this article is the leaked reports, and we're ignoring that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There does need to be more discussion of what the war logs actually are in an objective, descriptive sense. But I see nothing wrong with the Shinwar shooting paragraph. The topic is issues that have been raised by the leak and in this case the issue raised is that the leaked report is seriously incompatible with other (accepted?) narratives. This is one of the two major themes in the "Issues raised" section. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an early report. It appears to have been written that same day. I'm not aware that it's incompatible with the story that the Marines had told at that time.

The only thing we've really learned here is that they told the same story to their superiors that they told later in the investigation.

It certainly differs from The Guardian's view but I think everybody knew that before the leak.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The part about the AP reporter at Shinwar belongs in the article on the incident but not here. It has nothing to do with the documents.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this: what would that paragraph look like if YOU wrote it? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be more like this:

On 4 March 2007, in the Shinwar shooting, the report says that U.S. Marines were ambushed by a car bomb driven by a suicide bomber, and then received small arms fire. One marine was wounded. Updates made hours later report civilians had been killed. The Guardian characterized their exit as "a frenzied escape [from the scene of the bombing], opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way – teenage girls in the fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded." A court of inquiry formed later resulted in administrative reprimands but no criminal charges.

Note that it begins with a summary of the report, which is what this article is supposed to be about.

They didn't merely "witness" the suicide bombing. Even The Guardian agrees there was more than that.

The pictures being confiscated offers color that really belongs in the article for the event, but not here.

But if it was up to me, I'd remove all of that and replace it with a table of the notable items, linked to a corresponding Wikipedia article when there is one, then more fields with links to news analysis (like that Guardian article), and another one to the original report. Readers will want direct links for that. They don't need the summary when they can quickly follow the link.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I support like mentioned approach.Nicob1984 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparison between the content of the war logs and other official and unofficial reporting will also be necessary for the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's okay if it's brief. I just don't want to duplicate everything here. Most of them can give the gist in one or two lines. For more than that, I'd prefer that readers click to the relevant articles. If something in the logs does apply to another article then they should be mentioned there.

So far, the 2007 Shinwar shooting article doesn't cover this yet. That's partly because the logs don't reveal anything new, but that article still does need a link to the report. The readers of that article will want to know.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Its very similar to how the editor Randy wanted it now. I just think its important to note that the Marines wrote the report on their own actions, which is critical.ValenShephard (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the stuff about photgraphers which wasn't mentioned in the logs to the article of the incident itself. They were well sourced and relevent, so its no need to waste them. ValenShephard (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The logs did mention the deaths. If you'll note, my version did say, "Updates made hours later report civilians had been killed." This is in that same source as well as in the logs themselves. They didn't say it in the first pass because they didn't know.

The way it's written right now is untrue in two places, and it barely mentions the report's view. It doesn't even conform to The Guardian's view of it. Their version technically agrees with mine.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you source that information about the "updates made hours later"? I just reread the source from the Guardian and it wasn't there. The paragraph is pretty spot on with regards to the Guardian source now.

It's in the same article: "An hour later came the first news of the trail of blood they left behind. A local government official told the marines there were '28 LN WIA', which in layman's terms means 28 Afghan civilians had been wounded." It's also in the original log.

I didn't include that number because the total count The Guardian gives was probably not known until much later after some of those taken to the hospital had finally died.

It's also not true that none of the soldiers were disciplined. None were criminally charged, but some were reprimanded.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Here's the original report where you can see the "28 LN WIA."

If you look back to my version, it begins with a brief description of the military report, and then follows it by The Guardian's conclusions. The current version almost ignores the actual report.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is your source that it was in the original log? Because a government official told them what happened doesn't mean in their own report they didn't mention the deaths. The problem is you removed that part. I wouldn't be against including that a government official's warning made the army aware of the killings. But don't remove the other information. Also, where did you read that they were reprimanded? In the source it talks about the men involved being made immune from prosecution.. ValenShephard (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Again, I say "Updates made hours later report civilians had been killed." Where The Guardian article says, "28 LN WIA," they mean that's in the log. (I'm pretty sure Afghans don't talk like that.) Then look at the original report and you'll see the "28 LN WIA".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't verify Times article

Whoever is using The Times online articles as sources will need to find something else. Their articles require subscription fees AFAIK, and no one can verify its contents. I've replaced one link using the title (in the section Informants named), but the other is not accessible. Can other sources be found? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Paywalls, dont make a source any less valid. thats pretty well established, the editor obviously can so ask him for a quote of what he is sourcing. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I sounded kind of authoritative. The sentence doesn't really seem to matter that much and a site like The Australian will probably mirror it tomorrow. I'm just tired; I should go to bed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The one instance I exercised much "editing" if you will was turning this paragraph from the Times:

A patrol report gave the names, father’s names, tribe, village and GPS co-ordinates for homes of individual villagers. “[Z] wanted to help us as much as possible,” part of the report said. "When asked why they were scared to show us around, they stated that they were afraid that the people in the next village would see them talking to Americans."

into what appears in the article. In any case, the Times is circulated to the main branches of many big city libraries in North America.Bdell555 (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also grant that "hundreds" could perhaps be revised to "dozens". The Times says,

Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents because the files identify informants working with Nato forces.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers’ names.

For what it is worth, the Times DOES have a strong opinion on the matter. From their editorial today:

The US military has been grossly negligent of its duty of care towards those who put their lives in its hands. The negligence of Mr Assange, however, has been altogether more wilful. His actions have been egotistical, immature, hypocritical and colossally irresponsible.... No established news organisation in the world would have published these leaks in full, nor should they.

Bdell555 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... wikipedia:NOR --91.32.90.17 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The NOR policy only prohibits original research. If it prohibited all research, Wikipedia would be empty. Thundermaker (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the more people can easily verify a fact, the more credible and accurate Wikipedia will be. So therefore it seems it makes more sense to use online references in preference to paper sources, and to openly accesible websites rather than paywalled locations. --86.162.15.165 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It probably is more preferred, but sometimes a book or paywalled source is the best you can get. Besides, what harm would there be in going to the library or paying the $1.00 fee to verify it yourself, if the need to verify is large? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

links to diary entries

Many (even most) sections of the article discuss specific entries of the War Diary.. is it possible to give some links directly to these entries, instead of just the news stories talking *about* them? Then the reader could see 'what all the fuss is about'. Because the War Diaries aren't particularly easy to search, as far as I can tell, especially if you don't have a specific date. Or maybe there is some reason why these links aren't included? 24.85.243.172 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for handling that. Major events should have their own articles. Some of them should be linked from this page, and all of them (which concern the war diary) should be in category:Afghan War Diary. Each of those articles should have an "external links" section with a link to the specific wikileaks entry or entries. Thundermaker (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"...instead of just the news stories talking *about* them" Editors who work directly with the raw data instead of "the news stories talking 'about' them" are engaging in original research. If reliable sources are not providing enough specificity or detail for some readers' taste, WP:NOTABLE joins WP:NOR to suggest that readers will have to do their own additional research because Wikipedia doesn't, as a general rule, provide information that is not covered by secondary sources. I would also object to a direct linking to the reports mentioned in, say, the "informants" section as little would be gained except to publish the identities of the informants and that information is of little value to general readers and endangers those persons. For what it is worth, there have also been long discussions elsewhere arguing that ArbCom decisions etc suggest that there should be no direct linking to anything on Wikileaks more specific than its highest level domain (if that).Bdell555 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, please don't start with the linking issue again. Jimbo and the grand majority of people you attempted to convince on other pages have all said the links were fine and that the Arbcom situation had nothing to do with this. Stop leaving important information out like that; it really frustrates me when people try to mislead others to get it their way. But I agree, sourcing directly to the raw material is WP:OR, and, actually, most of the occurrences are of my wrongdoing. If they are removed, however, we should remove the additional information the secondary source did not cover. I'm personally against the concept of OR, though. I don't see why this pertinent information cannot be inserted simply because we are a tertiary source. One of my pet peeves, I suppose. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on what you've said, the direct link to Friendly-fire incident (involving the death of 4 canadians) should be removed? Or have I misunderstood? 24.85.243.172 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that while WP:Primary and the like call for caution in the use of primary sources, that doesn't mean that they're not sources! Direct links to the source material are always welcome - just don't start making up your own interpretation of what it means without having a secondary source to go by. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply linking to (without sourcing any conclusions from) a primary source should always be OK. Thundermaker (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording of a line in the lead

Howdy. I was reading the article and came across the following line:

Most of the documents were classified as "secret", which The New York Times called "a relatively low level of classification" for confidential documents.

That wording seems a bit odd to me. Mostly because it says they were classified as "secret" and then mentions the word "confidential". I know they are both linked, and the use of confidential is not talking about the level of classification, but it still seems like it could be confusing. At least to a reader not quite familiar with the levels of classification. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better way to word it. Any ideas or opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, "for confidential documents" was added by an editor to increase clarity for people unfamiliar with classified documents. I don't care for it either, but I'm not sure that it could confuse anyone. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Most of the documents were classified as "secret", which The New York Times called "a relatively low level of classification".

I do think it's clearer. prat (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I prefer prat's version.--Rockfang (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Change applied. prat (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Background opinion

I'm not sure that the recent (re-)insertion of the carefully phrased sentence: Wikileaks is known as a "secretive organization", in the words of Al Arabiya, that often publishes confidential material. by 173.57.61.233 to the Background section is really properly located or relevant. A discussion of various media sources' views of Wikileaks would perhaps be better left on that page. Rather than simply removing it, could I suggest that we add a 'See also: Wikileaks' to the background section and move this individual quote there? There are surely hundreds of opinions. I would also add that the sentence appears to be structured in a non-objective fashion, leading encyclopedic credence to the initial quotation by not disassociating it from surrounding prose. I would suggest something more objective such as Al Arabiya has described Wikileaks as a "secretive organization". prat (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Wikileaks is a secretive organization that won't open its own books to the public and won't discuss with the public why it selectively releases some material but not others is very relevant.

I expect, though, that that material (much like any material that could conceivably reflect negatively on Wikileaks), will not stay in this article given that Wikipedia is inherently 'in the tank' with Wikileaks. (Doesn't really bother me, it's Jimbo Wales' private website and he can run it however he wants to benefit his friends). 173.57.61.233 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The quote is not about the Afghan War Logs. It is about Wikileaks and should be on that page, if anywhere. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Main article: Wikileaks to the start of the background section and removed this quote. prat (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Afghan_War_Diary#United_Kingdom

This section states "the launching of the inquiries had nothing to do with the Wikileaks documents" - if this is true then why is it included in the article? I think it should probably be removed. Smartse (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I added it but I was not sure. The article itself connects the announcement with the documents and funnily the fact that they said "the launching of the inquiries had nothing to do with the Wikileaks documents" kind of implies the do have something to do with it (or why would they say it?), but you can remove it if you like. It would be good if you could find some other official statements from the UK on the documents though, because we definitely need a UK section. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaks of Afghani resistance attacks on civilians

The leaked documents describe many purported incidents of Taliban and other Afghani insurgent forces attacking civilians. Those forces would also, according to leaked reports, post 'Night Letters' on civilian buildings such as mosques foretelling death for the inhabitants. In one leak from April 2007, then-Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes requests to verify a video of a 12-year-old child soldier forced to kill a Pakistani hostage. Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, remarked that "the documents demonstrate just how pervasive the Taliban’s brutality is in this fight".^[2]

^ Claudia Rosett (July 26, 2010). "A Wish List for Wikileaks". Pajamas Media - The Rosett Report. Retrieved July 26, 2010. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Joscelyn, Thomas (August 3, 2010). "The Taliban's Savagery". The Weekly Standard. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

This material won't stay in this article for very long, since it goes against the preferred narrative among Wikileaks-&-Wikipedia that the "Afghani resistance" are the 'good guys' while the NATO/U.S./Karzai forces are the 'bad guys'. But it should at least be okay to keep it in the talk page for posterity's sake. 173.57.61.233 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This talk page has a high enough volume that inactive topics will probably end up in archive pages. Thundermaker (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

setting aside any comment made against Wikipedians, is there any other source we could use? Given the discussion on The_Weekly_Standard own article, I doubt they count as a reliable source. Belorn (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks disclosures template

Finding the statement "Three months earlier, in April, Wikileaks made headlines with leaked classified video of an airstrike, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, in which as many as 18 Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists were killed." in the Afghan War Diary article, as well as the existence of [leaks credited to Wikileaks] as a section within the main Wikileaks article gave me the idea for a navbox for such releases and their relationships through time. I am starting a proposed template at Template:Wikileaks disclosures. Assistance welcome, though let's discuss it on the template's talk page rather than here (I'm also cross-posting this note to the Wikileaks talk page). prat (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested move, part 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to 2010 Afghan War documents leak Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghan War Diary → ? —

Reading the above discussion on the title, it appears no consensus has emerged for any particular title. So I have decided to hold another discussion, but organized differently. Each proposed title gets its own subsection, where the merits of each proposed title can be considered appropriately. harej 09:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The War Logs

The War Logs was the original title of this article, IIRC. I believe we did at least reach a consensus that starting the title with "The" was unacceptable and that there should be a reference to Afghanistan in the title. Thundermaker (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Afghan war logs

Afghanistan war logs

2010 Afghan War documents leak

Support. It's as much, if not more, of a story about the leak as it is about the documents. The other names are basically brand names for companies or organizations putting their own stamp on the story. The documents themselves came from the U.S. military, and not from any of those other "brands". We shouldn't be shilling for any of them. The year in the title adds extra clarity for anyone looking at a list of article titles. -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that we shouldn't endorse brand names (i.e. "war diary") and I have no problem with this title. Being consistent with the titles the rest of the world uses is important, but it's not the only consideration. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Typical Generic Description I have heard the " Afgan War Dairies" is so sillly Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment WP:IDL. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok seems silly is "I Don't like" but a "Typical Generic description" was my argument. as Typical for wikipedia Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - a decriptive title will be more recognizable here (matter much reported in the press, but no specific name seems to have come into widespread use).--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghan War Diary

Support. It is the name used by Wikileaks, and it appears in a lot of WP:RSs. The variants which replace "Diary" with "logs" in the media tend to omit Afghan(istan). Thundermaker (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Support per my original reasoning for proposing the title in the first place, most of which is covered by Thundermaker. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose RS are good reasoning to find a name but media spin name is not a good title for this Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment It's not a "media spin name", it's the official name Wikileaks uses. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

its thier spin none the less, Wikileaks is same as Media Matters for America (at least to me) thus media. Robert Gates personal diary on the war i might call this "war diaries"Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. If I wrote a book named "The Bat" and people began calling it "The popular book about bats", then screw policy, we should go with the actual name. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very good analogy to this situation though. Others have pointed out that Wikileaks did not create the content of the documents. They didn't even leak the documents, they merely posted them on the web and gave the collection a catchy name. I support using that name here, but I'm also OK with a more generic term (plus a redirect from the losing candidates). Thundermaker (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They did not write the documents, no, but in a technical sense, they compiled the documents into a collection. In that sense, they have the obvious right to name it to their liking. It's kind of like when an editor publishes a poem collection, or a short story collection. I'm personally not against using "2010 Afghan War documents leak" either, but I largely prefer staying with the name the collection is closely identified with. Easier to find, distinguish, and it's short. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Something else

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remaining documents

From the AP (Keith Moore, 14 August 2010):

"STOCKHOLM — WikiLeaks will publish its remaining 15,000 Afghan war documents within a month, despite warnings from the U.S. government, the organization's founder said Saturday. The Pentagon has said that secret information will be even more damaging to security and risk more lives than WikiLeaks' initial release of some 76,000 war documents.

'This organization will not be threatened by the Pentagon or any other group,' Julian Assange told reporters in Stockholm. 'We proceed cautiously and safely with this material.' In an interview with The Associated Press, he said that if U.S. defense officials want to be seen as promoting democracy then they 'must protect what the United States' founders considered to be their central value, which is freedom of the press.' 'For the Pentagon to be making threatening demands for censorship of a press organization is a cause for concern, not just for the press but for the Pentagon itself,' the Australian added.

He said WikiLeaks was about halfway though a 'line-by-line review' of the 15,000 documents and that 'innocent parties who are under reasonable threat' would be redacted from the material. 'It should be approximately two weeks before that process is complete,' Assange told AP. 'There will then be a journalistic review, so you're talking two weeks to a month.'"

Would put this in myself, but I'm real busy with the prep of an FAC right now. Source: [6] _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reactions of human rights groups" repeating discredited fabrications?

It looks like a significant part of the "human rights group" reactions are more or less reliably discredited fabrications. See: The Alphaville Herald. This section should properly contextualize these reactions as refuted by the claimed organization, made by people without formal authorization, etc. as appropriate. --96.241.156.174 (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a non WP:SPS? this raises all sorts of WP:REDFLAGS Especially since he did not link amnesty denying the report. Or how about the google chat with himself?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth [7]

"It was a caution we were giving WikiLeaks," Holewinski said.

A private caution is not the same thing as a published criticism. In light of that primary source's statement, our phrase "thus joining critics" seems like blatant WP:SYN, except it wasn't done by us, it was done by Jeanne Whalen at WSJ, a so-called RSS.

Yes, Ludlow is a SPS, but he has a point. I think we should re-word the sentence to source that conclusion from Whalen rather than stating it as fact. Thundermaker (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

~~Fixed~~ Look better? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your added text is definitely an improvement. It doesn't quite address my concern about stating Whalen's questionable conclusion as fact. I may take a stab at this problem later (like next week) if nobody beats me to it. Thundermaker (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok i geuss

Not fixed I am not clear on what the issue is, we have multple sources to support the section from multiple writers who are not WhalenThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I was objecting to the title of the article that I read in the Wikitext. The rendition looks fine, so it is indeed done.

Fixed Thanks for your help! Thundermaker (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ISI

surely the ISI did not plot to poison Kabul-bound beer, an enormously complex operation with limited pay off since US troops are not allowed to drink alcohol in Afghanistan the evidence is false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

Obama said the wiki leaks did not reflect the current realities on the ground ie old news and now since Democracy Came no longer the case further more it was allegations and raw data not real threats and it was afghan inteligence who are corrupt also , most of the allegations against pakistan are too dubious to believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New leak?

Pretty much just now Wikileaks leaked 391,832 new documents to the War Logs, [8]. It was apparently released to eight news networks including SVT in Sweden, Der Spiegel in Germany, The Guardian in UK, New York Times in the US among others. Just tellin'. / 81.226.130.171 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No those are the Iraq War Logs. Marcus Qwertyus 20:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from article

"However give no resource to the 1980's gift of several heat seaking and ground to air missile to the Taliban."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion of sources to be incorporated

Davidson, Amy (July 26, 2010). "Wikileaks and the War". The New Yorker.
Overbey, Erin (July 27, 2010). "The Wikileaks Swarm". The New Yorker.
Kirsch, Adam (July 26, 2010). "Why Wikileaks Still Needs 'The New York Times'". The New Republic.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2010/07/wikileaks_and_afghan_papers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by P. S. Burton (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So no-one named?

No-one actually named and endangered or killed in and because of the leaks? Just repeated conservative news outlets claiming non-existent documents and names that don't show up anywhere despite it being publically available? Big surprise. Re-write the "Informants named" section so it doesn't try and twist a the death of a guy BEFORE the leaks as attributed to the leaks. This is the very definition of POV. 203.206.47.61 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

The threat reports

Yesterday there was a long German language broadcast (manuscript here) on Deutschlandfunk by the guy who worked on the material for the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel and for several German public radio stations. It was mainly about so called "threat reports" that showed an extreme level of duplicity in many Afghan leaders on all sides, going well beyond what was previously known to the Western public. But also on the role of the Tagesspiegel in the disclosure, on the disagreements between Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg concerning who could publish on the 25th and who would have to wait for the 26th, on strong disagreements between the English-language and the German-language journalists involved in the publication effort, on the fact that most of these threat reports are still not online since nobody could be bothered to do the necessary editing-out of informers' names, and some other things. It would be good if there was more in the article on these subjects, especially if you know better, independent, sources than I do. -- 92.226.100.37 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

[1] Claudia Rosett (July 26, 2010). "A Wish List for Wikileaks". Pajamas Media - The Rosett Report. Retrieved July 26, 2010. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] Joscelyn, Thomas (August 3, 2010). "The Taliban's Savagery". The Weekly Standard. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]