Talk:Iraq War documents leak/Archive 1

Fork for Official response and commentary

Should there be a fork for the official responses and commentary...or will we follow the outline in 2010 Afghan War documents leak.Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 Afghan War documents leak article has separate sections for official responses and commentary. That's find by me, but we can only organise the material once we have it. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to be consistent with: "Afghan War documents leak"?

Any real objections? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I had objections as per my argument at the Afghan talk page, but yes, this should stay consistent. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, proceed. Title is more neutral; Wikileaks/Media vs United States Army. --Kslotte (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Iranian involvement?

I read the citations but I don't think its accurate to say that the documents "prove" Iranian involvement. The articles only say that the US military suspected them, but the accusations of EFP usage and such are no different than the 2007 accusations. I don't think the article should list that as "confirmed" when it's only another document with an allegation. BrotherSulayman (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, you might be bold and edit it accordingly to the sources and what you said. IQinn (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can always quote the article directly to avoid this kind of paraphrasing and wiki-interpretation. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I forget to look at the talk page first, I already went ahead and made the edits you're wanting :$. Passionless (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wired magazine

So far, the content section is based entirely on reporting from Wired magazine. Although, Wired is somewhat reliable, it's strange to use such a source when much more highly regarded journalistic sources such as the Guardian and the New York Times have provided much more extensive reporting. Let's try to use the most highly regarded news sources where possible. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I used it because it had a nice list of stuff from the logs that was faster and easier to add here than hunting through a bunch of articles from multiple sites. It was simple and I didn't think it any less reliable than more mainstream sources. C628 (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Wired is fine, particularly for claims which also appear in other news source. I'm just trying to emphasise that using mainly Wired is not ideal, and this will be corrected over time as other specifics are added in from other sources. Thanks for your contributions. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews - Help - expand - article - Wikileaks Releases Iraq War Logs

• n:Wikileaks Releases Iraq War Logs

Reviewed and published this Wikinews article as a short piece, because it is breaking. However, would really appreciate any help, from editors that would like to expand the article over there, with sourced info. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never really understood the point of having both a Wikipedia article and a Wikinews article on the same topic. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, you could just copy and paste the stuff from here onto there. Wikinews does not allow uncited material anyway, right? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference #4 problem

There seems to be a problem with the use of the fourth reference in the article. In fact, the cited source does not mention the quoted phrases: "[i]t is totally unacceptable that for so many years the US government has withheld from the public these essential details about civilian casualties in Iraq.". The reference links to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319 This issue should be addressed asap or the citation removed. Xionbox (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the reference. Next time be bold and act yourself. cheers --spitzl (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Being the reader of the article, I simply checked the source. The source being incorrect, all I thought of was removing the reference. I'm glad to see you found the correct source. Xionbox (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Map of deaths

Should a map similar to the one at the guardian mapping the deaths be added?Smallman12q (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it feasible to do so? Silverseren^C 17:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would that be within the scope of wikipedia as a project? Wouldn't it be best to wait for a newspaper to do so?--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Guardian sort of did, it's just that it isn't in a format that we can readily use. Silverseren^C 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

New York Times War Logs

The New York Times has been quite helpful and has created an index page that links to all of the articles that they are publishing about the documents and even some copies of the exact text of documents themselves. And it also clarifies how the New York Times is handling retractions on names and what event each article is talking about specifically. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that can be gleaned from them, so happy editing everyone. Silverseren^C 05:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Censored

Are any of the documents censored by wikileaks? Last time (afganistan) they were crisicised for releaseing names and addresses and things. I heard maybe they had been blanked out this time? Is this true or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.129.235 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. In this CNN article, Larry Shaughnessy says that Wikileaks redacted more material than the Pentagon's own harm minimisation. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a few of the articles mention that the documents they received from Wikilinks were censored, for the most part. It sounds like the New York Times also removed even more stuff, unless they're meaning that Wikilinks removed that stuff as well. Silverseren^C 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Smoke-Screen Picture NPOV?

I may be reading into the meaning of the smoke-screen photo at the top of the article, but it seems to me that it's there to illustrate "smoke-screen" in a metaphorical sense to imply something negative about the handling of classified information by the United States. If that is the intention, it violates NPOV. If it isn't the intention, it's at least mistakable as having a non-neutral point-of-view. --Mister Magotchi (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think at the very least we need to ask whether the picture is relevant to the article; do the leaks contain information about this incident? If so, then let's source that. If not, we really shouldn't tack on irrelevant images, as WP:IMAGE says: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". Let's not illustrate just for the sake of having a pretty picture. Also, I agree that, while not intentional, the image appears as if it is a tongue-and-cheek commentary on the leaks and "cover up" of the US. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the picture has no relation to Wikileaks and whatever incident the image is relating to has little to do with the leak, I believe. I have been bold and have removed the image from the article. If any image is to be supplied, I would think a image of the cover of one of the documents would be more appropriate, as any specific incident that is laid out in an image would be giving undue weight to that image in preference to the preponderance of other incidents in the documents. Silverseren^C 22:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I added an image of the text from a specific article before reading your dissent. If you think that my choice compromises neutrality, then we should probably use a screenshot of incidents assorted by total casualties until some real photographs are released.   — C M B J   04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please change this picture An unclassified report that details black propaganda conducted by "Anti-Iraqi Forces" during 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.15.92 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What is your objection to it?   — C M B J   03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.31.58 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it non-neutral? It's about the insurgency, which is to be expected, but it really doesn't say much anyways. What sort of image do you think we should use? Silverseren^C 05:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Rections: Denmark

Perhaps something should be added about public statements by the Danish PM? Presumably a reference to the original, as well as an English translation, would be in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.177 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the link. Silverseren^C 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

some links to consider

>> UN urges WikiLeaks torture probe >> Hezbollah Condemns All US Terrorist Crimes Committed in Iraq Tariq Aziz, Saddam Aide, Sentenced To Hang Lihaas (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yah. Full statement here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10477&LangID=E

If you wanna put some of the quotes in the article I'd be very grateful. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why write "according to"

In the section "contents" why is "according to" written at the start of almost every bullet point. Each one of these is referenced anyway with the source. "According to" should be assumed as all information should only be based off of the sources. Does anyone have any reason for this?meitme (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If we do not have "according to", readers will automatically assume that the information in each bullet about the documents is 100% correct, while we do not know this for sure, since we do not have access ourselves to the documents. Therefore, the bullets say "According to [whatever newspaper]" to clarify that the following information about the documents is a statement by said newspaper, so if it turns out to be false for whatever reason or misconstrued, then readers know that it is the fault of that newspaper. Silverseren^C 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Then what makes it important that we say it in this article when most articles in wikipedia do not do this. Rarely are things 100% certain. Is about the leaks especially unreliable? Does this have to do with the nature of leaked information? It still seems unnecessary to me meitme (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"According to" can be removed for any content which is considered a verified fact (i.e. it is agreed upon among reliable sources) but it needs to remain in cases where it appears to be an opinion of that particular newspaper or editor. So feel free to remove it in any case of the former. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An example of the latter would be the last one on the content list, the New York Times statement about the Kurds and Arabs. I haven't seen that info from any other reliable source (or very few are covering it if they are), so that's one that the According to should stay on. Silverseren^C 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, any broad statements and generalisation need to be quoted and attributed. I've changed the language around a bit, but it's still pretty flawed, so feel free to have a go yourself. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

About criticism to responses from US newspapers

This article discusses, criticizes, and links to other criticisms about the response that US newspapers have made toward the released documents. In specific, foreign newspapers have criticized the fact that US newspapers have "underplayed the significance of revelations about the failures of the American military."

I think this should be discussed in the article, especialy since it links to other information. I just don't know how it would be worked in. It should probably be in its own section. Silverseren^C 18:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think a section is warranted. We could also use some Glenn Greenwald's similar criticisms: here and here, particularly the parts included in the Guardian article. Want to give it a go yourself? Gregcaletta (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Minimalisation of the topic

Hi. I have noticed the American media (except for the usual, CNN and NYtimes) did little to no coverage of the leaks. Any resources out there that give an outlook on the reaction of American media vs. human rights abuses coverage by other countries and when other countries are involved?. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My section above this one, about criticism of US newspapers, would probably help you on that front. Silverseren^C 18:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)