Talk:Iraq War documents leak

US newspapers calling for cyberattack on Wikileaks website
Hi, this is Silver seren. I'm still on my self-imposed break, so I can't log in right now, but I was exceptionally surprised to find this article earlier today. It describes how both The Washington Post and The Washington Times have been calling for the government to issue a cyberattack on the Wikileaks website so that it will become inaccessible by internet users. Furthermore, Amazon US, which is one of the three sites that hosts the main mirrors of the Wikileaks website (along with other French and English mirrors), had shut down its Wikileaks mirror. The English and French versions are still working though, so the site is still reachable. The article has links to the Washington newspaper articles where they are calling for such things, along with statements from numerous government officials that can be worked into the article.

Primarily, the information on the Washington newspapers should go in the Media reaction to US newspapers section, I assume. Maybe in the Response section as well? I'm not entirely sure. As for the information about Amazon shutting down its US mirror, maybe that should be in its own section? I don't know, you guys decide. Have fun. 165.91.173.45 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely should be included in the WikiLeaks. Perhaps a brief mention in this one.  Gregcaletta (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, though I think a sentence or two in the Media coverage section of this article is warranted about the Washington Post and Times response, considering those responses are directly because of this leak. 165.91.173.45 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would be fine. And we could wikilink the reference in this article to the specific section in the WikiLeaks article.  Gregcaletta (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once that section gets made, yeah. There's a discussion about it on the Wikileaks talk page. 165.91.173.45 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OT ref to 2006 Lancet study
An editorial comment that was posted under the 'Contents' section said, 'The figure cannot be relied upon as a complete record of Iraqi deaths. A widely quoted 2006 report by The Lancet says that there were about 650,000 "excess deaths" caused by the first 3½ years of the war.' This was removed with reasons cited in the edit summary. Another editor called John allowed the removal of the first sentence but put back the second without giving any explanation, saying later only that the editor who removed it was removing "referenced material" since the second sentences gave references. However, the reference here is not on the topic of the section, not relevant to the "Contents" of the war documents being described. It is just one other unrelated study on Iraq deaths, of which there are many differing ones which could be cited if there was any reason to do so in a section that is purportedly describing the contents of these US war documents. It seems clear that the intent of the original editorial commentary that was removed was essentially to say "I don't like these US figures. Here's the Lancet one which is better." Since this kind of opinion editorializing doesn't belong, it's hard to see, once the first part is properly removed, why the following ref to this other study belongs here in a section that is supposed to be describing the contents of these documents, and which all other references in the section do. Except, in this one spot suddenly we have a tangential reference to some other unrelated study, out of a whole bunch of differing ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

'John' apparently felt that removing this OT reference was "Vandalism", but refused to explain himself so it's hard to know what he was thinking. If someone thinks there is some point or purpose to arbitrarily selecting and listing a figure from that one other source in particular, as opposed to any others, and sticking a reference to it into a section that is supposed to be about the contents of the US war documents, not the contents of some arbitrarily selected other source, please explain.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

IMV, if people want to stick mentions of other sources here, they don't belong under 'Contents' and it should not just arbitrarily pick one of many.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think it's unnecessary. It could be but elsewhere in the article, but it would need to be more clearly linked to this topic.  Gregcaletta (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronald I agree that where it was was "off topic" where it was. Greg I agree it could be elsewhere in the article. I will have a go at it as the Guardian article Iraq war logs reveal 15,000 previously unlisted civilian deaths says "The US figure is far lower than another widely quoted estimate of more than 650,000 "excess deaths" extrapolated on a different basis and published in a 2006 study in the Lancet." (I didn't find any reference to the Lancet study in the previous Guardian reference that was used as an inline citation.) Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference still seems entirely arbitrary and OT. What is the relevance of this particular reference to the "Iraq War documents leak"? It isn't being connected to the topic of the page in any way. It just comes out of nowhere. And what is the relevance of this new section called "Total death count" to the "Iraq War documents leak"? It isn't giving the total death count in this documents and isn't even discussing them. Moreover, if this is an appropriate reference, why aren't all the other sources on that Casualties page an appropriate reference too? This just comes across like injecting one other arbitrarily selected source without any particular connection to the pageRonaldc0224 (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it can be considered relevant by Wikiepdia if the cited source relates the two things. It allows people to understand whether the number is high or low by placing it in the context of other studies.  Gregcaletta (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense but the reference here doesn't relate the two things. The cited source did, and did to other things as well (like the IBC total), but the reference here doesn't draw any relationship. It just comes out of nowhere with a random citation of the Lancet number in a new section that also isn't being related to the topic. Moreover i do not see how citing one other source out of many that disagree with each other by quite a lot amounts to placing these documents in the context of other studies. It more amounts to obscuring that context by selective omission of most of the other studies. In this case, the death counts are really just one part of the issues raised by the documents. If this part of the documents are to be placed in context of other studies looking at death counts, then it should actually do that, and in a way that relates it to the topic of the page.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can find a point it the Guardian which directly relates the two figures is reference to this leak, then we can include a direct quote in the commentary section. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We do need to have the information about how many "excess deaths" are being revealed in the documents. If there are differing views between US and foreign sources, then we should explain both of them. If there are different views directly within US sources or directly within foreign sources, then we should show a range for those individually. Considering that we have a section explaining how there is criticism of US newspapers for misrepresenting facts, I think it is highly relevant to compare the number of excess deaths reported by the US and those reported by outside sources. (Silver seren) 128.194.179.195 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense Silver. "Excess deaths" is a particular concept that is sometimes used in some studies, involving a comparison of relative death rates from any cause between two periods. There is no information about how many "excess deaths" are being revealed in the documents because they don't use that concept or define deaths that way. They report deaths by violence during the period 2004-2009. So at present the page just gives a tangential reference to one other number, arbitrarily selected from a range of differing sources, and which is using a different concept. And the page now makes this whole additional section at the end just to give this one arbitrary reference. It's hard to even see what is the purpose of this new section, except as an excuse to give this one arbitrary reference. If there is a reason we "need" to cite this one source we must "need" to cite the other differing ones as well. No? It seems like this would be a kind of OR project, so maybe if this reference is to be given it is best placed in the media reactions, as the basis for the reference is apparently that the Guardian mentioned the Lancet number in one of its articles about the documents.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I highlighted the methodology of the Lancet publication to clarify the differences between the two sources. Wikipedia doesn't view peer-reviewed scientific/medical literature as arbitrary, and neither do reliable sources, which is why the Guardian highlighted the study and mentioned it is widely quoted. (And here's an entire show devoted to the 2006 study.) -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. There are a range of differing and contradictory sources which one could cite. It was arbitrary to select one of these. That problem can be fixed though if folks are set on having such a section.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good additions. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)