Silver seren (talk | contribs) →Continuing: new section |
Silver seren (talk | contribs) →*laughs maniacally*: new section |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
I'm going to get back to referencing the things in the article. I understand (and agree with) Wnt's point about the list being a secondary source, but I feel that if others are going to continue to disagree with this, it would be better if I just put a reference for each thing on there. Can others work on also finding other sources for the Overview sections? The sources are good, but anything to shore them up with other things would be helpful. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
I'm going to get back to referencing the things in the article. I understand (and agree with) Wnt's point about the list being a secondary source, but I feel that if others are going to continue to disagree with this, it would be better if I just put a reference for each thing on there. Can others work on also finding other sources for the Overview sections? The sources are good, but anything to shore them up with other things would be helpful. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== *laughs maniacally* == |
|||
Mwahahaha. [http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010-12 Here you go.] A list of every single thing on the list, as represented by a secondary source. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:16, 10 December 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nomenclature
Can this section be removed, or is someone intending to enter something here? __meco (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- ...what section? SilverserenC 01:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This section. __meco (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- But...you made it? SilverserenC 02:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This section. __meco (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Unjustifiable opposition
I was unhappy to see this,[1] as it is far out of keeping with the facts. I think it's debatable whether a cable is truly "Secret" when it's released to 400,000 to 500,000 people on SIPRNet who can read it apparently without any special authorization. But you need only do a web search for any one of the phrases below to see that any pretense of secrecy is pretty well blown off the hinges now. Everyone from Al-Qaida to schoolkids with OLPCs have access to this list already. It's fair game for the encyclopedia.
Now as for not having enough sources ... partly true. But there's definitely enough to make the article very notable. Most items on this list are already the topic of Wikipedia articles, and many, maybe most of them will now be renowned for being on this list. That's simply the world as it is. Wikipedia should be about describing reality, not pretending, uselessly, that it is something else. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- "It's fair game for the encyclopedia." --That's a really unfortunate statement. That something once private is made public doesn't make it necessary to jump on and make an article. Wikipedia reflects third-party sources. Is this topic covered in those? Somewhat yes, but not very much. We don't have articles in hopes that there may be sources later. If that's the case, as it seems to be here, that would be a perfect example of reason to redirect until you can establish wide coverage. Grsz 11 02:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- User:Wnt is mistaken. This article is based on a leaked, classified cable from WikiLeaks and not on secondary sources. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not use leaked classified cables as primary sources for encyclopedia articles. Based on the lack of sources and the comments by Grsz11, I'm going to restore the redirect. I would ask at this time that Wnt take his concerns to the appropriate noticeboard for discussion, as I would be happy to join him. This was previously discussed on the parent article talk page and the result of that discussion was that there was no consensus to create this article. Wnt ignored that consensus and went ahead anyway. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) First, I wasn't following the discussion at Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#List_of_vital_sites very closely, as I felt I had no particular duty to do so.
- Second, I see no consensus there not to create this or any other article.
- Third, I categorically deny that a discussion on the talk page of one article counts as a vote to AfD another hypothetical article before it has ever been created. People at your talk page were talking about splitting off the contents of multiple cables, or just having a list and nothing else, or who knows what; my goal was to cover one specific topic.
- Fourth, this article is not primarily about Wikileaks or diplomatic cables; it is about the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. It simply happens to have an authentic source that is widely available which describes the contents of the sites listed under that initiative.
- Fifth, the way I started this article was by looking at Critical infrastructure protection which had a redlink for the name of this article, so I view that as the "parent article", if there is such a thing.
- Sixth, even if one of your various explanations for why the cables shouldn't be listed were correct, it doesn't justify replacing the entire article, including the general descriptions based on DHS publications, with a redirect to an uninformative Homeland Security article. I mean, you might as well have replaced the article with the word "PENIS" while you were at it. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- OR, and Synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin, since my attention was drawn here from WP:ANI. Most of the sources on this article look fine, but let's please be careful to only use reliable secondary sources? Any
primary sources (for example,[2]) should be removed immediately. Any editor who insists on adding primary sources back, may be subject to warnings and/or being blocked from the project. Hopefully that won't be necessary though! Just stick with reliable secondary sources, such as respected news and journal articles, and all should be fine. --Elonka 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- That primary source is the only one used in the article and is only being used for the sentence "The 2008 CFDI list, as redacted by Wikileaks, listed the following infrastructures" at the beginning of the list. It is not being used to interpret anything, but is being used for a "straightforward, descriptive statement", which is that sentence. Thus, it does meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. SilverserenC 06:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Primary sources are easy to misuse. If being used to source uncontroversial information, a primary source is occasionally appropriate. However, as soon as information is "challenged or likely to be challenged", sourcing requirements become more stringent. --Elonka 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sourcing the list content to the list is definitely a good use of primary sources. Challenged content does not exclude the use of a primary source; as the content of the list is prima facie. It's dubious lawyering to dispute that this is a poor source for the content of the list. TO reiterate; there is nothing wrong with primary sourcing content if done correctly (check), WP:V does not deny primary sources for challenged content (check) and you are (by argument) challenging the content of the list... ...as sourced to the list. Difficult to figure that one :) --Errant (chat!) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Information becomes controversial when it may not be true, not when certain politicians merely object that ordinary people shouldn't be allowed to know things like that, even when al-Qaida and every foreign government already has a copy. WP:CENSOR applies. There are many, many news sources cited here, none of which show doubt that the list as leaked is the true CFDI list. Wnt (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Primary sources are easy to misuse. If being used to source uncontroversial information, a primary source is occasionally appropriate. However, as soon as information is "challenged or likely to be challenged", sourcing requirements become more stringent. --Elonka 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- That primary source is the only one used in the article and is only being used for the sentence "The 2008 CFDI list, as redacted by Wikileaks, listed the following infrastructures" at the beginning of the list. It is not being used to interpret anything, but is being used for a "straightforward, descriptive statement", which is that sentence. Thus, it does meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. SilverserenC 06:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin, since my attention was drawn here from WP:ANI. Most of the sources on this article look fine, but let's please be careful to only use reliable secondary sources? Any
primary sources (for example,[2]) should be removed immediately. Any editor who insists on adding primary sources back, may be subject to warnings and/or being blocked from the project. Hopefully that won't be necessary though! Just stick with reliable secondary sources, such as respected news and journal articles, and all should be fine. --Elonka 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- With all deletions having been reverted, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Silver seren (Result: No action) discussion was closed with no action. Elonka said that Ohconfucius planned no more deletions. However, I am concerned that someone may still attempt to act on her statement above and start another edit war. I have discussed her views at User talk:Wnt#Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative and we have very different ideas about what Wikipedia says about primary sources. I would make a general appeal that if anyone is considering a new wave of deletions, please take this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead if you still think WP:Primary says we can't use primary sources. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The List
Clearly the topic is notable. But do we need the content of the list in the article? I have no real care either way; but it occurs to me that due to the tentative verified nature of the source it is possibly a little too much to include it. Also; this is quite a long unwieldy list which is available in the linked source. I'd tentatively suggest cutting the list out and providing a link to the Wikileaks source as an EL. --Errant (chat!) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The first purpose for including the list is to allow wikilinking to all the companies and facilities described; this is to be followed with the substantial task of tracking down news stories about each item on the list in reference to Wikileaks. The Australian reference about the list being "out of date" is an example of such a reference. Initially, I put such data within ref tags, and I see someone has started a Companies header, but I think the best way to handle this is to list all the items as they occur in the primary source, then add further text from secondary sources to each one, while somehow marking the original text as a quotation (in part due to the abundant "typos"). Perhaps a table, perhaps italics... some experimentation will be needed. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- It might be best to, for now, move the list to a subpage that we can access, while keeping all of the referenced things on the list in the article. Thus, we would be able to access the subpage so that we can directly look for secondary sources on the subjects and move them back into the article once we've found a source for them. If everything is sourced, I don't think people will have much of a problem with it. SilverserenC 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
When was it leaked?
Considering that the earliest sources i've been finding on the list are from the 6th, I presume that it was leaked either on the 5th or early on the 6th. Anyone know? It would be good to have the exact date in the lede. SilverserenC 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The Wikileaks link lists the release date as 2010-12-05 21:09. Wnt (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced sections
First off, I can understand wanting to remove the unsourced items on the list. However, I am in the process of sourcing then at this very moment. So, give me a day or so. Second, removing the mines just because they "aren't specific" is not helpful. There is no way to confirm what mines are being spoken of, since the cable doesn't specify. Regardless, the mines are still discussed in secondary sources, so they should stay. SilverserenC 07:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You will be quite welcome put them back as an when you manage to source them. The reference to mines I removed are all too non-specific, and if there is a reliable third party source which globalises the nature of the systemic threat, it may warrant a summary statement somewhere. As it is, it is entirely unsatisfactory. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest that instead of placing unreferenced, contentious information in the article, it is placed here, on the talk page instead pending the procuring of reliable sourcing? If it's a matter of a very long list that would appear rather obtrusive, collapsing it could be a solution. Then the editor working on adding referenced items to the article can remove items from it as they are being referenced and inserted into the article. __meco (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've already started a AN3 report on him a while ago. I was in the middle of referencing it before anyways. Most of the info on the list can actually be referenced, believe it or not. The only difficult things will be from Mexico. For some reason, there is little to no info on the places in Mexico. SilverserenC 10:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- And the overview section is still missing some stuff from before. Could you fix that? SilverserenC 10:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Collapsing is not the right way forward. How about your sandbox? Inadequately sourced, the overview section was. Find better sources, please, before you reintegrate. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then the proper action would have been to raise a discussion here on the talk page about the overview section, so we could see if more references could be found or find concensus on how it should be worded. The improper thing to do was what you did, which was to start a edit war over the inclusion of the material. I believe it would be in your best interest to make a response at the AN3 thread that I linked on your talk page and explain why you did what you did. SilverserenC 10:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- There are no unsourced sections. Nothing here is made up - it is all easily verifiable. WP:Primary fully respects the use of a primary source about itself - though as the 2008 CFDI list was compiled by the DHS and a number of other government agencies, it may actually be a secondary source being used about itself. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of original research, how about "rem meaningless. you can't attack manganese - it's in the ground al over the world)"[4] You say this based on what, your years of mining experience, your geology PhD? You don't like the CFDI list they published 2008 so you want to make some corrections to it? Wnt (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've added some comments about this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Silver seren (Result: ). Wnt (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then the proper action would have been to raise a discussion here on the talk page about the overview section, so we could see if more references could be found or find concensus on how it should be worded. The improper thing to do was what you did, which was to start a edit war over the inclusion of the material. I believe it would be in your best interest to make a response at the AN3 thread that I linked on your talk page and explain why you did what you did. SilverserenC 10:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've already started a AN3 report on him a while ago. I was in the middle of referencing it before anyways. Most of the info on the list can actually be referenced, believe it or not. The only difficult things will be from Mexico. For some reason, there is little to no info on the places in Mexico. SilverserenC 10:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Continuing
I'm going to get back to referencing the things in the article. I understand (and agree with) Wnt's point about the list being a secondary source, but I feel that if others are going to continue to disagree with this, it would be better if I just put a reference for each thing on there. Can others work on also finding other sources for the Overview sections? The sources are good, but anything to shore them up with other things would be helpful. SilverserenC 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*laughs maniacally*
Mwahahaha. Here you go. A list of every single thing on the list, as represented by a secondary source. SilverserenC 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)