Talk:WikiLeaks releases Iraq War logs

Review of revision 1117922 [Passed]

Revision 1117922 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Breaking = yes. Short = yes. But accurate = yes. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1117922 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Breaking = yes. Short = yes. But accurate = yes. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Sourcing notes

This is a request to reinstate information from an earlier version of the story that has since been redacted. I'm new so not sure how to write in the regular talk page, so I am writing comments here.

Regarding a previous version -- the additions I'd made were from the source I'd cited -- There were several articles at www.guardian.co.uk, plus the talkback section, and everything that I'd added to the WikiNews article was from there. I'd spent about 3 hours navigating through their articles.

Here is the sourcing, line by line

1.) "The report is notable in detailing US and British war crimes." The source is http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks Failing to maintain law and order is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Here is a quote - An "Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143." From http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

2.) "In contravention to the Geneva Conventions, which state that an occupying force has a duty to maintain law and order," This is based on the citation listed above. This sentiment is also written in the comments section here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments

3.) "the war logs describe hideous scenes of torture and abuse committed by Iraqi security forces, to which the Coalition forces have a policy of non-interference." This is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks and also from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/oct/23/iraq-war-logs-torture-frago242

4.) "In many cases, Coalition forces gave information to the commanding officers in charge of and complicit with the abuse." This is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks

5.) "These war logs contain more evidence than that which has convicted people at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and there is a serious movement building to place those responsible for the Iraq War in custody." This is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/united-nations-call-obama-investigation-abuses-iraq and also from the comments section of http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments

I consider it bad form and potentially inflammatory to reinstate my own work, but perhaps someone else will read the sources and reinstate the additions I'd made?

Regarding neutral point of view, that is based on the data at hand, however ugly. It would be appropriate to reinstate this work. Thanks!The san gabriel mountains (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Comments" sections are not acceptable for anything other than direct attribute to a specific comment from a specific commenter. I have significant concerns with many of the above claims you are making, that are not backed up to these sources. Perhaps you could be much more specific, and provide quotes from secondary sources that support your claims? -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The_san_gabriel_mountains responds:

Will do -- these are all secondary sources. The primary sources would be the original war logs themselves, or interviews.

--1. "A grim picture of the US and Britain's legacy in Iraq has been revealed in a massive leak of American military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes." from the source cited in (1.) above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks

--2. The quotation in (2.) is a quote from the Geneva Conventions. An "Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143." From http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

--3. "The new logs detail how: • US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished." from the source cited in (3.) above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks

and "The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death." from the same source,

and "Iraq war logs: Frago 242 – a licence to tortureHow the newly released US military files reveal an instruction to ignore detainee abuse by Iraqi authorities; what that meant on the ground; and just how far up the chain of command the order went" from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/oct/23/iraq-war-logs-torture-frago242

--4. "They record "no investigation is necessary" and simply pass reports to the same Iraqi units implicated in the violence." from the source listed in (4.), above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks

--5. "The UN has called on Barack Obama to order a full investigation of US forces' involvement in human rights abuses in Iraq after a massive leak of military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes." from the source listed in (5.) above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/united-nations-call-obama-investigation-abuses-iraq

and "If unjustified or unlawful force has been used, prosecutions for those responsible must follow, so we are bringing forward a new case seeking accountability for all unlawful deaths, and we argue that there must be a judicial inquiry to fully investigate UK responsibility for civilian deaths in Iraq." from the same source, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/united-nations-call-obama-investigation-abuses-iraq

and the quotation about lesser evidence having been brought before the Hague War Crimes Tribunal was from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments It was a comment, which has since been deleted by their moderators.

This quote is also interesting- "As an aside, what wikileaks has done is to ensure that History cannot simply be written by the victors." from the comments section of http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments.

That's all I had written, and some direct quotes from behind it. Once this is read, I hope my work is reinstated. This could be construed as an attempt at censorship. We all have a duty to act in good faith. Thanks!The san gabriel mountains (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by "Joe Public" in response to an article on a mainstream site are not credible content and cannot be used within a Wikinews article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for Iran involvment

New york times www.nytimes.com unsigned

Nope, the US government. --188.23.68.43 (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the famed Wikileaks "insurance" DVD file a few months ago?

1., A few months ago Wikileaks posted a huge 1.4GB "insurance file" with yet unknown ciphered content and stated its checksum: MD5: 94a032849b1f446e3a1ed06cf4867a56 *wikileaks_insurance_sha1_cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c.aes256

What is the significance of that insurance file in light of the Oct 22 mega-dump-leak on Iraq War? The article should state that!

2., Where is the full-dump ZIP file download of the 400k document Iraq War leak? The article should specifiy that! I can find only single article browse interface. Thanks! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)