The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If  consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

On 8 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. The result of the discussion was moved.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

On 28 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2023 Pentagon document leaks to 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks. The result of the discussion was moved.

A fact from 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 July 2023 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that classified documents of the United States were partially leaked onto a Discord server for the video game Minecraft? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Espionage Mid‑importance 2022–2023 Pentagon document leaks is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Military Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Ukraine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I see there is a similar article to this one, a four paragraph stub, at 2023 alleged United States classified information leak. I’d suggest a merge, but the process can be lengthy. The easiest solution, it seems to me, is to copy and paste any pertinent info and sources into this article, then speedy delete the stub. Possibly too easy a solution, however. Jusdafax ( talk) 00:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's not how it works. If you take content from the other article, you have to preserve its history for copyright reasons, and link to that article from this one's history. I have simply redirected it here for now. If someone takes content from there, please note that in the edit summary and add merge templates to the talk pages. A merge does not have to be a lengthy process. Just copy-paste usable content and add the merge templates to the talk pages. Best, Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Usedtobecool: huh? what policy is that? Why would copyright apply in such a way to text content added to a Wikipedia article would prevent it's reuse in another article, or anywhere? See WP:CC BY-SA. This is Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia. - Scarpy ( talk) 07:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

No idea what you mean. You have almost certainly misunderstood something, perhaps because I have not been clear, but I am not sure exactly where. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 09:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

As WP:COPY explains, the text of Wikipedia is not in the public domain, and some copyright restrictions still apply. Particularly, all text must be properly attributable to its original author(s) – that's what the article's edit history is for. Taking text out of another article and then deleting the original article would deprive the users who actually wrote that text of attribution for their work, and so would violate the copyright license those users agreed to when they clicked "Publish changes". - Reschultzed||| Talk||| Contributions 20:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

How can it be addressed that there are reportedly many versions of these leaks circulating? One example is the article currently mentions Ukrainian and Russian deaths both at 100k+, but AP referencing this leak says "16,000-17,500 Russian casualties and up to 71,000 Ukrainian casualties" https://apnews.com/article/e351c6613e69bf8d714b03e367543da8

BBC says "It comes as little surprise to learn that the US estimates that between 189,500 and 223,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded. The equivalent figure for Ukraine's losses - between 124,500 and 131,000 "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65225985 Shredux ( talk) 07:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I believe that it should be mentioned that there are multiple version and list out at least two version: one that support Ukraine's perspective and one support Russian's. Feel very strange that the Russian's one was not mentioned when its was one of the reason why this blow up in the first place 133.6.73.138 ( talk) 09:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Tweedledumb2, Spinixster, Masebrock, LilianaUwU, and Taishonambu:. There's a mini edit war brewing over these edits. May I suggest that we remove this info for now ( WP:BRD), then discuss here the pros and cons of including it?

My personal opinion is that some of this is probably OK to include if the source is really strong and the level of detail is WP:DUE. https://theins.info/ looks like a reliable source at first glance, but upon further review the article makes extraordinary claims like wiretapping of Zelensky with no evidence. This is a red flag to me about the quality of this source. The documents in no way state that Zelensky was wiretapped (a more plausible explanation is that Ukraine told USA the plans), yet this wiretapping allegation has somehow made it into the title of the article. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I've indeed removed the paragraphs out of an abundance of caution, and I was told classified info is in a sort of grey area on Wikipedia ( discussion here). I see CNN in the list of sources, which is reliable, but the other sources don't ring a bell to me. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 14:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The consensus of that discussion was, I quote, "there is currently no specific reason to give links to material classified by any national government special treatment by prohibiting them". As it stands, the decision to remove text based solely on its classified nature is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. This is all old hat, really. Wikipedia has been reporting on the contents of the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, Snowden revelations and such for years. Its not really that grey of a legal area. Masebrock ( talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with what Novem said above, though I would like to opt out of this discussion because of certain reasons stated on WP:DISCORD. If it's necessary, though, do ping me. Spinixster (chat!) 14:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

And since it has been requested, I would like to apologize for doing what Falcorn suggested I do. I'm still a newbie so I didn't know any better, plus it's hard for me to tell if someone's being literal or not. Hope this can be accepted. Spinixster (chat!) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey guys, regarding editor policy, I have to apologize because off-wiki I suggested to Spinixster to make a revert that removed content. I realize that wasn't cool with Wiki policy to make a direct off-wiki suggestion regarding an edit. I am sorry. I regret making the suggestion and promise to avoid this in the future. The reason it is a one-time event is the heading of this talk page section, and I mention this only to show it is a one-time event and not to explain the unsuitable action of suggesting an edit. GeneralNotability has presented a counterargument about Wikipedia policy which is correct. Sorry to Spinixster and GeneralNotability for the trouble. I apologize and will never suggest specific Wiki edit actions/reverts/etc. off-wiki again. -- Rauisuchian ( talk) 16:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

That's perfectly fine for now from me, I have no particular strong opinion on it. I only really reverted because I thought such information would come under WP:NOTCENSORED and should be included if it comes from the documents (and is not a crime to include) themselves but feel free to for the moment anyway. Tweedle ( talk) 14:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

If there are sourcing issues, then those should be tackled piecemeal, not via mass deletion. The bulk of the text is already written, notable, and verifiable. I cannot support preemptively removing the entirety of the text under the rationale that someone may theoretically have an encyclopedic objection to it. Masebrock ( talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

First and foremost, New York Times Co. v. United States does not cover documents where their release could result in death.

Onto the more pertinent details, if the legality of a work cannot be determined, it should not be copied onto Wikipedia. No sources were provided for the table, and it's safe to assume they come straight from one slide of the documents. Assuming such a source were to reference this slide in its entirety, I would still find it unacceptable.

The information in that table is not important to expressing the documents. The average reader does not need exact details, especially if it's unsourced and could be altered. Wikipedia is not here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• "New York Times Co. v. United States" does not cover documents where their release could result in death. Yes it does. The Pentagon Papers were released during active conflict in the Vietnam War. Every discussion of a wartime billegierant's capabilities, positions, or movements could result in the the death of people. All wartime reporting could result in deaths. This is inherent to the nature of reporting on war. Abiding by the "no possibility of death" standard would remove all Wikipedia information regarding active conflicts. Your position here is a novel legal theory, not supported supported by Supreme Court precedent, Wikipedia policy, nor Wikipedia consensus.

• The holding is, "To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a 'grave and irreparable' danger". Such danger has been presented. This is the precedent of a Supreme Court case that still applies here, or rather, it would apply here if Wikipedia is a press outlet. Title 18, section 798 of U.S. code applies here in all extents. When Wikipedia talks about the Battle of Bakhmut, it is from reliable sources with intentionally public information, not exact movements, not strategies, and certainly not using leaked documents. When Wikipedia talks about Cablegate, it is with general information that has been extracted and made vague to the public. That much is covered by New York Times Co. v. United States. Because Wikipedia has explicitly labeled itself not a newspaper at WP:NOTNEWS, it cannot be afforded the same treatment as The Washington Post or The New York Times. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

"Sufficient evidence" of grave danger, according to who? Unlike during the Nixon administration, the government has not even attempted to legally demand that outlets remove this information. You are asking us to submit to a level of self-censorship that is unprecedented on Wikipedia, based on fears of prosecution that are entirely novel and theoretical.

You say: When Wikipedia talks about Cablegate, it is with general information that has been extracted and made vague to the public. But this is simply untrue. Here's a sampling of how Wikipedia presents info from that leak: According to a 28 July 2008 diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Lisbon, nuclear and/or radiological materials allegedly stolen from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant were thought to be in possession of an unidentified ex-Russian general living in Portugal. The cable reports, "The walk-in stated he was approached two months ago by a part-time business associate named Orlando to help sell 'Uranium plates' owned by an unidentified ex-Russian General living in Portugal. This is not "vague and generalized." Because, again I reiterate, there is no policy or consensus to remove classified information from Wikipedia. Masebrock ( talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ElijahPepe: I don't see how you get to "[Wikipedia] cannot be afforded the same treatment as The Washington Post or The New York Times" from the First Amendment ("[Congress shall make no law] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"). RAN1 ( talk) 19:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• if the legality of a work cannot be determined, it should not be copied onto Wikipedia. No sources were provided for the table, and it's safe to assume they come straight from one slide of the documents. Assuming such a source were to reference this slide in its entirety, I would still find it unacceptable. You may personally find it unacceptable, but the current Wikipedia consensus differs. Let me quote the consensus summary again to remind you: "there is currently no specific reason to give links to material classified by any national government special treatment by prohibiting them". It is Wikipedia consensus that information should not be removed based solely on its classified nature.

• It is 12-year old consensus that covers the use of classified documents as sources, not spooled into a Wikipedia article with extreme detail (and no sources, to boot). This is still very novel territory that requires the involvement of Wikimedia Legal (which I have requested), at the stage it is now. I will abide by the action Wikimedia Legal takes in this case, but until then, we cannot include information that is both potentially illegal and that which can be altered because it is simply unsourced. We aren't linking classified material, we are outright sharing it when there is an ongoing investigation from multiple government agencies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

There is nothing novel about including details of the linked documents. For the articles that inspired this consensus (Pentagon Papers, nuclear weapon design, Afghan War Diaries), Wikipedia did not just merely link to the leaked contents, but included details as well. The 2023 leak is no different from previous leaks in this regard. "The prior consensus must be tossed, because this time we are including details" has no basis. This is not novel territory by any means. It is well-trod, very much old-hat territory.

Obviously, if the WMF changes their mind on the topic of including classified information then we would follow suit. But until then, we should interpret silence on the matter as evidence that the policy remains unchanged. Masebrock ( talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia is not here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving. Yes it is. This information is notable, isn't it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not censored. Objecting to the inclusion of verifiable and notable information because it doesn't align with your geopolitical goals is veering towards explicit POV-pushing. Please cite Wikipedia policy before removal on these grounds. Masebrock ( talk) 00:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Starting your argument out with "Wikipedia is here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving" is not a particularly good start if you wish to maintain your image, and accusing me of having a bias towards Ukraine is a complete misunderstanding of the argument at hand. There is a vast difference between bowdlerizing offensive material and refusing to include content that is legally ambiguous at best and likely outright illegal. Again, I fail to see the relevance that an unsourced, large table detailing exact quantities and qualities of tanks has towards an article about the leak of U.S. documents. The reader does not need that information. There are other sources that you have used as well, but this is not the discussion place for that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The sources that are repeatedly removed include CNN, India Today, Asian Times, and others. "Unsourced"? I don't understand. No one is objecting to the removal of unsourced material, that's just a red herring. The appropriate response to unsourced material is to delete that material, not delete that plus everything else that happened to be included in a particular edit.

You say: "Starting your argument out with "Wikipedia is here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving" is not a particularly good start if you wish to maintain your image". But its true! Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedic source of verifiable and notable information. Encyclopedias help people do things. Whether those things are morally good or bad is irrelevant. That you seem to think believing this gives one a "bad image", makes me question what is it you are here for. Since the classified content is verifiable, and undoubtedly notable (if it wasn't notable, no one would care if Russia knew abut it at all), the content is encyclopedic.

Your argument of "but if we include that information, it will make is easier for [x group] to do [y thing]" isn't really an objection, it's a reiteration of the purpose of an encyclopedia. Masebrock ( talk) 06:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

You should not be excluding information just on the basis that the average reader 'does not need that information', sure they probably don't but detail should not be forsaken for details sake. Like Masebrock said, an Encyclopedia is here to inform, if the 'Contents' section becomes too large we can split into another article to detail it all.

On the point of "Wikipedia is here to make it easier for Russia to find what kind of equipment the Ukrainian Army is receiving" is an entirely redundant one (pulling aside from the fact that it should not matter that information helps X side) as I very much doubt any major nations intelligence agency will be using Wikipedia of all places to gage what arms the Ukranians are recieving (and at this point probably already have somewhat of a copy of the original documents anyway). Tweedle ( talk) 09:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Isn't the entire inventory of equipment already public knowledge prior to the leak of the documents. For example it is already well sourced that 14 challenger 2 tanks are coming from Britain - e.g. https://news.usni.org/2023/01/17/u-k-sending-14-challenger-2-tanks-ammo-to-ukraine-foreign-minister-says

Also all the equipment is already being documented in List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War

And this table is just a better presented version of the information in the Asia Times Article [1] https://asiatimes.com/2023/04/ukraines-spring-offensive-a-likely-death-trap-for-us-nato/ 73.71.209.80 ( talk) 17:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I believe it is already public knowledge actually yes you would be correct. The Asia Times article was used to source for it already in this diff ( ref 26). Tweedle ( talk) 17:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

That makes sense thanks. Maybe a bit of overreaction then.

Interesting how there is so much fuss about a list of vehicles when there is much more sensitive information being released by "major" sources like BBC regarding the exact number of special forces in Ukraine.

"According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 73.71.209.80 ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I saw this yesterday but it is not actually in this article currently, I have added this in! Tweedle ( talk) 18:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• I'd add that the very nature of the content being in secondary sources that Wikipedia is able to cite means that the information is effectively already available to Russian military planners; I'd think that any additional risk caused by putting the information in the article would be negligible. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, by the way, the reason I was led to this article was due to a question by ElijahPepe on the Wikipedia Discord about the legality of those edits. I didn't want to get canvassed into this, but this seemed like an important matter. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

(Also found this via Discord but was not asked for comment by anyone) I think the emphasis here should be on 1. Elijah's mention of the "could result in death" aspect and 2. the apparently questionable sourcing, at least from The Insider as Novem mentioned up top. I haven't looked through all the sources myself, but if any of them give any reason to suspect that they aren't being wholly accurate such as with this wiretap claim, then I would strike them as unreliable immediately. This is too sensitive a matter to be anything less than overly cautious with. Personally, I even think it's worth not adding these parts just because of how right-on-the-edge this matter is legally. I'd even suggest revision deletion just to be safe, though not without consensus. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 18:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

1. There is no Wikipedia policy that says we shouldn't include material that "could result in death", and for good reason. All wartime reporting of active conflicts could result in death. By this standard, the entire Russo-Ukrainian War article should be blanked.

2. Whether Wikipedia can report the contents of classified information is no more of a "legal grey area" than, for example, whether same-sex marriage is legal in the US. It's Supreme Court precedent. Wikipedia has been reporting such information for many years, from the Pentagon Papers, to Wikileaks, to the Snowden revelations. Removing information on these grounds is a departure from Wikipedia consensus. It's not our job to try to be Wikipedia's legal defense team: We edit based on Wikipedia policy and consensus alone. Masebrock ( talk) 00:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with pretty much everything Masebrock has pointed out. I'd also like to add on that the reasoning against having these documents because the Pentagon argues that they could "lead to death" is unconvincing, per WP:NOTCENSORED - so long as the contents are being discussed by reliable secondary sourcing, I see no reason for Wikipedia to not discuss the documents. :3 F4U ( they /it) 23:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The fact that this is even a question just shamelessly exposes Wikipedia's blatant geographical and systemic bias. Would such a question even still be asked if it happened to a country that wasn't the United States? Why should it get special treatment on Wikipedia? Include everything. Wikipedia is neutral and not censored. 121.136.51.26 ( talk) 00:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Masebrock: I implore you to check out Wikimedia Legal's response on this topic, which shares many of my points. I will still oppose this on the grounds of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A table is unnecessary and way too large for material that is, by all accounts, an opinion that is not sourced. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Let me quote from the first section: "Specifically, as a hosting venue, WMF does not edit, contribute to, or monitor the content on WMF project sites. For this reason and as noted in the Terms of Use, editors are legally responsible for the edits and contributions they make on Wikimedia project sites, including those made to English Wikipedia."

Doesn't this entirely negate your main concern, that Wikipedia itself may be held liable?

Since this is not the case, and since Wikipedia has no policy or consensus to remove classified material, could you please agree to no longer revert the edits? Masebrock ( talk) 09:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The edits will still need to be reliably sourced (see WP:PERENNIAL) and encyclopedic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm inclined to take an orthogonal view here. Irrespective of its legal status or implications, a huge table specifying precisely how many of what kind of bomb and gun and tank and whatever is clearly WP:TRIVIA within the context of this article. Just summarise it. Folly Mox ( talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed. I have no issue with paraphrasing classified information, but the information should be reliable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request to United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"A subset of documents were sent to Discord servers for a British-Filipino YouTuber and the sandbox video game Minecraft in late February and early March." Just say the youtuber is WoW_Mao Like: " A subset of documents were sent to Discord servers for the British-Filipino YouTuber "Wow_Mao" and the sandbox video game Minecraft in late February and early March." JobinMoscow ( talk) 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Why does the YouTuber need naming? Izno ( talk) 17:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Why not? JobinMoscow ( talk) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

There are a lot of claims put forth in the intro of this article which are without citation. Of course they could all be stated in the archive of the New York Times article that is cited for the last paragraph, but I have a lot of trouble accessing it. StrongALPHA ( talk 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Claims supported in prose do not need to be reaffirmed with references in the lede. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The "Russian invasion of Ukraine" campaignbox to the right of the lede goes out of bounds when expanded. I don't have the knowledge to fix it, so I'd be happy if someone else could.

Thank you! - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 21:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

What do you mean "out of bounds"? Izno ( talk) 22:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Izno it's been fixed already, or it might've been a onetime glitch. Still appreciate your concern, however! - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 22:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The name is said to change at a very fast pace, and includes racial slurs at some point. The minecraft server in question was called "Minecraft Earth Maps" 172.117.237.102 ( talk) 00:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

"Minecraft Earth Maps" was the discord server it was posted in in March shortly before going viral; Thug Shaker Central was the discord it was first posted in months earlier. Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

i know this is late, but thug shaker central appears to be the name most media sources are going with. this truly is one of the timelines. Manumaker08 ( talk) 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It was a name of a meme. Cwater1 ( talk) 21:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

... has been revealed, per the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/13/world/documents-leak-leaker-identity.html 70.29.86.11 ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

SO far this is just a suspect. Until it's proven in a court of law, we should probably refrain from saying "it was him" Genabab ( talk) 11:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/13/suspect-pentagon-documents-leak/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.86.11 ( talk) 16:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ElijahPepe. The "Sources and methods" section was recently removed without an edit summary. Could an explanation be provided please? I'd be in favor of keeping that section unless there's a source/text integrity problem or something. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for restoring. Should be all set for now. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

What's going on here? Would the same treatment be given if leaks on a similar scale happened to countries such as China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, etc.? 121.136.51.26 ( talk) 00:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Can you give specific examples of this happening? Carpimaps ( talk) 11:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Now that the leaks have been traced to a network technican of an Air National Guard base in Massaschusetts, maybe we should revisit if 2023 Pentagon document leaks is the best name for this article. Seems to me like the Pentagon has less and less to do with this leak. Not making an RM yet, since we just had one and I'm not sure what the new title should be, but I do see some problems with the current title. A new title should probably try to summarize the contents of the leaks. For example, are they all intelligence briefings? Then maybe 2023 intelligence briefing leaks. Did they all come from one agency such as the Defense Intelligence Agency or the Air Force or the Joint Staff? Then maybe 2023 Defense Intelligence Agency leaks. etc.

There's also the question of if we should remove the year, or add United States. Similar articles include Pentagon Papers, United States diplomatic cables leak, Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), and July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike. There appears to be a lot of variability. Food for thought. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

My 2¢ is that Thug Shaker Leaks should be the title. It's catchy, it's specific, and that is, after all, the bizarre provenance of the leaks. It's worth noting, too, that gamer communication platforms have been on the radar for intelligence agencies for a while now, albeit marginally. kencf0618 ( talk) 09:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

+1 to this Tweedle ( talk) 16:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Having researched what a "thug shaker" is, the title of an article regarding classified documents should not allude to what amounts to gay pornography. If there are more sources using this name, perhaps it could be bolded in the lede, but it's unsuitable as the title. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Upon reflection 2023 Discord leaks or the like would be suitable, Thug Shaker Central being the minor Discord server where the documents were first published. (Their further dissemination is complex—I'm considering a sidebox timeline). Gay porn nomenclaure provenance whatev, Wikipedia is not censored. That said, a cursory Duck Duck Go search of the term yields Local News 8, Polygon, The Guardian, New York Post, and Rolling Stone, whereas the overarching term yields coverage by Time, Washington Post, NBC News, and Discord itself. kencf0618 ( talk) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

"Pentagon" is a very widely accepted metonym for the US Department of Defense and the US military institutional complex more generally. We can wait and see if another WP:COMMONNAME emerges, but I think the current article title is fine for the time being. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I think "The Discord Intelligence Leaks" or simply "The Discord Leaks" would also work, as it still gets the bizarre source of the leaks compared to previous leaks and is specific enough. 72.90.93.94 ( talk) 02:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with calling them Pentagon leaks per Ganesha811, but I'm reconsidering the year. This started in October 2022, so perhaps we should be calling these the 2022-2023 Pentagon document leaks. RAN1 ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree. This title sounds perfectly reasonable as the leaks were first shared in 2022 but gained more attention in 2023. The other proposed names make it sound like the article isn't about the Pentagon and more about gay porn or Discord, which yes, while those two subjects are part of the article, they aren't as major as the Pentagon's leaked documents. RteeeeKed 💬 📖 23:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ RAN1. I see you just moved this article to a new title. Do you have consensus for this move? And are you following the MOS which suggests using – instead of -? I see problems with your move, and would suggest moving it back until a consensus is reached. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Novem Linguae: This has been up for a while with no dispute, I assumed it was uncontroversial. I forgot about the dash. RAN1 ( talk) 01:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting. Let's get a stronger consensus for an article with 150,000 page views and only 2 people supporting a move to 2022–2023 so far. Twinkle has a feature to create an RM (in the XFD module) if we don't get enough discussion in this section. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Article says there is info on the DPRK in the leaked documents. But nothing is mentioned, only South Korea is brought up. Assuming the info is out there, should we include it? Genabab ( talk) 11:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Does the primary source (the leaked documents or photographs) also exist on the internet, or is everything in the Content section all from nytimes, washington post and nbc only? Killarnee ( talk) 19:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Osterluzei. I was wondering why you re-added this content without an edit summary? It is already covered in the "Sources and methods" section, and it is also a bit WP:SYNTH to connect those two sentences together (what proof is there that the U.S. spied on Gutierres because he's "soft on Putin" and not for another reason?), so I'd be in favor of removing it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Can we add a link somewhere in this article to the article Internet leak. Not sure if that would be Wikipedia:Overlinking. Cwater1 ( talk) 18:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. RteeeeKed 💬 📖 23:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request to 2023 Pentagon document leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is from the Wall Street Journal article, here:

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/social-media-account-overseen-by-former-navy-noncommissioned-officer-helped-spread-secrets-a4b5643b

The fact that Donbass Devushka isn’t a Russian from Donbas, as she presented herself online, but an American residing in Washington state, was first disclosed by pro-Ukrainian online open-source intelligence analysts and activists known as NAFO.

Thank you. 72.14.126.22 ( talk) 03:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 07:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The Rachel Maddow Show, 17 April 2023, mentions that crudely altered photo(s) of Russian and Ukrainian casualty counts were first posted by the Donbass Devushka social media accounts, which was then cited by Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News. MSNBC archives The Rachel Maddow Show transcripts.... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Donbass Devushka is already mentioned in the article, and I would refrain from using sources from pundits on either the left or the right. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request to 2023 Pentagon document leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the first Donbass Devushka to Donbass Devushka CretaceousFella ( talk) 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: the link point to Sarah Bils. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I see there's a new section dedicated to the people that brought the leaked documents into view. Maybe that section should be expanded to include the user(s?) from the "wow_mao" Discord server that were also in Teixeria's original server, one of their names should be "Lucca" according to this source and the original bellingcat investigator. It also may be worth mentioning who the users from the "minecraft earth" server were, one of them admitted disseminating the documents shared by Lucca. 87.17.255.81 ( talk) 16:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request to 2023 Pentagon document leaks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Malcontent News reported that, a anti-Russian-misinformation" should be changed to "Malcontent News reported that an anti-Russian-misinformation". Content clauses do not use commas and the "a" doesn't precede a noun with a vowel sound at the start. ObserveOwl ( talk) 16:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

There are two discord servers involved in these leaks. Thug Shaker Central -- a tight-knit server dedicated to the game Project Zomboid, apparently ( https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/classified-pentagon-documents-were-first-leaked-to-project-zomboid-fans-3430359) -- and a second, much larger, server named Minecraft Earth Map, dedicated to Minecraft ( https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/classified-u-s-documents-on-ukraine-war-spread-through-minecraft-discord-3429075)

Teixeira posted the documents to Thug Shaker Central initially. From there, someone else spread them to Minecraft Earth Map, which is the likely source of all subsequent reposts to places such as 4chan.

Many sources conflate these two different servers and falsely report that the documents first leaked on a Discord server for the game Minecraft.

This article does mention that there are two servers involved, but that fact is not immediately clear on first pass, and the reader can easily come away thinking only one server was involved. Given that, and the often mistaken reporting on this, I think the lead could be made clearer for readers that the chain of events is: 1. Teixera posts to Thug Shaker Central, 2. Someone else reposts to Minecraft Earth Map, 3. The leaks get much more widely disseminated from this point. 193.221.80.92 ( talk) 14:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm proposing fixing commas in the two sentences in the Document dissemination section, replacing "a" with "an" before "anti-Russian-misinformation," and removing the second "allegedly" from the first sentence ("allegedly posted"). My reasoning is that the original Wall Street Journal source says that the account "posted four documents" without using the word "allegedly" and the sentence is already qualified as being what the Wall Street Journal reported.

Current sentences:

The Wall Street Journal ^[1] reported that, Sarah Bils, a former aviation electronics technician 2nd Class, last stationed at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, is allegedly behind the Donbass Devushka social media accounts, that allegedly posted at least four of the classified documents. ^[2] Malcontent News reported that, a anti-Russian-misinformation open source intelligence movement, North Atlantic Fellas Organization, identified Bils as one of the personas behind Donbass Devushka. ^[3]

Proposed new sentences:

The Wall Street Journal ^[1] reported that Sarah Bils, a former aviation electronics technician 2nd Class last stationed at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, is allegedly behind the Donbass Devushka social media accounts that posted at least four of the classified documents. ^[2] Malcontent News reported that an anti-Russian-misinformation open source intelligence movement, North Atlantic Fellas Organization, identified Bils as one of the personas behind Donbass Devushka. ^[3] Carbonaragonite ( talk) 02:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done -Lemonaka‎ 12:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The bellingcat article doesn’t say that the leaks came from the Oxide server, the guardian article misinterpreted this. Also the wording on dissemination makes it appear as if OG was a server admin there. He wasn’t. 2603:90C8:500:D19C:493D:5F80:5BE0:B788 ( talk) 22:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove this sentence which is nearly a duplicate of the one that follows. Remove the first instance rather than the second because the second introduces the technician's name which is used subsequently.

Uhoj ( talk) 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done Tollens ( talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply