Talk:Decade worth of messages, interviews from bin Laden leaked to web

authenticated?
Was it really authenticated by the CIA? I don't think that is really the case. If it is, then that means that every single quotation is completely accurate according to the CIA. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IF the organization that translated it, and published the report is plastered with the title, and is also a department of the CIA I can say that the CIA authenticated the messages etc. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. It appears that they just took the full text of the foreign language news and translated it. The FBIS doesn't appear to employ analysis or have any means to check the validity of the news. Essentially, FBIS is the BBC Monitoring service for the U.S. FBIS reports are generally available to other departments within the government. So, I really don't think saying the CIA authenticated it is true. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is material in the document that the CIA is unsure of, such as the Rose al-Yusuf interview in 1996 which the CIA document says "allegedly took place in London." That is clearly dubious, as are contents of that interview, including Bin Laden saying he was residing in Turkey at the time when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.  This document is just a compilation of material, but has not been factchecked or authenticated. Aude (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is all translations of articles and interviews and messages that were translated by the CIA (but not intercepted or conducted by the CIA), then we are not talking about a "leak" per se. It would then just be CIA translations of stuff that was already publicly available. As far as authenticity a letterhead on a digital document doesn't prove anything. --SVTCobra 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

copyright
Within this leaked document is a disclaimer:


 * THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
 * COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED
 * WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

If it contains copyright violations, should Wikinews link to it? Tough question probably better dealt with at Water cooler, but I am more interested in what is actually copyright. In the United States, Osama's words are not covered by copyright, and if the translations were done by a US Govt employee, their translation is not either. In order to help investigate this, I have set up a transcription project on Wikisource, with only the table of contents online at present. See here


 * s:Index:FBIS Report - Compilation of Usama Bin Ladin Statements 1994-2004.djvu

We need to type up those pages, and then look very closely at each to determine its copyright status. I will then upload a new version with only the copyright elements redacted, unless some enterprising person can put together a convincing argument that it is illegal to distribute this due to some reason other that copyright. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Linking is not a copyright violation. Only those with an interest in suppressing knowledge will tell you otherwise and make vague non-applicable threats about "facilitating copyright violation". --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Linking to addresses that carry material illegal in the applicable jurisdiction is usually frowned upon on WMF sites. I am not aiming to have that enforced here, especially given the nature of Wikinews, however it is a slippery slope that it would be nice to have a policy about in order to ensure those links were necessary for the article.  i.e. linking to an illegal copy of a book should be prohibited, as it encourages the violation of copyright.  Just food for thought - over on Wikisource we are trying to bring as much as this document to the public domain as possible, legally or at least with a reasonable degree of certainty.  see s:Wikisource:Scriptorium. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks
Aren't they just a mirror of the content? If the article that I read (and changed) is correct, they only took content from the Secrecy News people. Correct? Even Wikileaks reads "Identical to the document released by Steven Aftergood from Secrecy News on Sept 12."

So why does Wikileaks get mentioned at all? I appreciate their cleaner layout and ad-lessness, but big whip. If I mirror the documents, can I be in the title? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it was the first place I saw it. didn't see that last part and had no reason to loook elsewhere. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fracking love Wikileaks. Thunderhead 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fine. I didn't realise the content was added by two users. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Slashdot
We made it again! I think this is the second or third time in 2 weeks. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) This article seems to have peaked with 2,932 hits per hour between 13:00 and 14:00 UTC; unfortunately, no data were available yesterday, so I "manually" had a look into some hourly logs: ... > 214 > 1,210 > 2,035 > 1,612 > 1,473 > 1,364 > 2,088 > 2,918 > 2,932 > 2,500 > 2,028 > 2,130 > 1,780 > 1,425 > ... --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice, (944 hits last hour; summed up; incl. redirects} according to Template:Popular_articles. Makes my story Despite threats, "Alaska Women Reject Palin" rally held seem kind of lame. Only 130 hits last hour. —Calebrw (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Page view record:

Bombing in China ??
fas.com also states - "There were no incidents of international terrorism in China in 1997" http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_97/asia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudiedude (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree this is an issue. The article says "Bin Laden also blames the U.S. for the bombings in China in 1997". We need to identify what bombings these are, or if they occurred at all. --SVTCobra 22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Bin Laden is referring to the Uygurs separatists and their bombing campaign in China, but as far I as i can tell, there is no evidence of any connection between Al Qaida and the Uygurs. Probably OBL is just taking credit for something he had nothing to do with. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging by the quote given, it could also mean that he is blaming the US(CIA) for the bombing, perhaps telling people that we did it to blame on the others... not necessarily having to do with Al Qaida in that instance. --70.187.38.47 02:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but what bombing exactly? --SVTCobra 02:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request
editprotected

The "is" in the last sentence should be changed to "are". 128.232.247.55 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing this out. tempo divalse  22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Remark
At the end it says Bin Ladens whereabouts are unknown, when he has been dead for about a year. Charlie22712 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. A news article is a snapshot in time, showing what the world looked like at the time of its publication.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)