Talk:Camp Mirage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Extraneous details

The exact location and mandate of Camp Mirage are classified. Indiscretion on the part of a reporter does not negate the responsibility of members of the Forces (in the case of the NDA) and Canadians (in the case of the Security of Information Act) to keep certain facts concealed.

If the facts held out to be true in the article's previous version are true, then their publication is a violation of those acts, and anyone who falls under their jurisdiction cannot legally allow the distribution of that information to continue. If the facts are not true, then they do not belong in Wikipedia. I am familiar with the "no legal threats" policy; however, the enforcement of these acts is my job, and the removal of untrue information from the Wiki is everyone's responsibility. Which of those two obligations motivates my revert will be left as an exercise to the reader.

I honestly believe you were acting in good faith, Madison, by providing as much detail as you could find in this article so that we could all learn a bit more about our country's presence abroad. When Camp Mirage becomes UNCLAS, I look forward to seeing your encyclopedic version of this article, and I hope that it contains an amount of detail comparable to some of your other work on our military history. For the moment, however, it would be more prudent to keep any unnecessary information off of this page.

  • This edit was done by the Department of National Defense in Canada. I am Canadian myself so enough said for me.

Seeing as the location of camp mirage is publicly availible on the internet, I think the charade of keeping it a secret should be ended. (I won't include the link, but it's not hard to find) Anyway, I'm not in charge so i won't include the location, but this attempt at censorship too little, too late.

I agree it's a charade by this point. Any muppet can pull up history pages and use Google. I just don't understand the use of that argument to justify repeating someone else's careless error.Flakeloaf 04:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The most recently reverted edit did not claim to disclose the location of the base, but reported on claims made by newspapers. The fact that the Globe and Mail made a specific claim is not itself a classified fact; and since no effort has been made to charge the newspaper or have them remove the story fromt heir archives, attempts to remove it from this page are surely over-zealous.
Besides which, wikipedia is not within the jurisdiction of these laws, nor should it pretend to be. "Erasing" this information from the article is akin to going into a library in a foreign country, finding a work classified in your own country, and then not even destroying it, but hiding it behind other books. The only appropriate means for this to be blocked is for the Canadian goverment to censor access to wikipedia within Canada. And that's unlikely.Captain Wacky 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Reread the first post in this thread. I'm trying very hard not to bite, here, but if after reading that you still don't understand why there is a problem here, and you can't sleep at night from the wails of small tidbit of speech dying to be free, then go ahead and put it back. I can think of better reasons to start a revert war. Flakeloaf 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture appropriate?

Perhaps the picture should be removed to protect the identity of the flag raisers.

I don't think that's necessary. Having been to an interesting place doesn't necessarily make you an interesting person :). If Cpl Shouinard saw fit to release the photo, we'll give that person the benefit of the doubt and assume it's okay.

[edit] Restoring location information

I am not a "Selected Individual" in the sense of the Security of Information Act nor have I acquired information about the location of Camp Mirage through access to such individuals, through the accidental or intentional receipt of safeguarded communications, or through espionage. My only knowledge of the subject comes through reading public information services that are neither censored in Canada nor generally elsewhere. I am not in Canada, nor are the Wikipedia servers; nor is it clear that I would be under any obligation if I or the servers were in Canada.

If the Canadian government isn't going to shut down the Globe and Mail for disclosing the location of Camp Mirage, they sure aren't going to shut down Wikipedia. Nor is any person subject to the Security of Information Act under a positive obligation to prevent the distribution of this information once it has been disclosed to the public. Nor is the Department of National Defense empowered to undertake legal enforcement actions or censor media under the Security of Information Act or any other act against civilian Canadians or foreign citizens on Canadian soil or elsewhere by other means than through the civilian courts and police.

This information is avaiable easily by googling "Camp Mirage". So, no person, Canadian or otherwise, could conceivably be hindering Canadian security through this disclosure.

--134.58.253.114 10:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Instructions on how to make a bomb are widely available on the internet. That doesn't give anyone a good excuse to actually use them.

On its own, the information that Canada has a military presence is harmless. On its own, the fact that Camp Mirage exists is harmless. On its own, coordinates on the earth are harmless. The aggregation of Canadian Military + Camp Mirage + its coordinates is far from harmless.

Choosing to place a whole whack of people at a specific risk is never justifiable by either a) free speech, or b) the excuse that "the information is already available". Come, be serious - DND will never confirm or deny the coordinates that the Grope and Flail published - to do so would be dangerous.


I believe in freedom of speech as well, but maybe you should consider the lives of soldiers you are risking by making their location available so easily. Addionne (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)