|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
| WikiProject Media To-do List: |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Afghan War documents leak is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of the war effort, the legality of the material released, the political implications of the leak, the potential national security risk, the motives that the person or persons responsible had for making the leak, or anything else not directly related to improving Wikipedia's article on Afghan War documents leak. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Afghan War documents leak at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
 |
A news item involving Afghan War documents leak was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 26 July 2010. |
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
[edit] Moved here from article
"However give no resource to the 1980's gift of several heat seaking and ground to air missile to the Taliban."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] suggestion of sources to be incorporated
— Preceding unsigned comment added by P. S. Burton (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] So no-one named?
No-one actually named and endangered or killed in and because of the leaks? Just repeated conservative news outlets claiming non-existent documents and names that don't show up anywhere despite it being publically available? Big surprise. Re-write the "Informants named" section so it doesn't try and twist a the death of a guy BEFORE the leaks as attributed to the leaks. This is the very definition of POV. 203.206.47.61 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
[edit] Reliable?
I removed this because it looks like a Blog rather than a reputable news report. (After a short paragraph, the piece strings together other reports, blogs, etc.)
[edit] Child prostitution
The documents revealed that Department of Defense private contractor employees hired local male child prostitutes.[1]
- ^ "WikiLeaks Reveals That Military Contractors Have Not Lost Their Taste For Child Prostitutes", Jason Linkins. Huffington Post. December 12, 2010. Accessed March 1, 2011
Is this a reliable source? Cannot a more reliable source be found? (This should be headline news.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Here you go.
- And the response by DynCorp to the Houston Press can be found discussed here. SilverserenC 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-
- Hi!
- The Guardian is reliable but yesterday's coverage (unless changed in the last hours) was mainly reporting the cable, with little comment.
- You reference an older and more substantial Guardian story, which is a reliable source, I agree.
-
- The Houston Press is not a reliable source. Notice its correct address, namely
- http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_dyncorp_responds.php
- "BoingBoing.Net" sounds like that Jerry Lewis farce: Are you seriously saying that it is a reliable source?
- Besides the old ~Guardian article, we could look at the French, German, Swedish, etc. WP's and see what reliable sources in those countries have reported.... (While we wait for the NYT, WP, Miami Herald, CSM, Times of London, etc., etc.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-
- There is a related discussion at Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Raping_boys, where I acknowledged Serene's good work in finding the December Guardian article (and apologized for being too tired to help more.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NEWSBLOG is my response to your comment about the Houston Press ref. The articles were written by a Houston Press reporter, not by a random person. And, yes, Boing Boing is reliable. It is written by Xeni Jardin and Mark Frauenfelder. And you didn't comment on the Fort Worth Star Telegram.
-
-
- And this is old news, there's not going to be new news reports. You have to go look for the old ones. SilverserenC 23:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think WP:NEWSBLOG might apply to the original ref as well. Huffington Post is a RS, and Jason Linkins is a professional, presumably subject to their editorial control. Thundermaker (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I strongly disagree that those news sources are reliable. It is a fallacy to conclude that those two sources obey the standards of reliable professional newspapers from the existence of a professional ethical code that all newspaper blogs should maintain professional standards: In fact, many newspapers don't maintain profesional standards. In the case of blogs affiliated with on-line alternative press, common sense must prevail. I cannot imagine such amateurish blogs appearing in print; they do not meet the standard of professional journalism.
-
-
-
-
- Second, they are less reliable and of lower quality than the December Guardian story and similar reliable sources. There is no need to use paraprofessional bush-league sources when internationally leading high quality most reliable sources.
-
-
-
-
- Third, I of course would respect consensus, if we get some more voices. Until such time as more editors chime in, 2:1 is short of the consensus needed to threaten Wikipedia's reputation with sensationalism built on shoddy citations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't understand what exactly you're looking for. Here's another source discussing it. And here's a full copy of the Star Telegram article I gave above. Oh, and here's the copy of the specific cable posted by the Guardian. SilverserenC 21:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
