![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
|
There was no consensus on creating a fork like this. The Wikileaks article needs to contain content from the secret cables released. What is the purpose of the article if not that? The material needs to be merged back into the original article for now. Editors should refrain from making huge, unilateral contributions like this. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, on the "main" leak page, so to say, there is a discussion about inclusion of the list of sensitive sites recently leaked. See Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Disclosing_international_infrastructure_critical_to_US_national_security, where a decently referenced paragraph is already present. Consensus seems to be that isn't appropriate there, but seems appropriate here. My only question is: under which section? It doesn't seem to fit nicely in the current classification scheme. Ideas? -- Cyclopia talk 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As suggested by someone in another discussion, we must at some point consider the possibility of further splitting this content into additional national and/or regional sub-articles. In addition to bringing this article in line with style guidelines, continued forking would also allow for paragraph-length coverage of incidents which currently are limited to one-liner outlines. Now, I realize that the timeliness of even this fork is controversial, but I'd like to go ahead and throw this up for some preliminary discussion so that we can better organize our efforts. — C M B J 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Some information started appearing without any citations given. There should be a tag on the top of the page to remind editors to put tags. Considering the controversial topic of the article, every information should be well referenced. Nergaal ( talk) 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated. 123.19.176.174 ( talk) 17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have inserted a brief section on just-released cables related to New Zealand. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"Portal:Current events" has so much information (Newly released cables). 123.19.185.67 ( talk) 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
We're still in the early stages of the WikiLeaks release of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Yet, this page is already becoming unwieldy. Sooner or later, a fork of this page is going to be necessary, where this page becomes a sort of conduit to groups of diplomatic cables based on narrowly-defined categories.
Possible new articles may include:
And a further fork could be :
Feedback on this suggestion is encouraged and welcome. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 02:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article doesn't use enough indirect speech. E.g. here's what it says about Egypt:
- Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, is likely to stay in power until he dies. The absence of free and fair elections means he will almost certainly hold the post for as long as he is willing to stand.[58]
- Mubarak told the U.S. find a "fair dictator" to rule Iraq. He explains, "Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, relax your hold, and then you will have a coup. Then we will have a dictator, but a fair one." [59]
- Mubarak expressed animosity toward Iran in private meetings, saying the Iranian leaders are "big, fat liars", and that Iran's backing of terrorism is "well-known".[60] [...]
I'd think that all of these statements should use phrases like "was reported to have said", etc. Or am I too cautious? (I'm intentionally not being bold right now, for lack of consensus and time ;-).) -- 82.113.121.206 ( talk) 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think right now we're uncritically listing everything without regard to coverage in mainstream news media. E.g. this is listed as the sole source for the item on SWIFT in Germany, but (apart from the reliability issues) there's no indication that it got picked up by newspapers. What's a good strategy for deciding what goes in and what doesn't? -- 82.113.121.206 ( talk) 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has opened regarding the use of classified documents as sources. All editors are encouraged to participate, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents. -- El on ka 18:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
According to this edit, "it has been established by WikiLeaks that the Netherlands has nuclear weapons owned by the U.S." Unfortunately, the reference is written in Dutch. Unless the editor is suggesting that Holland is a nuclear power, (which would be a truly extraordinary revelation), I suspect that the language of this edit simply needs a little tweeking to show that it is the U.S. that has nuclear weapons and those weapons are based in the Netherlands. Would someone fluent in Dutch please verify this? Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 11:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There are several leading stories in Bangladesh's media these past two days about WikiLeaks relating to Bangladesh. www.bdnews24.com is the source. Dhakamodern ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I created a section for the above? Please consider: http://bdnews24.com/ http://av.bdnews24.com/file/wiki/Wiki.pdf Dhakamodern ( talk) 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that I have created the section here is the majore article. http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=181876&cid=43 http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=181923&cid=43 . The final article is from the Emeritus Editor: http://www.bdnews24.com/Bangladesh/the-US-embassy-cables/ Dhakamodern ( talk) 21:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This article generally just describes the content of various leaked cables, without discussing the ramifications of the disclosures or historical context of the content or anything else. That is left for the Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak article. The one exception here was the "United Nations" section, which did go into all this. I see no reason why this section should be different, especially since there is a dedicated subarticle Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats which does go into the consequences and context and reactions in depth about this particular leak. Therefore I've replaced this section with just material that describes the contents of the cables in question. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a "by subject" section based on the classification headings of the cables, but I'm a little fuzzy on tags and such. If anyone wants to streamline it, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.75.214 ( talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to look at all of the cables and check their classification headings. If someone else wants to pick up where I left off, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.75.214 ( talk) 16:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we start pooling possible 'subjects' for another split, or links? eg climate change; nuclear proliferation; arms trade etc? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 10:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Should it be flagged somewhere that, wherever possible, updates to the 'contents of the cables' pages should include citation of the relevant cable ID eg 08HARARE1016 (otherwise, once links to the secondary sources start to break, direct reference to the primary source may be less easy). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Should not Africa be treated as a geographic rather than a political notion, with the content currently residing in Region-Middle East moved (or at least copied) to Region-Africa? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Central Asia should be amalgamated into the Middle East or perhaps Europe (that's a geographical argument), considering it only contains two countries and sort of an "overlapping" region — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.8.249 ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in discussing what cablegate citation template should look like, please go to: Template_talk:Cablegate. The template itself is at Template:Cablegate. Boud ( talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think many readers who turn here may also want a pointer to where they might easily conduct a fulltext search of all the cables, particularly since all of them have been released unredacted now. Is there a place to do that? cablesearch.org seems out of date.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
|
There was no consensus on creating a fork like this. The Wikileaks article needs to contain content from the secret cables released. What is the purpose of the article if not that? The material needs to be merged back into the original article for now. Editors should refrain from making huge, unilateral contributions like this. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, on the "main" leak page, so to say, there is a discussion about inclusion of the list of sensitive sites recently leaked. See Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Disclosing_international_infrastructure_critical_to_US_national_security, where a decently referenced paragraph is already present. Consensus seems to be that isn't appropriate there, but seems appropriate here. My only question is: under which section? It doesn't seem to fit nicely in the current classification scheme. Ideas? -- Cyclopia talk 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As suggested by someone in another discussion, we must at some point consider the possibility of further splitting this content into additional national and/or regional sub-articles. In addition to bringing this article in line with style guidelines, continued forking would also allow for paragraph-length coverage of incidents which currently are limited to one-liner outlines. Now, I realize that the timeliness of even this fork is controversial, but I'd like to go ahead and throw this up for some preliminary discussion so that we can better organize our efforts. — C M B J 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Some information started appearing without any citations given. There should be a tag on the top of the page to remind editors to put tags. Considering the controversial topic of the article, every information should be well referenced. Nergaal ( talk) 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated. 123.19.176.174 ( talk) 17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have inserted a brief section on just-released cables related to New Zealand. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 02:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"Portal:Current events" has so much information (Newly released cables). 123.19.185.67 ( talk) 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
We're still in the early stages of the WikiLeaks release of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Yet, this page is already becoming unwieldy. Sooner or later, a fork of this page is going to be necessary, where this page becomes a sort of conduit to groups of diplomatic cables based on narrowly-defined categories.
Possible new articles may include:
And a further fork could be :
Feedback on this suggestion is encouraged and welcome. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 02:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article doesn't use enough indirect speech. E.g. here's what it says about Egypt:
- Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, is likely to stay in power until he dies. The absence of free and fair elections means he will almost certainly hold the post for as long as he is willing to stand.[58]
- Mubarak told the U.S. find a "fair dictator" to rule Iraq. He explains, "Strengthen the Iraqi armed forces, relax your hold, and then you will have a coup. Then we will have a dictator, but a fair one." [59]
- Mubarak expressed animosity toward Iran in private meetings, saying the Iranian leaders are "big, fat liars", and that Iran's backing of terrorism is "well-known".[60] [...]
I'd think that all of these statements should use phrases like "was reported to have said", etc. Or am I too cautious? (I'm intentionally not being bold right now, for lack of consensus and time ;-).) -- 82.113.121.206 ( talk) 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think right now we're uncritically listing everything without regard to coverage in mainstream news media. E.g. this is listed as the sole source for the item on SWIFT in Germany, but (apart from the reliability issues) there's no indication that it got picked up by newspapers. What's a good strategy for deciding what goes in and what doesn't? -- 82.113.121.206 ( talk) 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has opened regarding the use of classified documents as sources. All editors are encouraged to participate, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents. -- El on ka 18:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
According to this edit, "it has been established by WikiLeaks that the Netherlands has nuclear weapons owned by the U.S." Unfortunately, the reference is written in Dutch. Unless the editor is suggesting that Holland is a nuclear power, (which would be a truly extraordinary revelation), I suspect that the language of this edit simply needs a little tweeking to show that it is the U.S. that has nuclear weapons and those weapons are based in the Netherlands. Would someone fluent in Dutch please verify this? Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 11:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There are several leading stories in Bangladesh's media these past two days about WikiLeaks relating to Bangladesh. www.bdnews24.com is the source. Dhakamodern ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I created a section for the above? Please consider: http://bdnews24.com/ http://av.bdnews24.com/file/wiki/Wiki.pdf Dhakamodern ( talk) 20:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that I have created the section here is the majore article. http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=181876&cid=43 http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=181923&cid=43 . The final article is from the Emeritus Editor: http://www.bdnews24.com/Bangladesh/the-US-embassy-cables/ Dhakamodern ( talk) 21:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This article generally just describes the content of various leaked cables, without discussing the ramifications of the disclosures or historical context of the content or anything else. That is left for the Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak article. The one exception here was the "United Nations" section, which did go into all this. I see no reason why this section should be different, especially since there is a dedicated subarticle Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats which does go into the consequences and context and reactions in depth about this particular leak. Therefore I've replaced this section with just material that describes the contents of the cables in question. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a "by subject" section based on the classification headings of the cables, but I'm a little fuzzy on tags and such. If anyone wants to streamline it, I would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.75.214 ( talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to look at all of the cables and check their classification headings. If someone else wants to pick up where I left off, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.75.214 ( talk) 16:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we start pooling possible 'subjects' for another split, or links? eg climate change; nuclear proliferation; arms trade etc? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 10:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Should it be flagged somewhere that, wherever possible, updates to the 'contents of the cables' pages should include citation of the relevant cable ID eg 08HARARE1016 (otherwise, once links to the secondary sources start to break, direct reference to the primary source may be less easy). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Should not Africa be treated as a geographic rather than a political notion, with the content currently residing in Region-Middle East moved (or at least copied) to Region-Africa? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 02:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Central Asia should be amalgamated into the Middle East or perhaps Europe (that's a geographical argument), considering it only contains two countries and sort of an "overlapping" region — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.8.249 ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyone interested in discussing what cablegate citation template should look like, please go to: Template_talk:Cablegate. The template itself is at Template:Cablegate. Boud ( talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think many readers who turn here may also want a pointer to where they might easily conduct a fulltext search of all the cables, particularly since all of them have been released unredacted now. Is there a place to do that? cablesearch.org seems out of date.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)