This page is not a forum for general discussion about 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 United States documents leak of the War in Afghanistan. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 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 United States documents leak of the War in Afghanistan at the Reference desk.
A news item involving United States documents leak of the War in Afghanistan was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 July 2010.
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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article 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.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
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 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Stasi#The MfS files after the end of the SED regime|MfS files]] The anchor (#The MfS files after the end of the SED regime) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
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.)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How is it possible that the child prostitution issue has been reduced down to one sentence? Why has DynCorp's name been scrubbed from the article? 199.241.14.253 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Afghan War documents leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to one external link on Afghan War documents leak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=totrue
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Afghan War documents 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 trueorfailed 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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
