Talk:De Lôme Letter

Military history: European / North America / Spanish / United States

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	United States military history task force

National Archives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives articles

Untitled

included text as it is not copyrighted, from website listed. Updated article to correct for facts - it was from the embassy to Havana, not the other way around as stated before.

The English translation may be copyrighted. --Error 23:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited page

I added the above comments; I also changed the page. I just created a username for the first time.

Canalejas

Is that Don Jose Canalejas the Spanish politician José Canalejas Méndez? Was he in Havana at the time? --Error 23:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above comments were brought over from Talk:De Lome Letter. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The only perceptible reason that these two articles were created seperately is capitalization. As they are about the same thing, they should be merged. I chose to propose a merge to DeLome Letter because I felt it is better written than De Lome letter, but if after the merge someone wants to move the article to De Lome Letter, they are free to do so. Perhaps the text of the letter itself should be transwikied to Wikisource. -timrem 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there should technically be a ^ on the o in "DeLome" -flajemming 23:12, 20 April 2006 (PCT)

Leak Date

I think it is also worthy to include the exact date on which the letter was leaked; my textbook only mentions February of 1898.

Changes

I have done some changes to this article, and its topic. First of all, I've added the two pics. I have also uploaded the pics on Commons, and created a page on Wikisource abou this letter. Now I have a dilemma: should the text be kept here, now that it is available in Wikisource? I personally would remove it. Maybe instead of the actual text, a summary of the letter would be more suitable for the Wikipedia article. Also, here, seems to be some more info about the subject, that could be used to further expand the article, not to mention the pages linked in "Sources". diego_pmc (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]