Jump to content

Talk:United States documents leak of the War in Afghanistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliable?

[edit]

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.)

Child prostitution

[edit]

The documents revealed that Department of Defense private contractor employees hired local male child prostitutes.[1]

  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)[reply]

Here you go.
And the response by DynCorp to the Houston Press can be found discussed here. SilverserenC 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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 true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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 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).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_documents_leak_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1234739876"