Talk:Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak

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

Kathleen Troia McFarland, notable for this article?[edit]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/30/yes-wikileaks-terrorist-organization-time-act/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 82.35.235.189 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)== PUNCTUATION GOES INSIDE QUOTATION MARKS. ==[reply]

That is all.Brakoholic (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is not notable, and neither are her comments. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Is it just me or are most of the opinions of the individuals under the individuals section biased towards having a positive reaction of the diplomatic cables leak? 82.35.235.189 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just as the individuals under the "official reactions" section are biased in the opposite direction. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about opinions so add as many alternative opinions as you like as long as you use direct quotes and a reliable source. 05:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

It is inevitable, no? Bearian (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of reactions[edit]

Would it be appropriate and useful (if feasible) to make a delineation as to what types of reactions should be in this article as opposed to in the article dealing with individual cables? Should for instance this article limit itself to detailing comments that focus on the leak as a whole or of larger parts of it? __meco (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that reactions to individual cables would be a monumental task, so that in this article only general reactions should be considered and perhaps specific reactions to particulary contentious ones. Ultimately it would also seem good to add a section which summarizes the general arguments and rebuttals brought forth against and in favor of the leaks. But I think this should wait until the dialogue settles down sometime in the future.--Sunflower at Dawn (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake cables[edit]

As per [1], should we add a section about reactions being to exploit the cables for propaganda? Is this even a reaction, or does this belong elsewhere? - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and added this information - Amog | Talk • contribs 06:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is relevant and notable. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kiwi. It's now a part of the main article - Amog | Talk • contribs 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm..[edit]

"Visa Inc. suspended all payments to the organisation "pending further investigation".[154] The Icelandic online payment company, DataCell threatened to sue Visa, after it was ordered to suspend processing all transactions. Its founder Ólafur Sigurvinsson pointed out "I've got confirmed today that I am capable of supporting Al-Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan, buy weapons, drugs and all sorts of pornopraphy with a VISA card. But that's not being investigated. Instead I can not support a humanitarian organisation fighting for the freedom of speech" " So yes the visa part is important but beyond that I don't see any reason to include the datacell crap.70.15.191.119 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Format[edit]

Don't know about anyone else, but i think the new layout of the page makes it harder to read, as its less clear which countried said what. Looking at other international reaction pages (such as Kosovo, gaza flotilla raid etc) these use the flag and comment format that was being used before. Im sure this page is going to grow in terms of more countries releasing statements. Would it not be better to revert the page, or introduce a table design so its clear who said what without all the unneccessary subtitles. (Neostinker (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I also think the previous format flowed better. Though the way it is done now breaks up the information a bit better underneath the headings, I don't think the way the headings for the countries is done, it's barely smaller than the continent/region headings. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia[edit]

Any thoughts as to where this type of content would fit? "But we might also count Tunisia as the first time that WikiLeaks pushed people over the brink."-Foreign Policy "The protesters, led at first by unemployed college graduates like Mr. Bouazizi and later joined by workers and young professionals, found grist for the complaints in leaked cables from the United States Embassy in Tunisia, released by WikiLeaks, that detailed the self-dealing and excess of the president’s family."-NY Times[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Pilger[edit]

OK, the last thing I was expecting in reaction to my deletion yesterday of the blurb about John Pilger's stance on the RCTV issue from this article was a 1-year-long IP block. To clarify, the blocked IP is that of my workplace, and I personally have made only one prior edit from it, and that was to a talk page. Hope this isn't viewed as ban-dodging in light of that. Now that that's out of the way... can someone please enlighten me as to how John Pilger's stance on the RCTV issue is relevant to this article? Presumably, if I wanted to know his stance on various issues after reading that statement of his, I'd go to the article written on him, where his position on that issue (and many others, in fact) is clearly stated. Within the context of this article, it almost seems that the intent is to make his stance on the cables leak seem less credible by noting a degree of hypocrisy - he's portrayed in this article as "the guy who supported the non-renewal of RCTV's broadcast license," which is certainly true, but he's taken sides on dozens of other issues, and to give just the one seems rather POV to me, not to mention not particularly relevant. - 208.124.10.243 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been a week since I asked, and considering it took two hours to revert the change last time, I would think that's more than ample time. I'm changing it back; hopefully anyone who objects would be willing to discuss it this time. - 208.124.10.247 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reporting of Pilger's stance on RCTV is absolutely relevant as it's precisely the point to his remarks about Wikileaks less credible. He describes Wikileaks as part of a larger struggle against censorship by powerful institutions (which in itself is fine), but because the quote is said by Pilger there's a wider agenda behind his statements. I would also add that to not report his stance on RCTV would be evidence of actual bias as that would in essence be giving Pilger's opinions on Wikileaks unqualified (and unwarranted) credibility that his intransigence on the RCTV issue undermines. Sauuce (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Pilger's stance is not credible, then why is it notable (in the context of this article, not Pilger's)? Then again, it's an opinion. An opinion can not be credible or otherwise - the person giving it could be either, but even then it only matters if that person is speaking as an expert on the subject, and neither Pilger nor this article claim that. So the point isn't Pilger's credibility - it's the notability of his opinion. It's either not notable, and should be removed from this article entirely, or notable, and should be provided "as is," like the other quotes in this section. I'm no expert on the subject, but someone added it thinking it was notable, no one I've seen protested the quote's inclusion, and I have no problem with it being there myself, so I won't delete it. Which leaves option 2. I'd happily discuss it further, but as the only person who has responded thus far (who happens to be the same person that added the RCTV bit in the first place) was banned, I'll change it back for now. - 208.124.10.247 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 05:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reactions to 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reactions to 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Reactions to 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak&oldid=1205691622"