Talk:Wikileaks cable disclosure shows Arab fears of Iranian ambitions

Original reporting

This is all lifted direct from the Wikileaks cables (see http://cablegate.wikileaks.org).

1. 10ABUDHABI97 - Details of a Feb 17, 2010 meeting between the UAE Foreign minister and 4 Congresscritters on the House appropriations subcommittee.
2. 10KUWAIT142 - Kuwaiti interior minister on Iran.
3. 09ABUDHABI1151 - Dec '09 meeting; Dep Sec. of Energy Poneman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
4. 09MANAMA642 - Nov '09 meeting between Gen. Petraeus and King Hamad.
5. (insert, post-publish) 10LONDON131 - A Jan, 2010 communique Re: planned assassinations in the UK and US.

These are secret, and secret not for foreign circulation. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

5 (above) added to illustrate that elsewhere the US has reason to believe Iran becoming more 'proactive' on the World stage and engaging in cold war tactics. Seeking corroborating reports before adding any expansion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1136885 [Passed]

Revision 1136885 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1136885 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Update

I picked up one more of the US vs Iran cables, and managed to tie it to a news report a little more recent than what Wikileaks have released so far. This has been mentioned by other sources but, doing the digging puts it across far, far better than simply being lazy and 'suckling at the Wikileaks teat'. Of course, the WSJ paywall is a PITA. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Diplopedia Reference

This is Chris Bronk. I was one of Diplopedia's creators and I can confidently say that the Intelink URL mentioned in the article does not/not point to the Dept. of State Diplopedia, not was Diplopedia in any way part of the Wikileaks breach. Would the author please consider removing the reference to Diplopedia? It is an incorrect statement and I am glad to state it as so on the record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcbronk (talk • contribs) 03:21, 1 December 2010

• Please read that section carefully, and my response below. There is no allegation that Diplopedia was linked to the leak. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Source not showing up (on article page)

I was looking at the collab page here when I stumbled over the remark rr link to other news article - since I hadn't noticed any sources but the OR. Now if I look at the page history, the (Ann Arbour) source displays fine, but the current article, nada. Might just be my browser, of course... (Firefox v3.6.12). Sean Heron (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• That is Flagged Revisions at work. Nobody has yet reviewed my post-publish changes and confirmed they're okay.

I'll go knock some heads together. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual error regarding Diplopedia

There is a factual error on the sgov.gov internet link being one which points to Diplopedia. That is incorrect. It does not point to Diplopedia, but rather another resource. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcbronk (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 December 2010

• Which would be what, exactly? Perhaps Intellipedia?

As-phrased, it is not a 'factual error'; rather, the most logically reasonable conclusion Wikinews could posit. Diplopedia in the responsibility of the US State department - as is the embassy in which the cable originated. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• The link is to an intelink address, which is maintained by the Intelligence Community, not the Department of State. Your supposition on the "what?" above is correct.

• Fair enough, I'm happy to accept that. I would, however, have assumed that it might be a case of the IC directing to the Diplopedia portals. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Voice of America. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)