Basketcase2022 (talk | contribs) →Unauthorised Autobiography: noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph |
Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,520: | Line 1,520: | ||
* [http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/ghostwriter-calls-assange-mercurial-character-who-could-not-bear-his-own-secrets-114022200302_1.html ''Business Standard''.] |
* [http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/ghostwriter-calls-assange-mercurial-character-who-could-not-bear-his-own-secrets-114022200302_1.html ''Business Standard''.] |
||
''Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography'' is noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph in his BLP. [[User:Basketcase2022|Basketcase2022]] ([[User talk:Basketcase2022|talk]]) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
''Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography'' is noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph in his BLP. [[User:Basketcase2022|Basketcase2022]] ([[User talk:Basketcase2022|talk]]) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
:So, it still tells us nothing about him, this is one paragraph that says "he did not like it, and the author then wrote a bit about it". This really does feel like trying to get it in here by hook or by crrok, hell we do not even say what Hagan said about it, only what Asange did (which also violates [[wp:npov]], as we only give one side).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC, how should we word the material about Assange and rich? == |
== RFC, how should we word the material about Assange and rich? == |
Revision as of 15:51, 18 September 2021
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Asylum
Jack Upland has repeatedly objected to my use of the word "asylum" in the article headings, stating that the use of this word would not be neutral. However, the granting of Asylum is merely a fact. It is not neutral to omit the term from the article headings when this is one of the most momentous events of Assange's life, effectively defining his most recent decade.
If there's no consensus here on the talk page about using the term in the headings, I'd like to launch an RfC:
Should we change the article heading "Ecuadorian embassy period" to "Political asylum," and the subheading "Entering the embassy" to "Entering the Ecuadorian embassy" (Yes or No)?
If there's consensus here to make this change, we don't need an RfC. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is also a fact that he skipped bail. The question is what heading to use. (And please don't confuse this with the issue of the subheadings).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think Ecuadorian embassy period -> Asylum is an improvement. On the other hand, I dislike "entering the embassy" simply because it does not really convey that he not only entered, he stayed. Open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - Seems to me a good compromise would be keep the main heading title “Ecuadorian embassy period” but rename the first subsection “Asylum”. This gives due weight to a central issue without using the term “political asylum” which some here seem unhappy with. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Naming the first subsection "Asylum" would be confusing because he was under asylum the whole period. "Entering the embassy" describes exactly what the subject of the first subsection is, which is more than getting asylum. It is patently obvious he stayed in the embassy. "Entering the embassy" does not imply it was temporary.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - Seems to me a good compromise would be keep the main heading title “Ecuadorian embassy period” but rename the first subsection “Asylum”. This gives due weight to a central issue without using the term “political asylum” which some here seem unhappy with. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think Ecuadorian embassy period -> Asylum is an improvement. On the other hand, I dislike "entering the embassy" simply because it does not really convey that he not only entered, he stayed. Open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Omit "asylum" SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Asylum is a central issue in this phase of Assange’s life and IMO deserves at least a sub heading. To dismiss the suggestion so curtly seems a little inappropriate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested. It is the reason that he served a year in prison and the reason he continues to be denied bail. Not every issue needs a heading. "Ecuadorian embassy period" sums up this phase perfectly well. It is neutral as it doesn't favour either the British or Ecuadorian governments' legal position.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- According to Assange he sought asylum, not because he wanted to avoid arrest for skipping bail (which usually involves a short sentence, if any) but to avoid extradition to Sweden and then on to the U.S. where there was talk of very long sentences or worse. Subsequent events tend to support Assange’s claim on this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- What? Of course, he didn't seek asylum to avoid arrest for skipping bail!!! It was his decision to avoid extradition to Sweden that led to him skipping bail!!! This is a seriously twisted take on events.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your wording ie: “Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested” was perhaps a little vague – it seemed to imply you thought the act of skipping bail was the reason behind his asylum request. Anyway I’m not sure that two sets of rather angry looking three exclamation marks where warranted. Anyway we seem to have had a misunderstanding - back to the issue: “Skipping bail” was merely part of a complex set of events which resulted in Assange seeking asylum – as such I personally don’t see it demands a sub heading but would not object strongly if someone thought such an arrangement could be worded to clarify/focus the narrative. I think the case for an “Asylum” sub heading is stronger as Assange spent several years under the protection of a form of asylum – in that sense it defined this stage of his life in contrast to the preceding period where he was free but subject to the law – and the following phase where he has been/is not free and subject to law. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- The exclamation marks were because it was such a bizarre proposition. The best term for that phase in his life is "Ecuadorian embassy period" (or something similar). "Asylum" implies that he was a refugee from political persecution. That is in the eye of the beholder. We now know there was no US indictment when he entered the embassy (that didn't happen till 2018). He was facing extradition to Sweden regarding allegations by two women. Political persecution? The Ecuadorian government may have thought he deserved asylum, but many more did not. The British government did not accept the grant of asylum, and therefore he was not able to travel to Ecuador and take up asylum there as he had intended. The "asylum" that he had was therefore not universally accepted — in fact, not accepted in the country where he was — and was of a very limited form. He could stay in the embassy as long as the British and Ecuadorian governments agreed to let him stay there. As I said earlier, he did not receive "territorial asylum" because he never never reached Ecuador. Staying in the embassy, he received "diplomatic asylum" which is controversial, unpredicatable, and not generally recognised by international law.[1][2] "Asylum" is not a neutral term and is potentially misleading. On the other hand, "Ecuadorian embassy period" captures exactly what happened and doesn't imply that Ecuador was wrong to offer him asylum or that the British government was wrong to try to arrest him. It is simply factual, and that's the way we ought to stay.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I accept the “Ecuadorian embassy period” as a valid title, and said so earlier in this debate/section (fourth contribution I think). There I suggested “Asylum” as a sub-heading because of its sheer significance. Hopefully we can agree that the word “asylum” cannot be avoided when dealing with this period? Unless you are proposing to banish the term completely from the article then questions about what the word implies become somewhat moot ie it’s the significance not the validity of the term that is in question here. The use of the word “Asylum” as a sub-title is not an acknowledgment that Assange necessarily qualified for it – that it seems to me is a debate for elsewhere – it is about recognising the key significance of the concept in the Assange story at this time (be you for or against) which surly warrants at least a sub-heading. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Asylum" appears 14 times in the article. I don't think there is any subsection in the article that is all about "asylum", but if there is I have no objection to it being described as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I accept the “Ecuadorian embassy period” as a valid title, and said so earlier in this debate/section (fourth contribution I think). There I suggested “Asylum” as a sub-heading because of its sheer significance. Hopefully we can agree that the word “asylum” cannot be avoided when dealing with this period? Unless you are proposing to banish the term completely from the article then questions about what the word implies become somewhat moot ie it’s the significance not the validity of the term that is in question here. The use of the word “Asylum” as a sub-title is not an acknowledgment that Assange necessarily qualified for it – that it seems to me is a debate for elsewhere – it is about recognising the key significance of the concept in the Assange story at this time (be you for or against) which surly warrants at least a sub-heading. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The exclamation marks were because it was such a bizarre proposition. The best term for that phase in his life is "Ecuadorian embassy period" (or something similar). "Asylum" implies that he was a refugee from political persecution. That is in the eye of the beholder. We now know there was no US indictment when he entered the embassy (that didn't happen till 2018). He was facing extradition to Sweden regarding allegations by two women. Political persecution? The Ecuadorian government may have thought he deserved asylum, but many more did not. The British government did not accept the grant of asylum, and therefore he was not able to travel to Ecuador and take up asylum there as he had intended. The "asylum" that he had was therefore not universally accepted — in fact, not accepted in the country where he was — and was of a very limited form. He could stay in the embassy as long as the British and Ecuadorian governments agreed to let him stay there. As I said earlier, he did not receive "territorial asylum" because he never never reached Ecuador. Staying in the embassy, he received "diplomatic asylum" which is controversial, unpredicatable, and not generally recognised by international law.[1][2] "Asylum" is not a neutral term and is potentially misleading. On the other hand, "Ecuadorian embassy period" captures exactly what happened and doesn't imply that Ecuador was wrong to offer him asylum or that the British government was wrong to try to arrest him. It is simply factual, and that's the way we ought to stay.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your wording ie: “Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested” was perhaps a little vague – it seemed to imply you thought the act of skipping bail was the reason behind his asylum request. Anyway I’m not sure that two sets of rather angry looking three exclamation marks where warranted. Anyway we seem to have had a misunderstanding - back to the issue: “Skipping bail” was merely part of a complex set of events which resulted in Assange seeking asylum – as such I personally don’t see it demands a sub heading but would not object strongly if someone thought such an arrangement could be worded to clarify/focus the narrative. I think the case for an “Asylum” sub heading is stronger as Assange spent several years under the protection of a form of asylum – in that sense it defined this stage of his life in contrast to the preceding period where he was free but subject to the law – and the following phase where he has been/is not free and subject to law. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- What? Of course, he didn't seek asylum to avoid arrest for skipping bail!!! It was his decision to avoid extradition to Sweden that led to him skipping bail!!! This is a seriously twisted take on events.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- According to Assange he sought asylum, not because he wanted to avoid arrest for skipping bail (which usually involves a short sentence, if any) but to avoid extradition to Sweden and then on to the U.S. where there was talk of very long sentences or worse. Subsequent events tend to support Assange’s claim on this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested. It is the reason that he served a year in prison and the reason he continues to be denied bail. Not every issue needs a heading. "Ecuadorian embassy period" sums up this phase perfectly well. It is neutral as it doesn't favour either the British or Ecuadorian governments' legal position.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Asylum is a central issue in this phase of Assange’s life and IMO deserves at least a sub heading. To dismiss the suggestion so curtly seems a little inappropriate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems a very reasonable approach. I, and hopefully others, can look into that as a way forward. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose the use of "asylum". SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Perhaps you could give your reasons? Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- The WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion of that word. Asylum is a political refuge. That's not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime. Pretty simple. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Just to be clear - that word [asylum] is already included several times in this article. I have already given good reasons why it deserves to be used as at least a sub-title - the onus, I would suggest, is now on you to refute those reasons or accept them. You said “Asylum is a political refuge.” This statement is not correct: asylum means refuge from harm – you may choose to say, in Assange’s case, that the most serious harms he faced where from politically motivated quarters, or otherwise – but there is no doubting there were plenty of people who wanted him punished – he sought a place of protection from harm ie “asylum”. Terms like “Political Asylum” or “Diplomatic Asylum” have their own specialist legal/technical meanings – the world “asylum” on it’s own does not. So when you say “[Political Asylum’s] not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime.” You are inadvertently using a straw man argument (just to be clear, if repetitive, I’m arguing for the sub-title “Asylum” not “Political Asylum”). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would completely oppose using "asylum" in an ambiguous or vague sense. Clearly, we are talking about "political asylum" here. The implication is that Assange was a refugee from political persecution.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Any application of "asylum" in this article presents an absurd and misleading narrative -- one that Assange himself has gone to great lengths and lies to promote. WP is not here to promote the false narratives of a fugitive. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Given that Assange has been, for years, locked in a maximum security facility (along with some of the most dangerous people in the country); that he faces the real possibility of spending the rest of his life in similar conditions; that this situation was initiated, and continued by US government agencies, I cannot see how the narrative, that he faced an extremely grim future at the hands of the US system, can be denied. I think we are beholden to give living people the benefit of any doubts in their Wiki articles – you perhaps should bare that in mind. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland Some of the key themes in Assange’s life and the way it was debated during that period, where questions like: “Should he have sought asylum?”or “Should he have been granted asylum?” Assange and his supporters claimed that if he had not been given “asylum” he would eventually face extradition to the US and potentially very severe treatment at the hands of federal agencies. The actions of the US State since then seem to bear out this claim. The word Asylum has it’s own meaning which is quit specific enough to be used as a subject heading (or sub-heading) there is nothing to prevent further clarification within the article regarding what kinds of Asylum the various actors thought they were dealing with. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Criminals tend to be imprisoned. Not by Wikipedia, but by the appurtenant jurisdictions. Any conjecture you may have about the US and what might happen if he were to be tried in the US is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Given that Assange has been, for years, locked in a maximum security facility (along with some of the most dangerous people in the country); that he faces the real possibility of spending the rest of his life in similar conditions; that this situation was initiated, and continued by US government agencies, I cannot see how the narrative, that he faced an extremely grim future at the hands of the US system, can be denied. I think we are beholden to give living people the benefit of any doubts in their Wiki articles – you perhaps should bare that in mind. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Just to be clear - that word [asylum] is already included several times in this article. I have already given good reasons why it deserves to be used as at least a sub-title - the onus, I would suggest, is now on you to refute those reasons or accept them. You said “Asylum is a political refuge.” This statement is not correct: asylum means refuge from harm – you may choose to say, in Assange’s case, that the most serious harms he faced where from politically motivated quarters, or otherwise – but there is no doubting there were plenty of people who wanted him punished – he sought a place of protection from harm ie “asylum”. Terms like “Political Asylum” or “Diplomatic Asylum” have their own specialist legal/technical meanings – the world “asylum” on it’s own does not. So when you say “[Political Asylum’s] not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime.” You are inadvertently using a straw man argument (just to be clear, if repetitive, I’m arguing for the sub-title “Asylum” not “Political Asylum”). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion of that word. Asylum is a political refuge. That's not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime. Pretty simple. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Perhaps you could give your reasons? Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I responded to your statement “Any application of "asylum" in this article presents an absurd and misleading narrative -- one that Assange himself has gone to great lengths and lies to promote. WP is not here to promote the false narratives of a fugitive.” Subsequent events clearly demonstrate the political appetite, in some parts of the US establishment, to make an example of Assange, so that when he sought asylum, he seems to have assessed and expressed his predicament accurately ie he correctly assessed that he was in danger of harsh treatment. He did not go to “lengths and lies to promote” a “misleading narrative.” I said earlier that Wiki is obliged to give some benefit of the doubt to living people in it’s articles – so far from that, your assessments seem to betray an utter contempt, bordering on hatred, for the man. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, we don't take the POV of article subjects. I believe this thread has long since exhausted any constructive purpose. I suggest you turn to other areas for article improvement. Perhaps trim the lengthy and redundant text on the UN volunteer "rapporteur" about Assange's health. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- We have rather drifted from the issue. Perhaps I could put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers:
- 1/ Did Assange seek “asylum”?: Yes.
- 2/ Did the Ecuadorian government offer him “asylum”?: Yes.
- 3/ Was the word “asylum” commonly used in connection with Assange during his time in the embassy?: Yes.
- 4/ Are people to this day still arguing about whether he should have been granted “asylum”: Yes.
- The word “Asylum” links all of these issues and is worthy of at least a sub-heading, I see no reason to step down from that perfectly reasonable position. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage. I think it should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- The accuracy of Assange's narrative has been raised several times. Let's see. He called the Swedish allegations a radical feminist conspiracy and said the women were lesbians. Not many people have endorsed this view. He claimed he faced US prosecution in 2012, but there was no US indictment until 2018. He claimed the US government would find it easier to extradite him from Sweden than from Britain. There seems to be no evidence for that. He repeatedly claimed that because WikiLeaks was a media organisation he was protected from prosecution. This has never stood up in court. He expected to be allowed to travel to Ecuador from London. This never happened. I accept that Assange sincerely believed at least some of this, but to say that it was "accurate" is nonsensical.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland I will try to address some of your points: You said “Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage.” I don’t think it helpful to repeatedly use accusations of bias. Points should be dealt with on merit unless someone is being grossly unreasonable. Regarding Assange’s “reliability” I don’t wish to hang my case on this, because I don’t know what information he had available at the time – maybe his notion that agencies of the US state wanted him severely punished was just a lucky guess. You said “I think [asylum] should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.” If the word is ok to use repeatedly in the article and in several contexts, I don’t see why it can’t be used in a sub heading that pulls some of those contexts together. Perhaps now I could return to previous post where I: “put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers”. You have not addressed any of my four points/questions which, I suggest, demonstrate the central role of “asylum” in tying together several stands of the Assange narrative – and hence the aptness of the word in a subtitle (if not full title). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a concrete proposal for improving the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest just swapping the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy” with “Asylum”. This works because four of the six Paragraphs in the sub-section already directly talk about - and use the word - “asylum”. Regarding the remaining two paragraphs (2 & 4) they both refer to events directly related to Assange’s bid for asylum. The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a concrete proposal for improving the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland I will try to address some of your points: You said “Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage.” I don’t think it helpful to repeatedly use accusations of bias. Points should be dealt with on merit unless someone is being grossly unreasonable. Regarding Assange’s “reliability” I don’t wish to hang my case on this, because I don’t know what information he had available at the time – maybe his notion that agencies of the US state wanted him severely punished was just a lucky guess. You said “I think [asylum] should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.” If the word is ok to use repeatedly in the article and in several contexts, I don’t see why it can’t be used in a sub heading that pulls some of those contexts together. Perhaps now I could return to previous post where I: “put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers”. You have not addressed any of my four points/questions which, I suggest, demonstrate the central role of “asylum” in tying together several stands of the Assange narrative – and hence the aptness of the word in a subtitle (if not full title). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- The word “Asylum” links all of these issues and is worthy of at least a sub-heading, I see no reason to step down from that perfectly reasonable position. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I believe you are mistaken – the previous suggestion was “Political Asylum”. For reasons gone into elsewhere (and brushed on in this thread) that was considered unacceptable by some editors. I’m proposing simply “Asylum” and have dealt above with the issues for which “Political Asylum” was rejected and how and why the lone word “Asylum” is different and less problematic. As I said in my last contribution: ““The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy.”” If you re-read the article sub-section I suspect you will agree, but if not, I’m happy to debate the issue further. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy”
. I think the opposite is true. Only paragraphs 1 and 6 deal with Assange's asylum application in any detail. Assange made the decision to apply for asylum instead of "surrendering to the court" in order to be extradited to Sweden, hence breaching his bail conditions. The asylum bid and the failure to surrender are two different sides of the same decision, but they are conceptually different. The actions taken by the British state against Assange described in paragraphs 3 and 4 relate to his failure to surrender, not to his asylum application. As discussed recently, it wasn't illegal for Assange to apply for asylum. Paragraphs 2 and 5 are explanations for Assange's decision. They can equally be seen as explanations why he failed to surrender, as to why he applied for asylum. In my view, the heading "Entering the embassy" "neatly" sums up the contents of this section, because that is what the section is all about, including various repercussions of this step. The heading "Asylum", on the other hand, would gloss over the issue of his failure to surrender to the court. It would misrepresent the contents of the section. It would lend weight to the misconception that the British state was penalising Assange for seeking asylum. It would also suggest that Assange had achieved what he wanted and that he intended to be holed up in the embassy indefinitely. The overarching fact here is that he entered the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)- Jack Upland . I’m not clear why you talk about the concept of “surrender” – I’ve not seen that proposed as an alternative title – If you wish to do so I’m happy to discuss it’s relative merits, but seems a poor contender. On other points: I don’t think that every single paragraph in a subsection has to deal “in detail” with what is in the subheading (I’d have to do a study, but suspect that would invalidate half the subheadings in Wiki). As for the existing subtitle: “entering the embassy”, only one sentence directly mentions “enter[ing] the embassy” and that’s talking about the police entering it, not Assange, none of the paragraphs deal with that activity “in any detail” so by you own reasoning “Entering the Embassy” is a dead loss. In other points you made, it seems to me you are conflating the terms “political asylum” and just “asylum”– every paragraph deals in some way with the latter (the suggested subtitle heading) and as I said four of the six use the word explicitly. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, you seem to be confused between the textual use of words and the content of the section. "Entering the embassy" describes the section. It is irrelevant that the prose of the section doesn't use the phrase. "Early life" never uses the terms "early" or "life"!!! As I said, you seem to think the word "asylum" is a trump card, and that the repetition of the word proves something. It doesn't. Secondly, no one has suggested "surrender" should be part of the heading. That is another red herring. Thirdly, if other headings are misleading, they should be fixed. Yet another red herring. Fourthly, it is clear in this context "asylum" means "political asylum".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland . I’m not clear why you talk about the concept of “surrender” – I’ve not seen that proposed as an alternative title – If you wish to do so I’m happy to discuss it’s relative merits, but seems a poor contender. On other points: I don’t think that every single paragraph in a subsection has to deal “in detail” with what is in the subheading (I’d have to do a study, but suspect that would invalidate half the subheadings in Wiki). As for the existing subtitle: “entering the embassy”, only one sentence directly mentions “enter[ing] the embassy” and that’s talking about the police entering it, not Assange, none of the paragraphs deal with that activity “in any detail” so by you own reasoning “Entering the Embassy” is a dead loss. In other points you made, it seems to me you are conflating the terms “political asylum” and just “asylum”– every paragraph deals in some way with the latter (the suggested subtitle heading) and as I said four of the six use the word explicitly. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Your last point first. You said: “it is clear in this context "asylum" means "political asylum”. Yet, in comments made elsewhere on this page, you yourself talk about Assange’s status re. “Diplomatic Asylum” and “Territorial Asylum” as well as “Political Asylum”. On your: “confused between the textual use of words and the content of the section” – I think not: If a word is used repeatedly in a section of text then it is reasonable to assume there is significance to the subject being talked about (unless we are talking surreal poetry maybe) – there are whole branches of studies which analyse how frequently various words are used in various settings and draw conclusions from those stats. So yes, if the word Asylum is used repeatedly in the section I have no difficulty in claiming that adds to the case for it’s use as a title. However I have made a number of other cases in this thread (many of which you have not yet addressed). To those I would add that the phrase “Entering the Embassy”, in it’s most literal sense, describes just a moment in time – it is in no way an elegant description of a whole period/series of events. Asylum on the other hand describes a persistent state and relates to a raft of concepts related to Assange’s position at that time – I typed into Google “Asylum synonym” and in the first entry (dictionary.com) got:
- “shelter, sanctuary, haven, refuge, mental hospital, preserve, hideaway, harbor, cover, port, safety, den, hole, hideout, security, retreat, institution, madhouse, sanatorium, ivory tower.”
Why it could be mistaken for a poem about Assange’s predicament at that time. Sorry but “Asylum” is just better. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps, "asylum" is not a trump card as I said, but a talismanic term to be sprinkled over the article while you conduct your druidic rituals and mutter your Icelandic surrealist poetry. It is clear there is no agreement about what "asylum" means in this context, no agreement about the function of headings in the article, no agreement what this article is actually about, and no agreement about the function of language in general. Given this, I can only hope you and the pixies live long and prosper and that the dolphins carry you to an affordable motel. All we have achieved in this conversation is that we both disagree with Darouet's original proposition.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland I don’t particularly “disagree with Darouet's original proposition”. My first contribution to this debate was an attempt at compromise. I remain open to input from other parties but it seems that you and I have reached an impasse for now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- You and Darouet have no consensus in favor of either "proposal." Quite the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- How about "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" (first heading); "Skipping bail" (second heading)? Without prejudice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- No. Asylum in an embassy implies political asylum, which is just Assange's self-serving claim. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO I accept that “Asylum”, in the context of this most recent suggestion, implies “Political Asylum” (though not exclusively). However the term “Political Asylum” already appears in the article and will almost certainly stay put. The question of whether a term happens to suit Assange’s interests is not the overriding concern; otherwise the terms like “sexual assault” would not appear in subheadings. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is utterly unresponsive to the point I made above. "Asylum" is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum. The article text does not say Ecuador granted political asylum. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- OK, on reflection I accept that the suggestion "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" is a poor option. I’ll stick with my short and simple “Asylum” as my nomination (I’ve explained why it’s less problematic above). If nobody else likes it/agrees I’ll just have to live with that (for now). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- No. Asylum in an embassy implies political asylum, which is just Assange's self-serving claim. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- How about "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" (first heading); "Skipping bail" (second heading)? Without prejudice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- You and Darouet have no consensus in favor of either "proposal." Quite the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland I don’t particularly “disagree with Darouet's original proposition”. My first contribution to this debate was an attempt at compromise. I remain open to input from other parties but it seems that you and I have reached an impasse for now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Re: 'Asylum' is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum.
The Ecuadorian government granted Assange asylum. In its official statement explaining why it granted Assange asylum, the Ecuadorian government repeatedly referred to political persecution
. For example,
Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK. (emphasis added)
Here's how the AP described this decision:
Aug. 16, 2012: Assange is granted political asylum by Ecuador.
I have no idea where SPECIFICO got the idea that Ecuador did not grant Assange asylum, or that it did not do so because of possible political persecution, but SPECIFICO is simply wrong here. The Ecuadorian government and countless news articles (just a few: BBC, NPR, WaPo) refer to Assange's asylum
in the Ecuadorian embassy, so that's obviously how we should refer to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thucydides411 I wonder if we might consider one of the suggestions SPECIFICO has just made? Namely: "refuge". Seems to me it has many of the advantages of “Asylum” regarding Assange’s predicament at that time. Hopefully, since it came from one of the main opponents of using “asylum” we might make progress – just a thought. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would oppose that wording. It is simply a fact that Assange was granted political asylum in the embassy, and news articles consistently refer to Assange's "asylum" in the embassy. The argument being put forward above, that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because that might reflect positively on Assange, is just not grounded in any way in Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I too would rather use “Asylum” in the subheading and I dislike the current "Entering the embassy” but was getting nowhere with consensus. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Asylum" is obviously the correct word, and those arguing otherwise have to provide a legitimate reason for not using the word. Saying it reflects positively on Assange is not a legitimate reason not to use the word, and outright denying that Assange received asylum is frankly bizarre. So unless some new, compelling argument is brought up, I think we should all agree to title the section something like "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thucydides411 Yes, that works for me Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Saying it reflects positively on Assange... Of course, nobody except Thuc has said such a thing. Since when is a rape indictment a political persecution? The weight of RS discussions of his refuge in the embassy do not describe it as political asylum. Refuge is descriptive and NPOV. Asylum is the narrative of interested parties. WP goes with NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Asylum is factually what happened. If you have an issue with Ecuador's decision to grant Assange political asylum, take it up with Ecuador, but we can't change what happened because you disagree with Ecuador's reasoning. Ecuador granted political asylum, the media widely referred to it a such, and that's the word we should use. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think "refuge" is a sensible compromise (for the first heading in question).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Actually factually: Our job here is to inform readers with all degrees of prior knowledge or understanding. Asylum is a loaded word that will mislead a substantial proportion of readers among all the people of Earth. Refuge is NPOV and does not adopt the dubious and/or false POV that Assange is a political prisoner -- contrary to the beliefs of some editors here (see recently added film link on article page). SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: Compromise between what two positions? Assange was granted political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. That's simply a fact. Neither you nor anyone else has yet given a reasonable argument as to why we should avoid the word "asylum". If I've understood your argument, you're saying that the word reflects positively on Assange, and should therefore be avoided. Since when is it our job to censor facts that might reflect positively on the subject of a BLP? SPECIFICO, meanwhile, has denied that Assange even was granted asylum, despite the fact that - you know - he was granted asylum. I'm sorry, but "asylum" is the correct word, and the one that's used widely in the press and by the Ecuadorian government itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Asylum is factually what happened. If you have an issue with Ecuador's decision to grant Assange political asylum, take it up with Ecuador, but we can't change what happened because you disagree with Ecuador's reasoning. Ecuador granted political asylum, the media widely referred to it a such, and that's the word we should use. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Asylum" is obviously the correct word, and those arguing otherwise have to provide a legitimate reason for not using the word. Saying it reflects positively on Assange is not a legitimate reason not to use the word, and outright denying that Assange received asylum is frankly bizarre. So unless some new, compelling argument is brought up, I think we should all agree to title the section something like "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I too would rather use “Asylum” in the subheading and I dislike the current "Entering the embassy” but was getting nowhere with consensus. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would oppose that wording. It is simply a fact that Assange was granted political asylum in the embassy, and news articles consistently refer to Assange's "asylum" in the embassy. The argument being put forward above, that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because that might reflect positively on Assange, is just not grounded in any way in Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thucydides411 I wonder if we might consider one of the suggestions SPECIFICO has just made? Namely: "refuge". Seems to me it has many of the advantages of “Asylum” regarding Assange’s predicament at that time. Hopefully, since it came from one of the main opponents of using “asylum” we might make progress – just a thought. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It's been more than a week, and still, no even halfway reasonable rationale for not using the word "asylum" in the section title has been given. Assange had political asylum. The news media widely described his "asylum" in the Ecuadorian embassy. "Asylum" is simply the correct word here. Unless there are objections (please, only real objections with some sort of plausible reasoning), I will change the section title to "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" in the next few days. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for that, so any such edit would be reverted. Feel free to mount an RfC if you feel strongly. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see a rough consensus here for using the word "asylum" in the section title. Remember that consensus is not a vote, and that simply saying "no" is not an argument. If you can present actual reasons why we shouldn't use the word "asylum", then by all means, please do so, but the arguments you've given so far are transparently false (e.g., claiming that only Assange has called his stay in the embassy "asylum"). Unless there's any serious objection, we have a consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Surely, you do not expect to close a discussion and declare consensus as an involved editor here. Seek uninvolved review if you are set on pursuing this. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you have an objection to using the word "asylum" that is based in fact, then you're free to raise it. But simply saying "no" (or even worse, raising objections that are clearly factually incorrect, as you have done above) and then demanding an RfC is disruptive.
- Above, you claimed that "asylum" is only Assange's description of the events. I quoted not only the Ecuadorian government's own announcement that it was granting "asylum" to Assange, but also newspaper articles that discussed Assange's "political asylum". I would think that after being shown that your objection was incorrect, you would change your position and drop your objection. But instead, you continue to object, for unclear reasons, and demand an RfC. I'm sorry, but this just looks like a blockading tactic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- i support the use of asylum in the heading: it is what everybody called his stay there (as has already been stated and documented by Thucydides411) and so I think it is just natural to refer to that period of his life this way. "Asylum" is not "loaded", it's what he asked for, what he was granted, and what was later revoked. So please name it as it is in the article and use adequate titles for sections and subsection. --Qcomp (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The term "asylum" is used multiple times in the article. However, it is a loaded term, as the British government did not accept his claim of asylum and under British law he was treated as a fugitive from justice. He only had "diplomatic asylum" within the embassy, not "territorial asylum" in Ecuador. "Ecuadorian embassy period" neatly sums up this portion of his life. I haven't heard many objections to this. It seems to me the only reason to put "asylum" in the heading is to give Assange's move more legal legitimacy, to deny that he had committed any crime, and generally to confuse readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Asylum" is not a loaded word. Assange had asylum. That's simply a fact. News articles repeatedly discuss Assange's "asylum" or "political asylum". The Ecuadorian government announced that they were granting Assange "asylum". You're explicitly arguing that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because you think that might grant "legitimacy" to Assange's actions. That's a purely political objection, and it has no place here. Assange was granted asylum, regardless of how you feel that reflects on him or might make readers view him. We don't obfuscate central facts about the subject of a BLP because we're afraid readers might view those facts positively, and any suggestion that we should is outrageous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since you've not gained consensus on this talk thread, I suggest you waste no further effort before launching an RfC. You would need fresh eyes to present a more persuasive rationale than has been mounted here thus far. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The only objections that have been voiced here to using the factual description "asylum" are Jack's complaint that doing so might reflect positively on Assange (which is obviously not a valid objection that we can take into account) and your false claims that Assange was not granted asylum (which are easily disproven by reading any news article on the subject). I see a consensus here in favor of using the factual description "asylum". Again, I'm open to hearing any policy-based objections, but nobody has raised any yet. Just saying "no" and demanding an RfC is disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- You've disregarded my view, stated clearly and repeatedly above. You will need either a third party close or an RfC. The latter is a better more enduring resolution. I suggest you launch it so that your concern can be addressed at the earliest feasible date. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've disregarded your view because your stated view is that Assange didn't receive asylum, and that "asylum" was just a word that Assange used. I and other editors have cited the Ecuadorian government and numerous news articles discussing Assange's "asylum". I still haven't seen you acknowledge that your earlier claims were false. If your objection is based on an obviously false claim, then of course, I and everyone else should disregard it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- You've disregarded my view, stated clearly and repeatedly above. You will need either a third party close or an RfC. The latter is a better more enduring resolution. I suggest you launch it so that your concern can be addressed at the earliest feasible date. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The only objections that have been voiced here to using the factual description "asylum" are Jack's complaint that doing so might reflect positively on Assange (which is obviously not a valid objection that we can take into account) and your false claims that Assange was not granted asylum (which are easily disproven by reading any news article on the subject). I see a consensus here in favor of using the factual description "asylum". Again, I'm open to hearing any policy-based objections, but nobody has raised any yet. Just saying "no" and demanding an RfC is disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since you've not gained consensus on this talk thread, I suggest you waste no further effort before launching an RfC. You would need fresh eyes to present a more persuasive rationale than has been mounted here thus far. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Asylum" is not a loaded word. Assange had asylum. That's simply a fact. News articles repeatedly discuss Assange's "asylum" or "political asylum". The Ecuadorian government announced that they were granting Assange "asylum". You're explicitly arguing that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because you think that might grant "legitimacy" to Assange's actions. That's a purely political objection, and it has no place here. Assange was granted asylum, regardless of how you feel that reflects on him or might make readers view him. We don't obfuscate central facts about the subject of a BLP because we're afraid readers might view those facts positively, and any suggestion that we should is outrageous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The term "asylum" is used multiple times in the article. However, it is a loaded term, as the British government did not accept his claim of asylum and under British law he was treated as a fugitive from justice. He only had "diplomatic asylum" within the embassy, not "territorial asylum" in Ecuador. "Ecuadorian embassy period" neatly sums up this portion of his life. I haven't heard many objections to this. It seems to me the only reason to put "asylum" in the heading is to give Assange's move more legal legitimacy, to deny that he had committed any crime, and generally to confuse readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- i support the use of asylum in the heading: it is what everybody called his stay there (as has already been stated and documented by Thucydides411) and so I think it is just natural to refer to that period of his life this way. "Asylum" is not "loaded", it's what he asked for, what he was granted, and what was later revoked. So please name it as it is in the article and use adequate titles for sections and subsection. --Qcomp (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Surely, you do not expect to close a discussion and declare consensus as an involved editor here. Seek uninvolved review if you are set on pursuing this. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see a rough consensus here for using the word "asylum" in the section title. Remember that consensus is not a vote, and that simply saying "no" is not an argument. If you can present actual reasons why we shouldn't use the word "asylum", then by all means, please do so, but the arguments you've given so far are transparently false (e.g., claiming that only Assange has called his stay in the embassy "asylum"). Unless there's any serious objection, we have a consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- You did say that:
"Asylum" is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum.
- You made that false claim, and now you're falsely claiming you didn't make this claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please review what I have said above. Now you've misrepresented Jack Upland as well. It's pointless. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I not only reviewed what you said, but I also quoted it back to you. You're denying having said the exact thing that I directly quoted back to you above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please review what I have said above. Now you've misrepresented Jack Upland as well. It's pointless. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- You did say that:
@Jack Upland: Do you still object to the word "asylum"? With all due respect, I don't think you've articulated a reason for not using the term that we, as Wikipedia editors, can take into consideration. The media widely refers to Assange's "asylum", and just as a purely factual matter, he did indeed have asylum. Whether you think the fact that Assange received asylum will cause readers to view him positively cannot impact whether or not we use the word "asylum". I don't see any other objections to using the word (other than the obviously spurious claims put forth by one editor that Assange did not receive asylum). So I'll just ask you directly: do you have any objection, other than the objection about asylum bearing positive connotations? If not, we should just go ahead and change the section title. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Clearly, there are objections. We have been discussing this since June. You should take note of NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Saying that a fact will reflect positively on Assange is not an objection that we, as editors, can entertain. I'm asking whether you have any objection that goes beyond this - an objection that is based on Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: I'll add that NPOV does not say we should omit facts that might reflect positively on the subject of a BLP. In fact, avoiding use of the factual word "asylum" because it might reflect positively on Assange is itself a breach of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article does not avoid the term "asylum". The question is about the article heading. I don't see that you — or others — have objected to the current heading, so it should say.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- We've objected to the current section heading because news media widely refers to Assange's "asylum". "Ecuadorian embassy period" is an obvious euphemism, and you yourself have said that the point of that title is to avoid the word "asylum", which you view as having positive connotations. That itself is a violation of NPOV - we can't intentionally avoid factual descriptions because they might be viewed by some as positive. I think this is a straightforward issue, and I would hope that we can resolve it here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the point of the heading was to describe the period, which it does rather well. There have been many alternative headings suggested over the years, but I think this one's the best. I'm not sure who came up with this heading but I'm pretty sure the motive was just to give a general heading for this section. Assange's attempt to get asylum in Ecuador was one thing that happened in this period. He also breached bail, which he's still dealing with. And the fact is he never got to Ecuador but instead spent seven years holed up in the embassy, which is not "asylum" by any straightforward, factual definition. I don't think making fallacious summaries of other people's arguments is a way of getting through this impasse.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- We've objected to the current section heading because news media widely refers to Assange's "asylum". "Ecuadorian embassy period" is an obvious euphemism, and you yourself have said that the point of that title is to avoid the word "asylum", which you view as having positive connotations. That itself is a violation of NPOV - we can't intentionally avoid factual descriptions because they might be viewed by some as positive. I think this is a straightforward issue, and I would hope that we can resolve it here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article does not avoid the term "asylum". The question is about the article heading. I don't see that you — or others — have objected to the current heading, so it should say.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: I'll add that NPOV does not say we should omit facts that might reflect positively on the subject of a BLP. In fact, avoiding use of the factual word "asylum" because it might reflect positively on Assange is itself a breach of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack, you can't substitute your own personal legal interpretations for what reliable sources report. Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. I could cite literally hundreds of news articles to substantiate this, but I think a few will be enough to make the point:
- The Guardian: "Julian Assange granted asylum by Ecuador - as it happened"
- The BBC: "Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK."
- The Washington Post: "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted asylum on Thursday by Ecuador, raising the possibility of a diplomatic showdown between British and Ecuadoran authorities."
- NPR: "The government of Ecuador on Thursday granted asylum to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks."
- The New York Times: "Ecuador Grants Asylum to Assange, Defying Britain"
- Assange was granted asylum, and that's substantiated by so many reliable sources that it's not worth discussing further.
- Re:
Assange's attempt to get asylum in Ecuador was one thing that happened in this period.
The entire reason why Assange spent seven years in the embassy is that the Ecuadorian government granted him asylum. What was he doing in the embassy? He was being sheltered by the Ecuadorian government - something which is both commonly and legally referred to as "asylum". - I don't see how I'm fallaciously summarizing your argument. You've said above that the reason you don't want to use the word "asylum" is that it supposedly carries positive connotations. I'm sorry, but we can't elide facts because we fear they may reflect positively on the subject of this BLP. That would be a clear breach of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack, you can't substitute your own personal legal interpretations for what reliable sources report. Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. I could cite literally hundreds of news articles to substantiate this, but I think a few will be enough to make the point:
If you have an issue within user's conduct take it to their talk page or ANI, not ehre.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
As we stand, there are two objections to using the word "asylum" in the section title:
- That Assange was supposedly not granted asylum, and that "asylum" is just Assange's claim. This objection is just plain wrong on a factual level.
- That using the word "asylum" might reflect positively on Assange and give him "legitimacy".
The arguments in favor of using the word "asylum" in the section title are:
- The word "asylum" is used extensively by reliable sources reporting on Assange's time in the embassy (See above comments in this talk section, which have documented what RS say).
- Assange did, as a matter of fact, have asylum. Whether or not that reflects positively on him or grants him "legitimacy" is totally irrelevant, unless our purpose is to manipulate his biography in order to make him look worse.
- The whole reason Assange was able to stay in the embassy was that he had asylum. "Asylum" is absolutely central to this their period in Assange's life.
Others can judge how these arguments stack up, but my own evaluation is that the arguments against using the word "asylum" in the section title are obviously spurious. One objection is just factually wrong (and I haven't yet seen an admission on the part of the person who made the objection that it's wrong, which is disturbing), and the other is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have again misstated the issues, and we already knew you think your position is the only correct one. Repetition doesn't help. SPECIFICO talk 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. The arguments do look like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. We should go by what the sources say. Is there a strong case for anything besides asylum in the sources and how do they compare with the case for asylum? Going against that is rewriting the sources and should require wide Wikipedia support like an RfC. And on the bias side there's a good indication from media critique sources that newspapers are already biased against Assange, even so we should follow them in in general - but there's no need to amplify the bias. NadVolum (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- The strong case, in RS and here among editors, is for "refuge". SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- in my view, the facts and RSs are here clearly on Thucydides411 side. In this whole long thread the arguments against the use of the word that RS regularly use to describe Assange's stay in the embassy have been "I am against it". We should follow the sources and call the stay what it was asked for granted and seen as: Asylum. (I gave German and Spanish RS this time since we've already had plenty of English ones; and the use of the word has absolutely nothing to do with how Assange was viewed by the author/the newspaper. --Qcomp (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you are not prepared to address the views of other editors, and if instead you just personalize without addressing those views, you are not going to advance the discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, you earlier argued against using the word "asylum" by claiming that only Assange had used the word. That was false. I'm honestly disturbed that you haven't yet acknowledged that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you are not prepared to address the views of other editors, and if instead you just personalize without addressing those views, you are not going to advance the discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- in my view, the facts and RSs are here clearly on Thucydides411 side. In this whole long thread the arguments against the use of the word that RS regularly use to describe Assange's stay in the embassy have been "I am against it". We should follow the sources and call the stay what it was asked for granted and seen as: Asylum. (I gave German and Spanish RS this time since we've already had plenty of English ones; and the use of the word has absolutely nothing to do with how Assange was viewed by the author/the newspaper. --Qcomp (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- The strong case, in RS and here among editors, is for "refuge". SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- The arguments here against using asylum aren't wonderful, but exactly what is the argument for using it in the heading? "Ecuaorian embassy period" seems a good descriptive title and putting in asylum would make it either longer or less specific. NadVolum (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Ad hominem and bad faith arguments?
Seems to me remarks like the following should be avoided on this page:
“The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange”
“Nor should editors try to soften the wording to make Assange look better”
“You seem to be editing the article based on your opinion, rather than sources”
“It shouldn't be removed simply because it is unfavourable to Assange.”
Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there are editors who take sides re. Julian Assange pointing the fact out during debates merely makes matters personal. Let’s, wherever possible, stick to the issues not the personalities. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- It would depend on context.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully my qualifying “wherever possible” allows for that. The context for the quotes I provided can be seen on this page and IMO would have been better unsaid ie sticking to the issues Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Those sound like valid issues to me. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO That’s a little ambiguous – are you saying that you think my points are valid or that you believe the remarks I quoted are valid? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- The latter. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The matter of bias in the article is very much a matter of opinion – some will consider the article to be very hard on Assange – and one could just as easily reword those quotes thus:
“The problem is that it's part of a pattern of maximising information unfavourable to Assange”
“Nor should editors try to harden the wording to make Assange look worse”
“It shouldn't be removed simply because it is favourable to Assange.”
- A significant number of contributors would say “Those sound like valid issues to me”. That would still though be less helpful than sticking to the issue in hand. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The matter of bias in the article is very much a matter of opinion – some will consider the article to be very hard on Assange – and one could just as easily reword those quotes thus:
- The latter. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO That’s a little ambiguous – are you saying that you think my points are valid or that you believe the remarks I quoted are valid? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Those sound like valid issues to me. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully my qualifying “wherever possible” allows for that. The context for the quotes I provided can be seen on this page and IMO would have been better unsaid ie sticking to the issues Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
If you have issues with users conduct report then at wp:ani or ask them to defend themselves on their talk page. We comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- My point is about the way we “comment on issues” on this page, but if other editors have no problem with what I’m seeing as Ad hominem insinuations, or don’t think this is the correct forum, then I guess I’ll have to drop the issue. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am saying if you see issues ANI is where you take it, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t enjoy Wiki’s complaints and appeals processes - so won’t be going there unless forced at gunpoint. I’ve said my piece – seems that editors think it ok to cry bias in order to push their arguments - so at least I know one of the ground-rules now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am saying if you see issues ANI is where you take it, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the account of the hearings into extradition to the US covers the defence arguments, but very little of the prosecution arguments. The substance of the Swedish allegations is glossed over here, and in the main article. And we have 16 sentences dealing with Assange's health since he was arresting in the embassy. So, yes, the article does seem biased to Assange. Of course, you could make it more biased...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course entitled to your opinion – it happens to be my sincere opinion that the article, overall, is strongly biased against Assange - however this may not be the time and place to deal with that Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you're done with this, please hat the thread before any more time is devoted to it. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- What does hat the thread mean? And how do I do it? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would actually like to see some examples of where this article is strongly biased against Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hat generally means in Wikipedia parlance that you pull your woolly beanie over your encrusted eyelashes, make like the boyos in the hood, pull down the white cone of silence, and shelter in your anorak in the nearest mud igloo. Or you could be Black Hat the Spy and hoodwink the Ravenmaster. I prefer to follow the Cross.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Or to put it another way, hide off-topic posts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue of WP:BIAS is not "off-topic".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Actually they are policy is clear, you comment on the content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue of WP:BIAS is not "off-topic".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you're done with this, please hat the thread before any more time is devoted to it. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course entitled to your opinion – it happens to be my sincere opinion that the article, overall, is strongly biased against Assange - however this may not be the time and place to deal with that Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Amnesty international reaction to US assurances
I have been asked by SPECIFICO to seek consensus for the inclusion of a sentence noting that Amnesty international are not satisfied with US “assurances” re. Assange’s prison conditions, should he be extradited. Here’s the whole paragraph (from section: “Appeal and other developments” third paragraph):
- Following the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States," in July 2021 The Biden administration provided assurances to the UK Crown Prosecution services that: "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States has also provided an assurance that "the United States will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him." However, an Amnesty International expert responded saying “Those are not assurances at all” because US government reserves the right to break their promise.
Since the first two sentences have been left in place by SPECIFICO in his last (second) intervention I must assume them to be acceptable. So the question is do we keep the Amnesty international sentence? I would say yes because the get-out clause included by the US in their assurances is significant – people need to know that Assange could, after all, be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX if he breaches some, so far poorly defined, conditions. People outside of Amnesty have also criticised the get-out clause in the US “assurances”, however I felt Amnesty international are the go-to organisation for matters of this sort – there opinion is respected and noteworthy. Hence my short sentence on the subject. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming to talk. Really, you should self-revert the challenged content until you have consensus. Repeated additions after your edit has been reverted for cause are not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I completely rewrote the sentence in question, and replaced the reference, following both the occasions you deleted them. On both occasions I responded, as best I could, to the very short edit summaries you provided. As I explained to you on my talk page I want to leave the sentence in the article for now so people can clearly see what’s being talked about in context – If anyone had put forward a serious problem with the current edit eg that it is factually wrong, infringes copyright etc I would of course have removed it immediately. If you have an objection of that nature, please let me know. Otherwise just for now I’d like to leave it until you have at least fully explained you objections (after all this paragraph has so far caused me quite a bit of work and carefully attempting to meet your needs, whereas you have so far simply erased chunks of work and given two 4 word edit summaries) Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think this probably should be excluded on the grounds that we don't want excessive commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I completely rewrote the sentence in question, and replaced the reference, following both the occasions you deleted them. On both occasions I responded, as best I could, to the very short edit summaries you provided. As I explained to you on my talk page I want to leave the sentence in the article for now so people can clearly see what’s being talked about in context – If anyone had put forward a serious problem with the current edit eg that it is factually wrong, infringes copyright etc I would of course have removed it immediately. If you have an objection of that nature, please let me know. Otherwise just for now I’d like to leave it until you have at least fully explained you objections (after all this paragraph has so far caused me quite a bit of work and carefully attempting to meet your needs, whereas you have so far simply erased chunks of work and given two 4 word edit summaries) Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Witness Recants
Let's discuss this text which has appeared in our hero's bio:
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported a key witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Assange had admitted to making up accusations in the U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated accusations that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament and other accusations. Thordarson confessed to working with the Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the U.S. agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to Iceland prosecuting him for threatening the "security interests" of Iceland. According to his own admission, Thordarson continued his crime spree while working with the FBI and having the promise of immunity from prosecution.[1]
The text was reverted a while ago with a reason of "Not RS - later corrected by Washington Post. Pertained to Manning, not Assange. Please use RS for BLP". Most of this is incoherent to me but may mean something to other editors. I know nothing about Stundin so can't comment on its reliability. The Stundin report has appeared in other sources.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Should this text, or an alternative version of it, appear in Julian's bio? Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is the article in the WP? If the contradicting article hasn't actually been supplied and its existence only vaguely alluded to the content should be restored. Cambial foliage❧ 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- That part wasn't explained and my search didn't bring up any articles in wapo about the Stundin report. The reference to Chelsea is also perplexing. Burrobert (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly inclusion on the retraction is WP:DUE in the article. I am not sure about the long discussion about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes the version above is not necessarily the best way of summarising the issue. The main two points are the importance of the witness codenamed "Teenager" to the US case and the retraction. Apparently the story also appeared recently in Private Eye, which has not been particularly kind to Julian previously.[10] Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Undue may be an issue here, as none of these are exactly top line sources. Remember this is a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think the relatively low profile of reliable sources necessarily means an issue is not important enough to be included. The fact that a key witness in the U.S. case against Assange has said he was lying on significant counts certainly is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery".
- What are the other significant viewpoints related to this issue? Has anyone said that "Teenager" didn't recant his testimony? Has anyone said that "Teenager"'s testimony was not significant to the US case?
- WP:Due does not mention that due weight for BLP's is any different from due weight in other articles.
- Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Everything about BLP is different. You will need far better and more extensive sourcing if you believe there should be article content about this matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- One reliable source is usually considered sufficient even on a BLP page (indeed many editors get grumpy when more than one citation is put up). This information is newsworthy and appears in a reputable newspaper (even if it is from a small European country) Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Everything about BLP is different. You will need far better and more extensive sourcing if you believe there should be article content about this matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery".
- I don’t think the relatively low profile of reliable sources necessarily means an issue is not important enough to be included. The fact that a key witness in the U.S. case against Assange has said he was lying on significant counts certainly is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The WP, in two articles filed by its London bureau chief, reports on the Stundin Thordarson interview; they clearly consider it newsworthy, and consider Stundin reliable. They note that individuals including Edward Snowden have argued that the interview undermines the criminal case against Assange. They also make the incorrect claim that "the Icelandic article...contains no direct quotes from Thordarson". I know standards have been slipping at the WP since the Bo Jones era but such a glaring error is extremely poor. The relatively brief condensed English article doesn't use any translated quotes, but the (4x longer) article in Icelandic contains numerous direct quotes from Thordarson supporting Stundin's reporting. The Wapo reporter's view is that Thordarson's interview "does not touch on the core allegations against Assange." It's appropriate to include a very brief summary of the Stundin article, and the WP's reporting on Snowden's and their own take on its potential legal implications. Cambial foliage❧ 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well done on finding the missing Wapo articles. I am still waiting for an explanation of the rest of this edit note: "Not RS - later corrected by Washington Post. Pertained to Manning, not Assange. Please use RS for BLP". Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Why are you waiting for such an explanation? None will be forthcoming, especially given that the latter part of that statement about Manning is clearly a total fabrication. I suggest trimming the final sentence and restoring the text, changing "confessed" to "said", and adding a citation to WP with Snowden's and WP view. Cambial foliage❧ 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have an objection to the sentence, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. At this stage his extradition has been blocked. The trial may never take place.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- We are all hopeful Jack but after 10 years of this process we also need to be realistic. There is a hearing later today to determine the grounds on which the US appeal. Here is a twitter thread from Mary Kostakidis explaining what it is about.[11] She will be live tweeting as an observer in the hearing. Regarding the disputed text, I try to come up with a suitable wording using CY's suggestions. Burrobert (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, but we should wait and see if the trial happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC
- We are all hopeful Jack but after 10 years of this process we also need to be realistic. There is a hearing later today to determine the grounds on which the US appeal. Here is a twitter thread from Mary Kostakidis explaining what it is about.[11] She will be live tweeting as an observer in the hearing. Regarding the disputed text, I try to come up with a suitable wording using CY's suggestions. Burrobert (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems clear from what is said above this was removed on invalid grounds going by the edit comment. There seems to be no Washington Post article relevant to this. Also it is from a reliable source, and it is very relevant to the topic. The only real problem seems to be that it has not been widely reported elsewhere - in fact there is a rather strange lack of interest as far as I can see despite that it would provide a newsworthy item even to debunk. I shall therefore reinstate it and then see about updating according to the comments above. I think also any conclusions should be attributed to Studin because it is not wiely reported. Please provide a reference to the relevant Washington Post article if removing again based on it not being related to Assange. Certainly I fail at the moment to see how that can be so. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Was the bit in the Washington Post where they say it does not affect the criminal case supposed to be the reason for removal? That is more a case for adding the Washington Post article saying that. Plus the editorial in Private Eye saying the opposite. Not that either of them are lawyers. I do not have access to either so if someone could read them and put in something that would be good. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The oral testimony of the Icelandic Interior Minister about the FBI sting mission in consortiumnews certainly is alarming. I'm not sure though about whether that can be used - wouldn't that be considered a primary source and Wikipedia need some newspaper or other reliable source to comment on it to give it due weight? It is incredible there has been so little reporting. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the most noteworthy thing about this looking at the references is that mainstream media have not reported on it. I think I should add that as people might wonder why they don't see it if they search them. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well I got to see what the Washington Post said. It would be good to include one major media outlet at least commenting on it but as noted above they do say there was no statements by Thordarson in the article - which indicates they did not do any basic research, so it is hard to give the usual weight of Washington Post to their comments. I don't know how to fix up something suitable for inclusion. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the US indictment against Assange was primarily or exclusively related to Assange's work with Manning. I haven't been following this case closely, but I had never heard of Sigurdur Thordarson until I read that he recounted his testimony. Is it possible that the lack of coverage from larger media outlets is because Sigurdur's testimony wasn't important to begin with? If so, this article should note the recanting, but I don't think this article should imply that the US case against Assange is now in danger of falling apart. Rks13 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- From the various sources below (note that many describe Thordarson as a key witness):
- “the initial indictment for Julian Assange related only to the publications back in 2010, 2011, the Chelsea Manning publications. It was a second, superseding indictment, introduced by the Trump administration, which was based upon Thordarson’s evidence”.
- The superseding indictment was lodged in June 2020 and “refers to Thordarson as a “teenager” and Iceland as ”NATO Country 1” and says Assange encouraged him to, among other things, quote, “commit computer intrusion” and steal audio recordings of phone conversations between Icelandic officials”.
- “The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well. This activity was said to include attempts to hack into the computers of members of parliament and record their conversations”.
- Burrobert (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- See WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment. This seems to me to be practically entirely dependent on the testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson. The Assange defence in the extradition hearing tried to contest the testimony but that was ruled out by Judge Baraitser. That was before the retraction but it is entirely possible that it will still not be considered and they'll decide on extradition based solely on the basis of the original hearing i.e. on whether Assange would suffer mental harm. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've put a link to a Washington Post article on it which says Thordarson's testimony is just backround to his interaction with Manning. However the superceding indictment clearly talks about criminal hacking charge in a NATO country rather than anything much about the original charge which the Washinton Post seems to be alluding to. The charge is also supposed to back up that he encouraged Manning to crack a password - something Manning denies and seems very improbable from other evidence and there is no evidence of ever having done. I just can't get myself to write something that is clearly wrong into the article based on them even though the Washington Post is mainstream. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Forced myself to write a short sumary of what the Washinton Post was saying. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Our coverage of the second superseding indictment could perhaps be improved to make the significance of Thordarson clearer to readers. One of the many disturbing aspects of this is that the United States seeks to extradite an Australian citizen for, among other things, acts against the Icelandic parliament that it alleges he did while living in Iceland. Has any source discussed this bizarre scenario? Burrobert (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are a few shortcomings on our coverage of the superseding indictment.
- Our coverage is based on a primary document from the US Department of Justice.
- We don't state that the superseding indictment does not add to the charges against Assange (we seem to imply it contains 18 charges). The new indictment only adds detail to the charges by attempting to show Assange is a hacker. This is where Sigurdur Thordarson's is important. It would be worth outlining why the US needed to provide this extra detail. I believe it relates to what has been called the "New York Times problem": It would be difficult for Assange to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, because the Justice Department would not be able to do so without also prosecuting media organisations who do the same.[12] One way of getting around this problem is to show that Assange was a hacker and this appears to be the intent of the superseding indictment. One part of this strategy involved showing that Assange conspired with Manning to hack a computer. This charge was evidentially weak because Manning courageously would not co-operate. She spent 18 months in prison for contempt and received a huge fine for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. The US obviously believed it needed Thordarson's testimony to strengthen this part of its case.[13] Burrobert (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are a few shortcomings on our coverage of the superseding indictment.
- In June 2021, Chelsea Manning said her grand jury resistance was not contingent on Julian Assange being the target, and that she was not even sure he was. "I treated this no differently than if it was for a protest or for some other grand jury—if it was a grand jury in general, I would respond the same way. But it did appear that this one was about, specifically, the 2010 disclosures; the media was speculating, but our legal team and ourselves, we never got full confirmation as to whether that was the case."[14]
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't miss it. I remember when it was recently added.
- I imagine she had a very good idea what the grand jury was investigating. On what planet would you need to be living not to put the two lots of 2 together to get 4.
- Her action was courageous even in the extremely unlikely event that she had forgotten that the man to whom she had leaked her documents was under political asylum in London with a US sealed indictment awaiting him (accidentally revealed in November 2018).
- Her view on the grand jury process is also admirable: "we've seen this power abused countless times to target political speech. I have nothing to contribute to this case and I resent being forced to endanger myself by participating in this predatory practice". She "believe[d] this grand jury seeks to undermine the integrity of public discourse with the aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of power by this government".
Burrobert (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: Chelsea Manning's opposition to the secrecy of the grand jury process is a matter of record. What is not supported by WP:RS is that she resisted this particular grand jury expressly to protect Julian Assange. That conjecture should not be introduced without proper sourcing. (As an aside, it's worth noting on this Talk page that Chelsea Manning has never publicly opposed Assange's extradition or condemned his incarceration.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- My comments above were for the enlightenment of other editors. I wasn't proposing adding any specific information to the article.
- As I stated above, it is almost certain that Manning was aware of the intent of the grand jury. News articles about her subpoena had titles like "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation".
- Whatever Mannings' motive was for refusing to testify at the grand jury, her action was noble and courageous.
- Whatever Mannings' motive was for refusing to testify at the grand jury, the US regime was not getting any evidence from her to help it with its case against Assange.
- "Chelsea Manning has never publicly opposed Assange's extradition or condemned his incarceration": I can neither confirm nor deny this as I haven't made a thorough search. If it were true, I don't think we could draw any conclusions from it.
- Burrobert (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: A news article titled "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation" in no way demonstrates that she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange. As she herself said,
If it was a grand jury in general, I would respond the same way.
Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC) - This text from the New York Times may give some insight into Mannings decision not to testify in the grand jury:
- "During her court-martial, Ms. Manning took responsibility for her actions and said that Mr. Assange had not directed them.
- “No one associated with W.L.O.” — an abbreviation she used to refer to the WikiLeaks organization — “pressured me into sending any more information,” she said at the time. “I take full responsibility.”
- Because that account would seemingly be helpful to the defense, she said she wondered if prosecutors wanted to try to get her to back away from it. She would not do so, she insisted, while criticizing the secrecy that surrounds grand jury proceedings.
- “I am not going to contribute to a process that I feel is dangerous and could potentially place me in a position where I am forced to backtrack on the truth,” she said".[15]
- Burrobert (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: That text from The New York Times changes the focus entirely. Chelsea Manning's concern is clearly not with Assange, but with how the grand jury's investigation might affect her personally, as with issues of double jeopardy and perjury. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I gave an example of a news article in order to show that the reason for the grand jury was obvious. Why are you focused on the statement that "she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange"? Where does it come from? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: On 15 August 2021 you commented at this Talk page that Chelsea Manning
spent 18 months in prison for contempt and received a huge fine for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury
. That is false on two counts. First, she was in jail for 12 months, not 18, on the contempt charge. Second, there is no WP:RS that she went to jail forrefusing to testify against Assange
. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: On 15 August 2021 you commented at this Talk page that Chelsea Manning
- I gave an example of a news article in order to show that the reason for the grand jury was obvious. Why are you focused on the statement that "she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange"? Where does it come from? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: That text from The New York Times changes the focus entirely. Chelsea Manning's concern is clearly not with Assange, but with how the grand jury's investigation might affect her personally, as with issues of double jeopardy and perjury. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert: A news article titled "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation" in no way demonstrates that she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange. As she herself said,
- My comments above were for the enlightenment of other editors. I wasn't proposing adding any specific information to the article.
- Yes the term of imprisonment was less than I remembered.
- This is what we know:
- 1. Chelsea Manning refused to testify in a grand jury
- 2. The grand jury was investigating Assange.
- I am not interested in playing pointless word games so I'll let you come up with a suitable wording that covers those points.
- I am still not sure where the phrase ""she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange" comes from.
- Burrobert (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Burrobert: Please, let's take a step back. I respectfully ask that you state, as succinctly as possible, what you are now recommending to improve this BLP? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The initial point about whether we should mention Thordarson's recanting seems to have been settled. Our coverage of the superseding indictment could be improved to explain its purpose and how Thordarson fits it. I made some comments about that above which could be used a starting point for discussion, including:
- Mentioning that the superseding indictment does not include new charges.
- The new indictment only adds detail to the charges by attempting to show Assange is a hacker.
- Mention why Thordarson's is important to the US case.
- Mention why the US thought it needed to provide the extra detail in the superseding indictment. This relates to
- Manning didn't need any hacking help, she had full access to all the documents she leaked. The case is really qute astonishing. It makes you wonder what kind of stuff is being planned in America to get over the glaring holes in the case, it would need to be held in camera and various bits of testimony disallowed to get anywhere. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Manning may have had full access to all the documents she leaked, but we are talking here about documents she did not leak because she could not access them without Assange's help. In its second superseding indictment (June 2020), the U.S. Department of Justice alleges:
- Manning didn't need any hacking help, she had full access to all the documents she leaked. The case is really qute astonishing. It makes you wonder what kind of stuff is being planned in America to get over the glaring holes in the case, it would need to be held in camera and various bits of testimony disallowed to get anywhere. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The encrypted password hash that Manning gave to Assange to crack ... was stored as a "hash value" in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the encrypted password hash that Manning then provided to Assange.
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
So has this development has an impact in court yet?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- As I said before, we are getting way ahead of ourselves. As it stands now, Assange's extradition to the USA has been blocked. If his trial in the USA ever goes ahead, we have no way of knowing what evidence will be used. In addition, it is somewhat perverse to argue here that "Teenager" was a key witness when (I believe) he hasn't been mentioned here before. There is no point on speculating about this in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yea it is a bit odd he was such a key witness only now are we mentioning him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- “Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned no fewer than 33 times in the 48 page June 2020 U.S. District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” (the current one) (linked found here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment ) Whether he’s been mentioned here before (and frankly he should have been) is beside the point – He is a key witness. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is claimed he is. One reason why more mainstream RS have not picked this up is (maybe) he is in fact not all that important? Indeed this raises an issue of wp:undue, we have a lot of minor sources saying he is important. Not a lot of major ones. So at best (I would argue) we would need to say "according to... he is a major witness".Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please be reasonable, only Chelsea Manning is mentioned more often that “Teenager” in the Indictment. Since Manning has refused to testify she cannot be counted as a witness. Here’s the stats: “Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned 33 times: “Sabu” 23 times: “Hammond” 22 times: “Laurelai” 15 times: “Kayla” 10 times: “Topiary” 6 times “Jabber” 4 times. The indictment more than once talks about witnesses acting or passing messages “through Teenager” in other words he’s a go between as well as a key actor. It would reasonable to describe Thordarson as the star witness on these grounds let alone just “a key witness”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- In one document, out of how many? And no it is not reasonable to call him a star witness unless RS do, and if only some RS do it may be undue to take only a few as the whole. If he was a star witness how many times was he mentioned in court?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I should have acknowledged Jeremy Hammond, who also courageously refused to testify before a Virginia federal grand jury which was investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. He was also found in contempt. Regarding the suggestions I made above, some of the points are covered by reliable sources:
- Why are we relying on a press statement from the department of justice to describe the superseding indictment? It should be easy to find a reliable source stating that the superseding indictment added no new charges and only added details to the previous indictment.
- We currently include some text which goes close to describing the "New York Times problem": "The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as WikiLeaks also without government authorisation. It said it was not clear how WikiLeaks' publications were legally different from other publications of classified information". Reliable sources have covered the issue and quoted state officials from the Obama regime.
- Regarding the grand jury, we currently mention that "Computer expert David House ... testified for 90 minutes before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia in July 2018" and also mention Manning's refusal to testify. We don't mention Hammond's refusal to testify. Reliable sources have covered Hammond's refusal.
- Burrobert (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven you said “In one document, out of how many?” But this is not just any old document, we are talking about the District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” the most up to date indictment which details the basis of the US case against Assange. It is just unthinkable that, profound doubts regarding the honesty and suitability of a (perhaps the) the key witness in the proposed case, should not be properly covered in the article Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- "perhaps", exactly. We do not really know how important he is to the case, as he has not (as far as I know) even been mentioned (unlike some others) in court. When (and if) the case collapses due to the loss of this key witness this will be significant, until then it's all speculation from some bottom draw sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven you said “In one document, out of how many?” But this is not just any old document, we are talking about the District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” the most up to date indictment which details the basis of the US case against Assange. It is just unthinkable that, profound doubts regarding the honesty and suitability of a (perhaps the) the key witness in the proposed case, should not be properly covered in the article Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I should have acknowledged Jeremy Hammond, who also courageously refused to testify before a Virginia federal grand jury which was investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. He was also found in contempt. Regarding the suggestions I made above, some of the points are covered by reliable sources:
- In one document, out of how many? And no it is not reasonable to call him a star witness unless RS do, and if only some RS do it may be undue to take only a few as the whole. If he was a star witness how many times was he mentioned in court?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please be reasonable, only Chelsea Manning is mentioned more often that “Teenager” in the Indictment. Since Manning has refused to testify she cannot be counted as a witness. Here’s the stats: “Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned 33 times: “Sabu” 23 times: “Hammond” 22 times: “Laurelai” 15 times: “Kayla” 10 times: “Topiary” 6 times “Jabber” 4 times. The indictment more than once talks about witnesses acting or passing messages “through Teenager” in other words he’s a go between as well as a key actor. It would reasonable to describe Thordarson as the star witness on these grounds let alone just “a key witness”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is claimed he is. One reason why more mainstream RS have not picked this up is (maybe) he is in fact not all that important? Indeed this raises an issue of wp:undue, we have a lot of minor sources saying he is important. Not a lot of major ones. So at best (I would argue) we would need to say "according to... he is a major witness".Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- “Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned no fewer than 33 times in the 48 page June 2020 U.S. District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” (the current one) (linked found here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment ) Whether he’s been mentioned here before (and frankly he should have been) is beside the point – He is a key witness. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yea it is a bit odd he was such a key witness only now are we mentioning him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
baraitser spent quite a lot of space discussing Thordarson's evidence in her judgement. Thordarson is given the code-name "Teenager". He appears in paragraphs 23,24,25, 26, 27, 85, 87, and 100 of baraitser's judgement. In the main paragraph on Teenager she says:
"On or before summer 2010, Mr. Assange put Teenager in charge of WikiLeaks’s Internet Relay Chat (“IRC”) channel. He also asked Teenager to hack into computers to obtain information including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials, including members of the Parliament, of the government of “NATO country1”. It is alleged that, in September 2010, Mr. Assange directed Teenager to hack into the computer of a former Wikileaks associate and delete chat logs of statements made by Mr. Assange. When Teenager asked how that could be done, Mr. Assange told him that the WikiLeaks associate could “be fooled into downloading a trojan,” and asked Teenager about the operating system the WikiLeaks associate used".
Burrobert (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both reliable sources and straightforward logic and court document as shown above show 'key' witnessis correct for inclusion. And it is simply wrongto delete the entire section on the basis of not liking one word. I will reinstate the edit. Judge Baraister saying that and disallowing any questioning of the source is pretty typical of that extradition. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I support keeping this content [3] and am opposed to removal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support keeping it too. I see SPECIFICO has removed it with no reason and no comment here. That looks like edit warring to me. I see from his page that he has been topic banned elsewhere. It should be in. It is reliably sourced and very relevant. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've worked out "wp spa" means that it was reverted because they consider that I am not entitled to reinstate the edit because the main thing I have edited here is this article. Might I suggest that deleting the text hardly shows neutral point of view and that is actually against Wikipedia's policies. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- And yes I was brought here by this rather glaring omission. But it isn't myonly interest in Wikipedia, it did bring me to commenting on the distribution of wealth article, there also seems to be a gaping hole in Wikipedia in it's treatment of recent theory on wealth inequality which is similarly rather strange. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes SPA stands for Single Purpose Account. The reference at WP:SPA is an essay, not policy. It does have some good advice: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards". Good luck with your editing. Burrobert (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The underlying reason for the revert is obvious: We do not make a contentious edit when talk page discussion is ongoing in an attempt to find valid article text and sourcing. I'm sure Burro will join me in endorsing that principle. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the count below of submissions here show the case for removing was very weak and I'd have expected you to check on that yourself before deleting. If Burro means Burrobert it doesn't look like they agree with you. If people followed that principle there would be very little text in Wikipedia. An article on Trump with nothing contentious in it, wow that would be quite something! :-) 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The underlying reason for the revert is obvious: We do not make a contentious edit when talk page discussion is ongoing in an attempt to find valid article text and sourcing. I'm sure Burro will join me in endorsing that principle. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes SPA stands for Single Purpose Account. The reference at WP:SPA is an essay, not policy. It does have some good advice: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards". Good luck with your editing. Burrobert (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Bjartmar Oddur Þeyr Alexandersson; Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson (2021-06-26). "Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment". Stundin. Retrieved 2021-06-29.
- ^ MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ "Attorney: U.S. Case Against Julian Assange Falls Apart, as Key Witness Says He Lied to Get Immunity". Democracy Now!. 28 June 2021. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ "A Remarkable Silence: Media Blackout After Key Witness Against Assange Admits Lying". Media Lens. 1 July 2021. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ Rees, John (21 July 2021). "The Assange Case Is Collapsing – But it Remains a Travesty of Justice". tribunemag.co.uk. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ Marcetic, Branko (10 July 2021). "The Julian Assange Media Blackout Must End". jacobinmag.com. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ Barns, Greg (1 July 2021). "Key Assange accuser backs away from what he told US prosecutors". Pearls and Irritations. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ "Assange on the Brink". Consortiumnews. 18 July 2021. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ "Blekkingarvefur FBI á Íslandi". Stundin. 26 June 2021. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ "Private Eye story posted to Twitter".
- ^ Kostakidis, Mary (11 August 2021). "I'll be following the UK High Court Appeal by the US". Twitter. Retrieved 11 August 2021.
- ^ Gold, Hadas (26 November 2013). "The DOJ's 'New York Times problem' with Assange". POLITICO. Retrieved 15 August 2021.
- ^ Tucker, Eric (25 June 2020). "'Hacker not journalist': Assange faces fresh allegations in US". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 August 2021.
- ^ Grim, Ryan (June 25, 2021). "Chelsea Manning meets Ken Klippenstein". The Intercept. Retrieved August 6, 2021.
- ^ Savage, Charlie (1 March 2019). "Disclosing Subpoena for Testimony, Chelsea Manning Vows to Fight". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
Where we stand
This talk page section was created on 5 August 2021, and has attracted considerable discussion. I believe the time is ripe for a tally of where we stand.
INCLUDE
- Burrobert
- Cambial foliage❧
- Jtbobwaysf
- Prunesqualor billets_doux
- Jack Upland
- 86.20.127.101
- Rks13
- Marcywinograd [original addition]
- Cambial Yellowing [restored removal]
EXCLUDE
Given this headcount, and considering that editors have had 11 days in which to comment, I propose that we acknowledge consensus to include the report that a key witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, admitted in an interview with the Icelandic newspaper Stundin to giving false testimony in the superseding U.S. indictment against Assange. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the two editors who have previously deleted this content in its entirety—Slatersteven (once) and SPECIFICO (twice)—refrain from doing so again. Naturally they and other editors are welcome to continue editing the text. But I hope we can move past wholesale removals. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable approach. Burrobert (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure it's quite that clear cut? Some of the INCLUDE's include people saying it needs a rewrite (which means it should not be included until it is rewritten).I think everyone who has commented here should be asked to just give a direct response for clarity.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I support including, you re-write argument is something we can do after you stop reverting the addition. It should be obvious there is a range of editors for inclusion and your exclude argument will fail at WP:RFC (if it needs to come to that.) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Incorrect, if users say it needs a re-write such a new version can be suggested here (and it means by inference they object to the text as written), it does not have to be done in article space.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jtb, that's not how it works. And we know that once a random version is installed on the page, any such improvements, let alone reductions, will be opposed as contrary to "longstanding consensus". Standard procedure.🙄 SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I dispute your insinuation that we are dealing here with a "random version." As it stands, the content under consideration is the result of thoughtful revision and extensive discussion by numerous editors. There is nothing random about it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- We operate by consensus on Wikipedia. I suggest you invest additional effort in understanding our policies and guidelines before disputing established practice here. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I'm here to learn! Please explain how you determined consensus that we are dealing here with a "random version" of the content in question? Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- We operate by consensus on Wikipedia. I suggest you invest additional effort in understanding our policies and guidelines before disputing established practice here. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I dispute your insinuation that we are dealing here with a "random version." As it stands, the content under consideration is the result of thoughtful revision and extensive discussion by numerous editors. There is nothing random about it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I support including, you re-write argument is something we can do after you stop reverting the addition. It should be obvious there is a range of editors for inclusion and your exclude argument will fail at WP:RFC (if it needs to come to that.) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be time for an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Include text as written
- For pragmatic reasons am going with “include text as written”. No wording/edit is ever perfect – this like all others can later be honed and worked on in the normal way. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since there's general support for inclusion of this issue, which is obviously important to Assange's life and his prosecution by the US government under the Espionage Act, this text should be reinstated. It can be tweaked while in the article. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please let stand the paragraph beginning:
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported...
. My only caveat is that its final sentence cannot be verified online because the source is a print-only publication, meaning we must rely on the paraphrase of the single editor who added it. (No disrespect intended.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 I’ve now taken that “Private Eye” sentence out, but left that P.I. citation. I have only seen an online photograph of the Private Eye article, but it seemed authentic and is at least as easy to verify as any other print version citation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Include text with rewrite
- I think it should be one sentence which doesn't call "Teenager" a "key witness" or a "star witness.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to document the disagreement since sources do say the testimony is key and the Washington Post say it isn't. That doesn't balance out to a low level of keyness, it is a straight and relevant disagreement. And by the way I think it would be best to include the commentry by media critique sources on nthe lack of coverage in mainstream sources. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm definitely not saying that just because I think the text could be a bit better that there should be wholescale removal till it is perfect by my reckoning! 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please edit that comment, which appears to have incorporated some kind of typological or computer error and is currently incoherent. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, too many words for the internet. I was saying I'd like some changes, but don't use that as a reason to blank everything. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please edit that comment, which appears to have incorporated some kind of typological or computer error and is currently incoherent. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Rewrite to brief statement reflecting appropriate DUE WEIGHT and VERIFIED substance of the matter. Like virtually all the stalemates on this talk page, this horrific bloated text is a result of failure to apply NPOV, V, and RS. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please be more specific about the actual problems you see. What has weight wrong and what would be the correct weight? What is not verified? Whatis not neutral? What sources are not reliable? Try providing some text of your own. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The issue is this: You should not insert material that has been reverted and is under active discussion on the talk page until the outcome of such discussion has been agreed. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Who gets to decide that the outcome of discussion on this section of the Talk page has been agreed? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- First, I presume you realize that question is orthogonal to the principle of leaving the article alone until closure. The answer to your question is that we seek an "uninvolved" editor or Admin to evaluate consensus on such threads. I understand that your list above was a good-faith effort, but because you have been involved in recent edits here, you would not be the one to make such a determination. Second, we do not count heads. We try to evaluate the merits of the various arguments presented, with reference to WP policies and guidelines. Such principles have been raised here and not fully addressed by the advocates of that text. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I did not mean to suggest that I should be the one to decide that the outcome has been agreed. But thank you for the explanation. Please, how and when do we seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus on this thread? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look atWP:CONSENSUS and it says in the lead "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." So just because there is some disagreement doesn't mean that something should be excluded. But the count of editors above is also not the end of the matter. It would be better I think if the disagreement was more specific on details, we could then discuss it properly. But that policy does list a number of things someone who disagrees with the majority can do to get a check from a wider range of editors. If you don't have a problem with the inclusion I don't see that you need do anything, and it doesn't sound like you know more about the process and can provide help. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- 86.20.127.101: In this context, the term majority confuses me. At the moment, 3 editors favor the option Include as written and 3 favor Include with rewrite. However, Slatersteven maintains that if users say it needs a rewrite, that means by inference they object to the text as written, so it should be excluded from the article space. In other words, a vote for Include with rewrite is in effect the same as Exclude text. In that case, the 4 editors who favor either Include with rewrite or Exclude text are the majority here. (SPECIFICO has associated with both those options.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- 86.20.127.101: Although I note you state explicitly in an edit summary that your opting to Include with rewrite is
definitely not a vote for removal!
So I'm unsure whether to count you in Slatersteven's exclusionary majority by inference or not. It's all rather bewildering. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)- Denying that “Teenager” (Thordarson) is a “key witness” is simply untenable. As stated earlier, the current U.S. indictment against Assange mentions “Teenager” 33 times (more than any other witness other than Manning, who won’t be testifying) and places him as central to the allegations being made.
- I can see a case for trimming the Stundin/ Thordarson paragraph down a bit , and some polishing of the language, and would like to propose starting with the deletion of the final sentence in the paragraph beginning “Private eye...”. It seems to me, this repeats information already in the paragraph, and adds nothing of great importance. If we can get some agreement on this, and some other trimming (hopefully with wide agreement on this page first) maybe we’ll be a little closer to a tolerable consensus. Anyone out there happy with the “Private eye...” sentence removal (as a starting point and in the spirit of compromise)? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I support removal of the sentence beginning
Private Eye states
. Thank you for the suggestion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC) - I could live with that okay. I think the commentry by FAIR and Media Lens is definitely notable and should be included though. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm not saying I want everything deleted unless FAIR and Media Lens are included! Why on earth should it be necessary for me to say that, it's just ridiculous that assumption. It should be people have to say if they want it all deleted unless what they want is done. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I support removal of the sentence beginning
- 86.20.127.101: Although I note you state explicitly in an edit summary that your opting to Include with rewrite is
- 86.20.127.101: In this context, the term majority confuses me. At the moment, 3 editors favor the option Include as written and 3 favor Include with rewrite. However, Slatersteven maintains that if users say it needs a rewrite, that means by inference they object to the text as written, so it should be excluded from the article space. In other words, a vote for Include with rewrite is in effect the same as Exclude text. In that case, the 4 editors who favor either Include with rewrite or Exclude text are the majority here. (SPECIFICO has associated with both those options.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I had a look atWP:CONSENSUS and it says in the lead "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." So just because there is some disagreement doesn't mean that something should be excluded. But the count of editors above is also not the end of the matter. It would be better I think if the disagreement was more specific on details, we could then discuss it properly. But that policy does list a number of things someone who disagrees with the majority can do to get a check from a wider range of editors. If you don't have a problem with the inclusion I don't see that you need do anything, and it doesn't sound like you know more about the process and can provide help. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I did not mean to suggest that I should be the one to decide that the outcome has been agreed. But thank you for the explanation. Please, how and when do we seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus on this thread? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- First, I presume you realize that question is orthogonal to the principle of leaving the article alone until closure. The answer to your question is that we seek an "uninvolved" editor or Admin to evaluate consensus on such threads. I understand that your list above was a good-faith effort, but because you have been involved in recent edits here, you would not be the one to make such a determination. Second, we do not count heads. We try to evaluate the merits of the various arguments presented, with reference to WP policies and guidelines. Such principles have been raised here and not fully addressed by the advocates of that text. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Who gets to decide that the outcome of discussion on this section of the Talk page has been agreed? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- The issue is this: You should not insert material that has been reverted and is under active discussion on the talk page until the outcome of such discussion has been agreed. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please be more specific about the actual problems you see. What has weight wrong and what would be the correct weight? What is not verified? Whatis not neutral? What sources are not reliable? Try providing some text of your own. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Exclude text
- Until such a time as it becomes clear it has actually had an impact on the case and is not just an example of press hyperbole.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would be fine with this alternative as well. There's solid reasoning behind WP:NOTNEWS. Just look at the preposterous amount of space this article devotes to the so-called Rapporteur from the UN. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you be specific please about the bit of WP:NOTNEWS that is appliable here, thanks. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well lets see, its a fairly recent event, only covered in a few news sources, that seems to have had no impact so far.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the lack of coverage is notable in itself and we should include a bit about what Media Lens and others have said about that. But why exactly do you think then we should include things like the paragraph directly before about Julian Assange's half-brother touring the states as reported in the Star Tribune? Has the Star Tribune source been specificlly commented on by other reliable sources? Or exactly what criteria are you using? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have not say we should, in fact, I have argued on more than one occasion that the article is too long because it contains way too much trivia that really tells us nothing about the man.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- So exactly why is this more trivial that Assange's brother going around America to drum support? You never tried to remove that. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Does it occur to you I never knew it was there, as I said this is a very large article, and this was a new addition, not old content. Nor is wp:otherstuff a strong case for retention. Nopw if you want a debate about what we can remove, I am up for it, but two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't up to me to debate its inclusion if I see no problem with it being in, it is you who is complaing about stuff being included. Do you agree with the bit above saying that the stuff by "the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" should be removed too? Is that trivial? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Stop this, we are discussing the inclusion of the Sigurdur Thordarson nothing else. Any other issues have nothing to do with this. I also suggest you go back over the archive to see what I may have said about the inclusion of various passages, not that it is relevant. As there is an RFC this will be my last word here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't up to me to debate its inclusion if I see no problem with it being in, it is you who is complaing about stuff being included. Do you agree with the bit above saying that the stuff by "the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" should be removed too? Is that trivial? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Does it occur to you I never knew it was there, as I said this is a very large article, and this was a new addition, not old content. Nor is wp:otherstuff a strong case for retention. Nopw if you want a debate about what we can remove, I am up for it, but two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- So exactly why is this more trivial that Assange's brother going around America to drum support? You never tried to remove that. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have not say we should, in fact, I have argued on more than one occasion that the article is too long because it contains way too much trivia that really tells us nothing about the man.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the lack of coverage is notable in itself and we should include a bit about what Media Lens and others have said about that. But why exactly do you think then we should include things like the paragraph directly before about Julian Assange's half-brother touring the states as reported in the Star Tribune? Has the Star Tribune source been specificlly commented on by other reliable sources? Or exactly what criteria are you using? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well lets see, its a fairly recent event, only covered in a few news sources, that seems to have had no impact so far.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Famous supporters and detractors
I recently added a short subsection to the article which listed some high profile supporters of Julian Assange. Here’s the content (which went under the title “Famous supporters”):
- Notable individuals who have publicly supported Julian Assange include: Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei, Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, MIA, Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, Tulsi Gabbard, Bianca Jagger,[1] Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood,[2] John Pilger, Peter Tatchell, Michael Moore and Ken Loach.[3]
My addition was deleted with the following edit summary “:
- “Remove unencyclopedic, UNDUE, and unspecified text. Without statement as to what in Assange's long saga they support, it is also a BLP violation with respect to those listed.”
I accept the need to address those concerns. However, it seems to me desirable to mention these names in the article. After all, the people listed are high profile public personalities who have gone out of their way to make public statements in support of Assange (some might say risking their own reputations by doing so) - surely nobody would dispute that their public support is noteworthy. However, I now accept a need for balance demands that: we also list the names of some high profile detractors. I also accept that the blanket term “supporters” was too vague in this context.
So I would like to offer the following rewording, which I hope addresses the problems:
- Re-titled to “Famous supporters and detractors”
- Over the years many notable people have made public their views on Assange, his actions and his treatment. Those who have in some way spoken out in his defence or against his continued imprisonment include: Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei, Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, MIA, Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, Tulsi Gabbard, [[Bianca Jagger [4] Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood,[5] John Pilger, Peter Tatchell, Michael Moore and Ken Loach.[6]
- Notable public detractors and critics have included Lenin Moreno, Mitch McConnell, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton [4]
I am of course open to suggestions here (including more examples of detractors) but strongly feel something of this sort is warranted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the supporters have already been mentioned, together with specifics of their support, on the current version of the page. Those who have not yet been mentioned are Alice Walker, Roger Waters, Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood and Peter Tatchell, all of whom are notable. For obvious reasons it is harder to find critics of Assange. Criticism of Assange by the ones you mention is not on the current page. Burrobert (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure why this is relevant, so what if Pammy thinks he is great?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert Yes, fair point. One way forward could be to work some of my proposed material into the existing section “Assessments” - where a list of past supporters and detractors, and their statements/opinions are already included - instead of creating a new section. However a problem there is the position of the “Assessments” section in the article narrative/timeline – the section begins “Opinions of Assange at this time were divided” - the opinions quoted/discussed all derive from the 2010/2011 pre-asylum, pre U.S. indictment, pre imprisonment period. The Notables I listed are people who are, at this time, campaigning/speaking out about Assange’s predicament (imprisonment and potential extradition). Seems to me, that may warrant the separate section near the end of the article and repeating some of the names in that context. Slatersteven We can certainly drop Pamela Anderson from the list if you feel strongly on the point. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- She was just an example, why are any of these peoples views significant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven These are bright, well informed, and talented people who have put a lot of time and energy into fighting for causes – seems to me their opinions are at least as important and noteworthy as those of many other commentators quoted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Government officials and layers have expert or informed knowledge that is of value. As to any of the others, I think it has long been argued we already have to many talking heads.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even though many of these figures may well be bright, well informed, and talented people, few articles are improved by the addition of a list of unrelated or non expert supporters and detractors. Its like if we included Assange in a list of names who supported or criticised MIA's, Roger Waters', Pamela Anderson's, Bianca Jagger's, Brian Eno's, Chrissie Hynde's, Vivienne Westwood's careers; Assange is bright, well informed, and talented, but his opinion about their careers is not very useful and adds nothing. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven These are bright, well informed, and talented people who have put a lot of time and energy into fighting for causes – seems to me their opinions are at least as important and noteworthy as those of many other commentators quoted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- She was just an example, why are any of these peoples views significant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert Yes, fair point. One way forward could be to work some of my proposed material into the existing section “Assessments” - where a list of past supporters and detractors, and their statements/opinions are already included - instead of creating a new section. However a problem there is the position of the “Assessments” section in the article narrative/timeline – the section begins “Opinions of Assange at this time were divided” - the opinions quoted/discussed all derive from the 2010/2011 pre-asylum, pre U.S. indictment, pre imprisonment period. The Notables I listed are people who are, at this time, campaigning/speaking out about Assange’s predicament (imprisonment and potential extradition). Seems to me, that may warrant the separate section near the end of the article and repeating some of the names in that context. Slatersteven We can certainly drop Pamela Anderson from the list if you feel strongly on the point. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Julian Assange supporters outnumber his critics".
- ^ "Celebrities join protest to support Julian Assange".
- ^ "Jailed WikiLeaks founder finds celebrity support".
- ^ a b "Julian Assange supporters outnumber his critics".
- ^ "Celebrities join protest to support Julian Assange".
- ^ "Jailed WikiLeaks founder finds celebrity support".
- We have discussed this before. We need to discuss his supporters and detractors when and if it is important to the narrative. This article is already excessively long. Some people like Jemima Goldsmith and Donald Trump were supporters at one point and detractors at another. We cannot predict the future and say someone is going to be his supporter forever.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- We have discussed this before. We need to discuss his supporters and detractors when and if it is important to the narrative. This article is already excessively long. Some people like Jemima Goldsmith and Donald Trump were supporters at one point and detractors at another. We cannot predict the future and say someone is going to be his supporter forever.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is so far from NPOV that it's no surprise to see a section on his "supporters" without any consideration that the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory. When I have time, I'm going to go to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN and ask for some fresh eyes on this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- “the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory” – I would love to see your evidence for that claim – unless you are only counting the opinions of tired, bought and sold, hacks working for the plutocrat owned press corps (who have plenty of reasons of their own to dislike Assange). I think the article is biased against Assange - however we have drifted from the issue – The Article has information about people who want Assange extradited and imprisoned but not much about the wider protest movement that wants to see him released - some of those are celebrities, the mention of whom might make the article a little more interesting for casual readers and students of modern culture etc . Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- In my edit summary removing this text, and then a few days later in my talk page message to you, I cited the applicable WP policies and guidelines that you are ignoring. It's WP:IDHT for you to repeat your unsupported and erroneous POVs and suggested approach while failing to read and understand those policies. If you continue in this mode at some point it will need to stop. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO You said: “In my edit summary removing this text ...”. Your statement is misleading – If you read the above you will see I am proposing new text here and actually acknowledged your removal and edit summary, quoting it and saying “I accept the need to address those concerns”. I did read at least some of the material you referred to, and when composing my new text, took into account points made on those pages. So it seems to me I am trying to work collectively, to find a way forward – maybe invite some positive suggestions or compromise –it seems to me that your, yet again, making threats (even if more veiled than usual) is out of order here. Please try to be a little more constructive, and deal with specific issues regarding the text in hand Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven As you say; “Government officials and la[w]yers have expert or informed knowledge that is of value.” However they are not the only people who’s opinions are noteworthy or worth taking into account. They do of course, sometimes have agendas - or work for people who do - which may bias there pronouncements. – I think that particularly pertinent in the Assange case where he has stepped on a lot of toes and undermined some very powerful vested interests. I think it healthy and worthwhile to draw into the debate some people from outside the usual establishment bubble. I would also say that a short list of notables who have weighed in on the issue won’t add much to the length of the article and will add interest on the level of social/cultural impact of the Assange case Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bodney You said “few articles are improved by the addition of a list of unrelated or non expert supporters and detractors”. I think there may be a case for saying the Assange issue is one of the exceptions: For a notable person to come out in support of someone usually considered to be highly controversial, is noteworthy in itself. Also note these are nearly all seasoned campaigners for human rights issues; Informed people know this and are interested in their opinions. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again why? Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think? What does it tell us about Assange, that some people like him? In addition this is just a list, its not informative. (and we already do have (for example Pammy) views mentioned here). The article already sufferers form this kind of bloat, adding a list adds nothing other than words.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- You said “Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think” - I don’t buy your dismissal of these people – “Pammy” as you refer to Pamela Anderson, may well be a lightweight (I don’t really know a lot about her, but I early on in this debate conceded we could happily drop that name) the others though should not be dismissed so easily. As I’ve said most are seasoned campaigners for human rights issues and informed people know this and are interested in their opinions.Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again, the issue here is the list. We have many of these opinions already, lots of them (arguably too many). What we do not need is a puffery list. We need to reduce the number of words here, not increase them especially when it does not in fact tell us anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but how can you say “it does not in fact tell us anything” – It tells us that, some bright, well informed people – who have a very high public profile and a track record of fighting on human rights issues - have troubled to stick their necks for this cause, The fact is that literally millions of people around the world will be interested in what these people have to say, even if you personally are not – If you want to be consistent you might want to get the name Jane Fonda removed from pages concerning the Vietnam war or Joanna Lumley off the Gurkhas page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Or it tells us some celebrities think they will get a bit of kudos or free publicity. By the way, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As I said, we already have many of these views (the views, not just a list of names) here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Re. WP|OTHERSTUFF, I’m always a little disappointed when people share whole long wiki articles at me, when they could outline the specific statements/clauses which are relevant to the issue at hand. I do accept your “just a list of names” argument up to a point – I did give a little context with the “list of names “ grouping them as “notable people have made public their views on Assange, his actions and his treatment” and saying “[they] have in some way spoken out in his defence or against his continued imprisonment” – but yes this is rather vague language and I’m sure can be improved upon. I was rather hoping for some positive suggestions? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Or it tells us some celebrities think they will get a bit of kudos or free publicity. By the way, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As I said, we already have many of these views (the views, not just a list of names) here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but how can you say “it does not in fact tell us anything” – It tells us that, some bright, well informed people – who have a very high public profile and a track record of fighting on human rights issues - have troubled to stick their necks for this cause, The fact is that literally millions of people around the world will be interested in what these people have to say, even if you personally are not – If you want to be consistent you might want to get the name Jane Fonda removed from pages concerning the Vietnam war or Joanna Lumley off the Gurkhas page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again, the issue here is the list. We have many of these opinions already, lots of them (arguably too many). What we do not need is a puffery list. We need to reduce the number of words here, not increase them especially when it does not in fact tell us anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- You said “Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think” - I don’t buy your dismissal of these people – “Pammy” as you refer to Pamela Anderson, may well be a lightweight (I don’t really know a lot about her, but I early on in this debate conceded we could happily drop that name) the others though should not be dismissed so easily. As I’ve said most are seasoned campaigners for human rights issues and informed people know this and are interested in their opinions.Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again why? Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think? What does it tell us about Assange, that some people like him? In addition this is just a list, its not informative. (and we already do have (for example Pammy) views mentioned here). The article already sufferers form this kind of bloat, adding a list adds nothing other than words.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- In my edit summary removing this text, and then a few days later in my talk page message to you, I cited the applicable WP policies and guidelines that you are ignoring. It's WP:IDHT for you to repeat your unsupported and erroneous POVs and suggested approach while failing to read and understand those policies. If you continue in this mode at some point it will need to stop. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I have made my views clear, I do not see a need for a list of names, either supported or detractors. We need to reduce the amount of fluff in this article, not increase it. So I will now bow out for now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Slatersteven it would add very little of substance so there is no need for it. It will simply not improve the article. If we listed relevant political or human rights organisations or real experts that would maybe be different. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree too. This has been discussed before and rejected. I don't think we need a list. If we mention supporters and detractors in should be in the context of Assange's life. For example, Jemima Goldsmith was a supporter, but she didn't support his failure to surrender to the court. Lenin Moreno was a supporter until he turned against him. Trump was a supporter, but then his government indicted him. Etc. We can't just classify people as supporters for all time. There is also a long list at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. We don't need to reproduce it here, especially given that this article is overly long.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack, since you are here: You'll recall I tried to implement what I understood to be your suggestion that we trim the UNDUE emphasis given to the volunteer attorney called the "UN rapporteur", who seems to be an ardent supporter of Mr. Assange. A tag-team edit war quickly ensued to quash that edit, even after the extensive talk page discussion that supported it. At any rate, perhaps you might feel like turning your attention back to that and attempting something along the lines of what you were saying about that content. With the passage of time, it's even more clear that such content was out of all proportion to its significance. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given the position of the requesting and extraditing states as parties to the UN treaty which affords Melzer his position, and the extensive RS coverage, the emphasis is not undue. Any
talk page discussion that supported it
exists only in your imagination. There was no consensus to remove part of said material. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)- I suggest you review the talk page thread on this matter. Nobody suggested removal of Melzer, just giving it DUE WEIGHT commensurate with the sparse secondary endorsement of his views and lack of ongoing coverage of his advocacy. See the talk page discussion here SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. I'm not going to waste my own time looking for for something we both know isn't there. Cambial foliage❧ 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- For starters, in that thread you said Melzer's views, and the content of his reports to the General Assembly, are attributed: you needn't concern yourself with whether they are "
verified
" - an inacceptable editorial approach on WP. Further, the trim was supported by multiple editors including multiple Admins who reinstated it in the face of an edit war to reinstate the UNDUE text. Next step, I suppose, will be an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)- "
Inacceptable
" to you, fine. But that's of no consequence to the rest of us who understand content policy. A wide spectrum of RS establish his view on this subject as noteworthy. The UN (a reliable source frequently used as such on WP) establishes his view as noteworthy. The state parties establish his view as noteworthy (that’s why UK bothered to respond). These sources consider it noteworthy for reasons already given in the previous discussion. It's the attributed view of an individual whose view on this subject is considered important by reliable sources. If he said Assange was tortured, if he said Assange was a banana, it doesn’t matter. It's not presented as fact; it doesn’t need to be "verified
". You are free to continue imagining a consensus for a change you continually bring up but for which there is little interest. In the mean time, life goes on. Cambial foliage❧ 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- "
- For starters, in that thread you said Melzer's views, and the content of his reports to the General Assembly, are attributed: you needn't concern yourself with whether they are "
- No. I'm not going to waste my own time looking for for something we both know isn't there. Cambial foliage❧ 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest you review the talk page thread on this matter. Nobody suggested removal of Melzer, just giving it DUE WEIGHT commensurate with the sparse secondary endorsement of his views and lack of ongoing coverage of his advocacy. See the talk page discussion here SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given the position of the requesting and extraditing states as parties to the UN treaty which affords Melzer his position, and the extensive RS coverage, the emphasis is not undue. Any
- As I’m posting in this section I’ll give my tuppence (cents). A list of "famous" people who are supporters of a political prisoner is pointless and silly and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. We only give an individual's views where the individual is notable specifically for their views on that particular issue. It’s not pertinent whether TV stars or rock musicians support a cause. Cambial foliage❧ 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok - Not sure that I’d accept that the suggestion was “silly”, after all this is an encyclopaedia and not a court hearing: so that matters of social interest as well as legal and political technicalities seem to me acceptable (within reason) – However, I can see there are issues, and have pretty well accepted this is not going to fly – with no support, this one’s not worth pushing for. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict)I disagree on information about support (of a person or a cause) being generally "pointless": it is part of the "assessment" or "reception" and, actually, part of what make one person noteworthy and another maybe not. That being said, I think a "list of supporters and distractors" is not the encyclopedic way to handle that. In my opinion, it is done here fairly well [Julian Assange#Assessments|in the early part of the article], where noteworthy assessments of Wikileaks are summarized. (Similar paragraphs exist at the end of sections on "arrest", "espionage indictment", and "imprisonment" . If important voices of support or critique are missing, they should be added there (or in a similar manner regarding other aspects of his biography) rather than in a isolated list, which obscures when and regarding what the support or critique was expressed. --Qcomp (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Qcomp Those are all fair points - Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think that is valid. Also, if it is worth mentioning a person, it should be worth mentioning what they say, and if it's not worth mentioning what they say, it isn't worth mentioning the person. For example, in discussion extradition, we mention Noam Chomsky, but don't mention what he said. That is pretty pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict)I disagree on information about support (of a person or a cause) being generally "pointless": it is part of the "assessment" or "reception" and, actually, part of what make one person noteworthy and another maybe not. That being said, I think a "list of supporters and distractors" is not the encyclopedic way to handle that. In my opinion, it is done here fairly well [Julian Assange#Assessments|in the early part of the article], where noteworthy assessments of Wikileaks are summarized. (Similar paragraphs exist at the end of sections on "arrest", "espionage indictment", and "imprisonment" . If important voices of support or critique are missing, they should be added there (or in a similar manner regarding other aspects of his biography) rather than in a isolated list, which obscures when and regarding what the support or critique was expressed. --Qcomp (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Russian intelligence officers working with WikiLeaks?
The intro section includes the following sentence:
- “In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the material”
The citations provided do not support what is being said here regarding Russian intelligence officers working WITH WikiLeaks. A later CNN article notes:
- “Mueller reasoned that Stone and Assange could have been liable for the hacking conspiracy because they had helped to disseminate and maximize the impact of the stolen documents. But ultimately, Mueller wrote, the Justice Department "did not have admissible evidence," such as proof of an agreement and knowledge that the hack was ongoing, to secure conspiracy convictions.”[1]
I consequently changed the intro text from “...and working with WikiLeaks...” to “...using WikiLeaks...” (in line with the evidence/citations). And added the CNN supporting citation. My edit was reverted to the unsound version with the edit summery: “This is not an indictment” (I cannot work out what that has to do with the issue). Seems to me this needs addressing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Assange as journalist
This may have been covered before, in which case my apologies,but I wonder whether the issue of whether Assange as a journalist has been canvassed previously here. I know this is a controversial issue. I know that in 2011 Assange did win the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism amd I know his supporters use use the slogan that 'Journalism should not be criminalized', that is, implying that Assange is a journalist who is being criminalized for his acts of publication. On the other hand, I know that some journalists don't like Assange being described as a journalist, given that he has no formal qualifications nor accreditation in the field. Any thoughts? Redaction101 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the article Journalism under demographcs I see '61 percent specialized in journalism/communications at college'. So about 40% would be in the same boat as Assange. So I don't think much credence can be placed on that. Perhaps there's some other grounds for what they say? Is there some sources? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- It has been discussed a number of times and each time there has been no consensus to use the label "journalist". Here is a link to an RfC.Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_17#Request_for_Comment_-_Journalist You are able reopen the discussion. I don't think having formal qualifications or accreditation are necessary to being described as a journalist. Can you name names to support your statement that "some journalists don't like Assange being described as a journalist"? Burrobert (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of credentials, it's a matter of his actions. In the case of his collaboration with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton, he was not acting as a journalist. In some of his earlier actions, while they may not fit a classical definition of journalism, they may have been motivated by some of the same goals and principles that underlie mainstream investigative journalism. Labels are really not very useful for conveying complex information in this encyclopedia and are easily misinterpreted by our readers. They should be used only where they are clear and unambiguous. We cannot say that Assange is clearly and unambiguously a journalist. And this has nothing to do with the fact that some journalists, like some scientists, attorneys, or members of the US Congress, may also be criminals. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable. Even with a favourable RFC there would be a strong argument against inclusion, to maintain NPOV. Significant number of articles that refer to Assange as a journalist. Significant number of articles which expressly claim he is not a journalist. We do not pick a side in that debate, and except in the context of discussing the fact that the debate was occasioned by his arrest, the term should not be used. I think the only way you could seriously argue for inclusion is if you could show that the most reliable sources (i.e. scholarship) exclusively or overwhelmingly refer to him as a journalist. I don't think there's nearly enough in the literature to make that case, but happy to be proved wrong. Cambial foliage❧ 23:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- This, some say he is, some say he is not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, we had an RfC. It went from May to August 2019. I don't think we should devote any more time to this issue. Reopening the discussion when there is nothing new to say is pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
If Assange is a whistleblower, it belongs in the lead
On 17 August 2021, I removed Category:Australian whistleblowers with the edit summary Assange is Australian but this BLP does not assert—much less substantiate—that he is a whistleblower
. Jtbobwaysf soon reverted it with the edit summary i disagree
. If we are to categorize Assange as a whistleblower, we should describe him that way in the lead and cite WP:RS. The lead presently identifies him as an Australian editor, publisher and activist. Since Australian whistleblowers is a subcategory of Australian activists, the term whistleblower, being more specific, ought to replace activist in the lead. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand it a whistleblower is someone who reveals things about organizations they work for, not someone who reveals information about others.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, a whistleblower is
usually an employee
(emphasis added)—which suggests that outsiders may also be so described. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)- Then we need RS saying he is one, not our assumptions he is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think technically Assange is someone who gives a voice to whistleblowers, rather than being one himself. He is sometimes described as a "whistleblower", but including this in the lead instead of "activist" would lead to confusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- All the technical wrangling is cute, but there are too many sources. If you have a problem with it, pick one from the massive list. WP:OBVIOUS applies here. I am ok with someone stating he is a whistleblower in the lede. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: When I clicked your hyperlinked "massive list" Google found 71,800 results. Number 8 was an April 2019 op-ed in The Washington Post by Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and author of Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump. Her piece is headlined "The Mueller report confirms it: Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist." When I add whistleblower to the lede, would it be appropriate to include a {Disputed inline} template immediately following that word, and open a talk page section to explain that at least one notable scholar (and I am confident a more refined search would find others) disputes this categorization? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- An opinion piece wouldnt be an RS on this article. But if you can find other RS it could be stated that the term is controversial, I dont have any objection to it being referred to as controversial (assuming you can find RS to support it). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: When I clicked your hyperlinked "massive list" Google found 71,800 results. Number 8 was an April 2019 op-ed in The Washington Post by Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and author of Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump. Her piece is headlined "The Mueller report confirms it: Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist." When I add whistleblower to the lede, would it be appropriate to include a {Disputed inline} template immediately following that word, and open a talk page section to explain that at least one notable scholar (and I am confident a more refined search would find others) disputes this categorization? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- All the technical wrangling is cute, but there are too many sources. If you have a problem with it, pick one from the massive list. WP:OBVIOUS applies here. I am ok with someone stating he is a whistleblower in the lede. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think technically Assange is someone who gives a voice to whistleblowers, rather than being one himself. He is sometimes described as a "whistleblower", but including this in the lead instead of "activist" would lead to confusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then we need RS saying he is one, not our assumptions he is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia, a whistleblower is
- My understanding of the terms 'journalist' and 'whistleblower' are that a person can either be one or the other but, unless the whistleblower is blowing the whistle on the internal workings of a news operation, they are mutually exclusive terms. I don't particularly think that Assange is either a journalist or a whistleblower, but I feel strongly that he can't be both, because (approximately) no one can. Rks13 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure why whistleblower and journalist are necessarily mutually exclusive, but will leave that for a moment. Defining whistleblower is surprisingly complex. I'll have to go back to my local university library, but I recall looking at the International Handbook on Whistleblower Research on this issue, and from memory, the suggestion is made that a whistleblower is some kind of insider disclosing wrongdoing OR someone with inside information disclosing wrongdoing. That is a contemporary understanding. Clearly, a whistleblower cannot merely be someone criticizing an institution or a system. That is far too broad. I will post more here on here when I can reference the exact scholarly discussion on this point of defining whistleblower. Redaction101 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- From the National Whistleblower Center: ' A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower.' [4] The 'however...' makes it possible to be an outside whistleblower, but the definition makes it clear that that is not the standard circumstance. A journalist is an outsider who writes news stories by finding, verifying, and publishing information about wrongdoing, among other things, often using whistleblowers as sources. Taking the more restrictive and more common definition of a whistleblower as an insider, journalists could only act as whistleblowers when writing stories about wrongdoing within their own journalism operations. I have never read any suggestion that Assange was reporting on wrongdoing within Wikileaks; that's the only circumstance when his actions could qualify him as a whistleblower. Rks13 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure why whistleblower and journalist are necessarily mutually exclusive, but will leave that for a moment. Defining whistleblower is surprisingly complex. I'll have to go back to my local university library, but I recall looking at the International Handbook on Whistleblower Research on this issue, and from memory, the suggestion is made that a whistleblower is some kind of insider disclosing wrongdoing OR someone with inside information disclosing wrongdoing. That is a contemporary understanding. Clearly, a whistleblower cannot merely be someone criticizing an institution or a system. That is far too broad. I will post more here on here when I can reference the exact scholarly discussion on this point of defining whistleblower. Redaction101 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think this is simply a matter of RS. The question is whether it is useful for Wikipedia to use the Category:Australian whistleblowers for Assange. If you look at other people on the list they almost all reported on first-hand experience and almost all were supposedly exposing the underbelly of Australian society. Assange just doesn't fit in this group. What useful purpose is achieved by including him in this category? Will anyone who wants to find an "Australian whistleblower" want to find Assange?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
RFC inclusion of Sigurdur Thordarson claims
Statement: Should the following text be in the article?
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported that a key witness in the United States’ case against Assange had admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated earlier testimony that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament, as well as other allegations. Thordarson said he had been working with the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to a prosecution of Thordarson. According to the interview, Thordarson continued his criminal activities while working with the FBI with the promise of immunity from prosecution.[462] The Washington Post reported that Thordarson's testimony served as background for what Assange allegedly told Manning. The paper noted that supporters including Edward Snowden have said the admission of fabricated testimony undermines the case against Assange. However, their report states that the interview does not touch on the core allegations against Assange.[463] Private Eye states that the claims from the witness feature extensively in the UK court judgement, and that the U.S. hacking charges rely heavily on the testimony that the witness now admits was fabricated.[464]Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The text has been updated a bit and the current version is at Julian Assange#Appeal and other developments NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- It should not be updated during this RfC. Please reset it. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd agree if there was much controversy over the facts and edit warring. But there isn't. The RfC is about deleting it wholescale. In that case improving the text and references is a reasonable option to try and avoid avoid deletion. I'll add a citation to John Pilger since a reason for deletion is lack of major coverage. NadVolum (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a redline comparison of the text shown immediately above, as contributed by Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC), and the current version in our BLP.
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper,
reported thatinterviewed Sigurdur Thordarson, whom it described as a key witness in the United States’ case against Assangehad admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson. Thordarson told the paper he had fabricatedearliertestimony that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament, as well as other allegations. Thordarson said he had been working with the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the agencies would not sharewith Icelandic authoritiesinformation that could lead toahis prosecutionof Thordarson. According to the interview, Thordarson continued hisfor ongoing criminalactivities while working with the FBI with the promise of immunity from prosecutionactivity.[462][463][464] The Washington Post reported that Thordarson's testimony served as background for what Assange allegedly told Manning, and was not "the basis for charges". The paper noted that supporters including Edward Snowden have said the admission of fabricated testimony undermines the case against Assange. However, their report states that the interview does not touch on the core allegations against Assange.Private Eye states that the claims from the witness feature extensively in the UK court judgement, and that the U.S. hacking charges rely heavily on the testimony that the witness now admits was fabricated.[464][465] Some media critique and alternative news sources have commented on a lack of reportage by the major media sources on the retraction.[466][467]
Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Polling
- Include text There is a discussion above at #Witness Recants. A couple of editors in that discussion say it should be completely blanked out until such time as everybody is completely satisfied with the text, no specific objection has been raised that I can see except for the word key used by the original source and most others. I think the various views should be shown rather than just removing it, and I think the current text does that adequately - but I wouldn't go around trying to delete it wholesale if it didn't! 86.20.127.101 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. A key U.S. witness shown to be a serial fraudster, liar and sex offender, having made deals with the FBI to dish the dirt on Assange. This information can be found in mainstream sources. Yes – absolutely this material belongs in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. Inconsequential and lack of mainstream coverage indicates it has not been demonstrated to be significant. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- No for now. While the story has received attention in alternative media, it hasn't in mainstream media {beyond the WP article}. The WSWS even ran an article pointing that out. It doesn't matter why the information has been ignored, WP:WEIGHT precludes us from adding it to the article until it receives notice. TFD (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Include it is also covered the The Intercept, Iceland source, washington post, and intercept is more than enough for WP:DUE. We dont censor sourced content at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- That link didn't mention Thoradson but I found another by The Intercept that did The unprecedented and illegal campaign to eliminate Julian Assange. Why do you think the No's here would consider that a mainstream media which is what they seem to think is required to avoid removal? NadVolum (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No as my comment was moved I shall restate it here This has had no impact on the case (in the two months since this was announced), nor have any major news sources accepted this as true, or indeed covered it in any great depth. So there are issues of wp:undue and wp:notnews here (again after 2 months, not even a report about what the defense team has said). Indeed (and ironically?) its very lack of coverage is one of the justifications for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Include. WP and FAIR treat them as reliable and no one has provided evidence to the contrary. Applying WP:UNDUE is a bit tricky as the policy talks about representing majority and minority views, while here there is no majority view contradicting the facts in the Stundin article. Alaexis¿question? 13:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. Per TFD, this is a classic case of undue weight - there are insufficient mainstream sources on this that (1) exist and (2) demonstrate that this is encyclopedically/biographically important. Exclude. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. No evidence that this is significant - I searched the top (by circulation) UK newspaper, plus a few other UK and US mainstream sources, and I couldn't find any references to Sigurdur Thoradson except the (paywalled) Washington Post article that, I'm told, says that Sigurdur's recanting will not change the legal issues. If the legal proceedings change as a result of his recanting, or if mainstream sources pick it up, then this article should include it, but, given the lack of either, any weight seems like undue weight. Rks13 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No - Simply not enough coverage to justify its inclusion. I'm more than happy to change my vote as soon as this gets some traction in reliable sources, but so far it's only a small story that was picked up mainly by alternative media outlets. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes It is important for it to be included and there are reliable sources that reported it. Sea Ane (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I can't read it since it's behind a paywall, but IMO WaPo reporting on this is pretty strong evidence that this is sufficiently WP:WEIGHTy to be included. Loki (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, include sentence, but no more unless this turns out to play a major part in Assange's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. The Washington Post notes that the interview with Thordarson took place and that the claims were made, but does not verify his claims as fact, just that they were made, and also notes that
...the Icelandic article (referring to the one in Stundin), which contains no direct quotes from Thordarson, does not touch on the core allegations against Assange.
Since WaPo is certainly the "centerpiece" source here, and states that Thordarson's retractions do not impact the core of the case, I think we're well into undue weight territory until and unless further developments make clear that Thordarson's retraction really has had a substantial impact, or unless it is more widely covered in general. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. Needs much better RS covering. This is backed an interview (mentioned by WaPo) which has not been independently verified. These claims need much better backup than that. This is far below the necessary threshold per WP:REDFLAG. Dead Mary (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak exclude. The level of coverage does not seem to reach that required. If included, the text could be cut back substantially (Snowden is not an expert on general legal matters, nor on this case in particular, and we don't know what exactly he was told). If the 'revelation' was likely to impact the UK extradition hearings, we could reasonably expect to have heard something in UK media by now. Pincrete (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me. There's lots of support by famous people but that doesn't count for such an opinion. I've read a proper lawyer saying it is actually key but that wasn't a major media source. I'll remove it, hope that's not too bold! NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I reworded it to ensure that "including Edward Snowden" appears not in Wikipedia's voice but in that of our cited source, The Washington Post, which in this instance singled out Snowden among WikiLeaks supporters. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that. I think if this features in the appeal on extradition, we can expect it to be reported after it is raised in court, not prior to that.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me. There's lots of support by famous people but that doesn't count for such an opinion. I've read a proper lawyer saying it is actually key but that wasn't a major media source. I'll remove it, hope that's not too bold! NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
Who are you? Burrobert (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
What are the references to which those citation numbers would lead? It would be very helpful to be able to see that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- So this has had no impact on the case (in the two months since this was announced). Nor does it seem to have been picked up by major news sources (other than one (and maybe two if you count private eye as a major news source), which seems to dismiss this as not all that important (apart from private eye)). So there are issues of wp:undue and wp:notnews here (again after 2 months, not even a report about what the defense team has said). Indeed (and ironically?) its very lack of coverage is one of the justifications for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here are sources from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and Media Lens and Jacobin (magazine) discussing the lack of coverage.
- MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- "A Remarkable Silence: Media Blackout After Key Witness Against Assange Admits Lying". Media Lens. 1 July 2021. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- Marcetic, Branko (10 July 2021). "The Julian Assange Media Blackout Must End". jacobinmag.com. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- I think they confer notability in themselves NadVolum (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again all low key sources, and yes this is the argument I was referring to with "Indeed (and ironically?) its very lack of coverage is one of the justifications for inclusion". As I said, no major news sources have picked this story up, so this violates wp:undue. But all of this can be read in the section above. No new arguments are being made. So it is time to let fresh voices have a say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Errr, you do know you have just chosen the not to include option?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It was edited by another editor to reverse what I intended. NadVolum (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I realize that now, I have warned them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It was edited by another editor to reverse what I intended. NadVolum (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here are sources from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and Media Lens and Jacobin (magazine) discussing the lack of coverage.
The sources
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
"Icelandic Saga". Private Eye (1553). London: Pressdram Ltd. 6 August 2021.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. So, as those go, Washington Post is considered generally reliable. I don't see any discussion as to whether Stundin is or is not, but in our own article about Private Eye, it seems to be a rather sensationalist source that should be treated as questionable. So, I think it may make sense to wait until there is more source material available about the matter; Wikipedia isn't really intended to be a breaking news source. If it turns out to be a significant development in the case, I am sure it will be more widely covered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The very first paragraph of Private Eye says "The publication is widely recognised for its prominent criticism and lampooning of public figures. It is also known for its in-depth investigative journalism into under-reported scandals and cover-ups". I don't think the first sentence negates the second. NadVolum (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- As to your query abiut Stundin's reliability I've raised a query at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Stundin_a_reliable_source.NadVolum (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The policy UNDUE is completely irrelevant. NPOV means we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." We do not infer, or more accurately imagine, the position taken by hundreds of other sources from the fact they haven’t published anything on the subject. That’s (extremely poor) original research. We do not need to give it any weight, and there is not undue emphasis here. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see WP:WEIGHT goes to exactly the same place. I think the relevant bit is "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspect". I don't see anything about totally removing anything which is actually covered in a major news site and where there are no sources disputing the basic facts and there are lots of less important reliable sources covering it. The only bit I see about removing on that ground is "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia". It also says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources,", it does not say amongst major media sources. NadVolum (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I note the new source says it is only a claim he is a key witness and so far it has had no effect. So no it can't be used to support the test as written, the RFC is about that text.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I realise that you have put forward text that has already been included in the article, however you are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been more productive and simpler to first ask whether Thordarson’s recanting should be mentioned in the article. If this proposal was accepted we could then have discussed wording. There may be editors who support mentioning Thordarson but do not like the exact wording you have put forward. For example, some editors have mentioned that calling Thordarson a “key witness” is not warranted at this stage. Burrobert (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is the text that was included without consensus, so it is the text we discuss. As I have said in other forums here, we discuss the specific text, not blank cheques. That is why we have wp:brd, once reverted you discuss, you do not add it back and then argue "but we can discuss the exact wording".Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- "this is the text that was included without consensus, so it is the text we discuss". You should take responsibility for the wording of the RfC. It didn't come about by an Act of God.
- "we discuss the specific text, not blank cheques". The RfC guide gives an example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". Something similar here would have been preferable: "Should the article mention that Thordarson recanted his testimony?".
- Anyway, we can't unscramble the egg.
- Burrobert (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- What?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is the text that was included without consensus, so it is the text we discuss. As I have said in other forums here, we discuss the specific text, not blank cheques. That is why we have wp:brd, once reverted you discuss, you do not add it back and then argue "but we can discuss the exact wording".Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven you said: "this is the text that was included without consensus" If by “consensus” you mean unanimous agreement, then you are correct, but since such an ideal state of affairs hardly ever occurs on the Assange page, we are effectively forced to put edits out which don’t please everyone. I yesterday removed the last sentence in the paragraph under discussion (reacting to complaints of article bloat which I thought I’d take a step toward addressing) so I hope editors take into account that the paragraph quoted above has now been altered, and that compromise is being sought. Editors should also note a long discussion on the text including a vote (the majority voting for including the text in some form or another – with little support for complete removal) so “without consensus” seems a little unfair. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No it does not have to be unanimous, but it has to be a rather greater difference than we have here. And the fact the text is being altered during this RFC is why it should be removed until we have decided what to say. As any discussion will always be about the last version. That is what BRD is about, making sure everyone is on the same page with what to include.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was referring to the Second law of thermodynamics, which says you can't unscramble an egg. Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- And what relevance does this have?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note WP:ONUS is also clear, we do not have to make a case for exclusion, you have to make a case for inclusion, and until then this should not be in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You say “we do not have to make a case for exclusion”. I don’t think that’s right – we are supposed to be seeking consensus here, not hiding behind interpretations of rules.
- Yes WP|Onus says “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” However, in this instance, the majority who want some form of inclusion have already gone to great trouble to find consensus. The “case[s] for inclusion” have been made on this page many times already – they are compelling in my opinion. Overriding the opinions of a majority, and - in this instance - simply erasing material until an open ended series of discussions and appeals reach a satisfactory conclusion, would not be a helpful way forward.Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- But involved users do not get to decide their arguments are completing, after all, I think mine are as well. Ans yes "until an open ended series of discussions and appeals reach a satisfactory conclusion" is how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was referring to the Second law of thermodynamics, which says you can't unscramble an egg. Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No it does not have to be unanimous, but it has to be a rather greater difference than we have here. And the fact the text is being altered during this RFC is why it should be removed until we have decided what to say. As any discussion will always be about the last version. That is what BRD is about, making sure everyone is on the same page with what to include.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven you said: "this is the text that was included without consensus" If by “consensus” you mean unanimous agreement, then you are correct, but since such an ideal state of affairs hardly ever occurs on the Assange page, we are effectively forced to put edits out which don’t please everyone. I yesterday removed the last sentence in the paragraph under discussion (reacting to complaints of article bloat which I thought I’d take a step toward addressing) so I hope editors take into account that the paragraph quoted above has now been altered, and that compromise is being sought. Editors should also note a long discussion on the text including a vote (the majority voting for including the text in some form or another – with little support for complete removal) so “without consensus” seems a little unfair. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
In the discussion above titled “Where we stand” (which I believe you initiated) votes where invited for, “Include text as written”, “ Include text with rewrite”, or “exclude text”. Only two opted for “exclude text”, one of them was yourself, the other was an editor who had also voted for “Include text with rewrite” ie voted twice. An earlier headcount had 9 wanting to keep text in some form or another and the same 2 for exclude. You cannot expect to be allowed to exclude the text based on that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have perviously been referred to WP:ONUS. There is not consensus to include. You have also been told we do not count votes. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: There is and always has been consensus to include, as I documented two days ago. When I asked you who gets to decide the outcome of this discussion, you replied that we must seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus. When I asked you how and when do we seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus, you did not reply. The next day, Slatersteven opened an RFC. I presume we must now wait until the RFC runs its course before seeking an Admin to evaluate consensus. Do I correctly understand the process going forward? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven You certainly did some bold edits without consensus there. In your first edit you removed the following:
- “The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated earlier testimony that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament, as well as other allegations. Thordarson said he had been working with the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to a prosecution of Thordarson. According to the interview, Thordarson continued his criminal activities while working with the FBI with the promise of immunity from prosecution.”
- You gave as justification “Then lets give the same weight to an RS, and let’s not say the claim is true.”
In fact the text you removed (above) made no claims about what is true, other than the implicit assertion that the Stundin reporter is telling the truth when he says Thordarson told him these things. Where you suggesting the reporter was lying? Surly not? The text that has replaced it works so hard to cast doubt on the entire business that IMO has become a dog’s dinner that fails to scan properly. We need to talk about these changes because, as they stand I can’t see many people regarding them as an improvement. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- It also did not make it clear they were in fact unverified claims (which it now does). And I do not say the claims may not be true, an RS does. That is the whole point, the best source for this says exactly what I added (in fact its a direct quote). We go with the best sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Basket and Prunes, you need to read our PaG's to learn how WP operates. You cant ask others to be your tutors. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: Your condescension towards me as a new editor is unappreciated. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven You are missing the point – you seem to have erased material and given an erroneous reason for doing so – unless you really are claiming the Stundin journalist is lying? At least you could now clarify what you meant, in your edit summary, by “...let’s not say the claim is true” [5]. Which claim (please be specific)? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No I am saying an RS has implied they are, so we have to go with what the RS says. We can't imply or say it is a fact when it is just their opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Where exactly does the requirement as in 'there are insufficient mainstream sources on this' come from in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? There has been wide coverage and analysis in reliable sources, just not in corporate media. WP:WEIGHT just talks about reliable sources. In particular that says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Saying mainstream media is giving prominence to prevalence in the general public rather than to reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what difference it makes but as far as I can make out the Washington Post article just copied the bit about Thordarson from (icelandic). This was by DV (newspaper) from which Stundin was formed by an exodus of staff from DV after a hostile takeover. As far as reliability is concerned we're probably talking about two competing Icelandic papers! NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- It was mentioned at the RSN discussion that Stundin wwsn't one of the top ten Icelandic newspapers by web ranking. I checked the top three of the ones they mentioned and all three mentioned this topic. Ten MPs call upon US to drop charges because of the retraction (icelndic), Siggi The Hacker, Wikileaks And The Lost American, Siggi The Hacker, Key Assange Witness, Admits to Perjury, [source of WaPo coverage?(icelandic). Or is he whole of Iceland too small to count? NadVolum (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
|
- @NadVolum: WP:SOAPBOX advises that
article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject
. Please confine yourself to suggestions on how to improve the Assange BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- What I was pointing out is that requiring wide coverage in the major US media is probably not a way to get a neutral point of view on this particular matter. Read Wikipedia's own Media bias in the United States on political and corporate bias. There is wide coverage otherwise in reliable sources. Media analysis sources have specifically remarked on the strange omission in the major media. That is not evidence that it should be omitted, that is strong reliable evidence that it is notable and should be included. Otherwise Wikipedia's coverage becomes synonymous with Associated Press and Reuters. NadVolum (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Has anyone said we can only use American sources?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- See just above from SPECIFICO "I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue". NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then that would be wrong, any major news service would be usable, be it UK, Australia or wherever.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Iceland, etc. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well a lot depends on the definition of major, what I am talking about are those with an international reputation for accuracy and coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven:Please don't validate Nad's misrepresentation of my position by responding to the straw man. You should be aware I did not disqualify broad coverage from other venues. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Misreprepresentation"? How about "misunderstanding", that should work far better for you in this sort of circumstance. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Straw man? You said regarding a news report in one of Iceland’s leading news outlets: “This is not a local story about the reindeer olympics. I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue”: In what possible context is that ok? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "that", Prune? I don't know what you are asking.
- Nad: No, we're not here to misunderstand one another repeated and biased "misunderstandings" suggests misrepresentation. Nobody has stated that mainstream US sources are the only significant sources, but it's a much tougher lift when the home domecile apparently does not consider this matter significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Straw man? You said regarding a news report in one of Iceland’s leading news outlets: “This is not a local story about the reindeer olympics. I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue”: In what possible context is that ok? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Misreprepresentation"? How about "misunderstanding", that should work far better for you in this sort of circumstance. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Iceland, etc. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then that would be wrong, any major news service would be usable, be it UK, Australia or wherever.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- See just above from SPECIFICO "I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue". NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Has anyone said we can only use American sources?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- What I was pointing out is that requiring wide coverage in the major US media is probably not a way to get a neutral point of view on this particular matter. Read Wikipedia's own Media bias in the United States on political and corporate bias. There is wide coverage otherwise in reliable sources. Media analysis sources have specifically remarked on the strange omission in the major media. That is not evidence that it should be omitted, that is strong reliable evidence that it is notable and should be included. Otherwise Wikipedia's coverage becomes synonymous with Associated Press and Reuters. NadVolum (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: WP:SOAPBOX advises that
- I think some editors are losing sight of the legal state of play. A British judge has refused Assange's extradition to the USA on mental health grounds. This is currently being appealed by US prosecutors. The "key witness" at this point is the defence psychiatrist. We are a long way from a prosecution in the USA, if it ever happens. What part Thordarson's testimony will play in Assange's life is at this point unclear, but it seems likely very little.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: The only occurrence in our Assange BLP of the term "key witness" is sourced to Stundin:
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, interviewed Sigurdur Thordarson, whom it described as a key witness in the United States' case against Assange.
Please provide WP:RS to support your counter-assertion thatThe "key witness" at this point is the defence psychiatrist.
We must be clear that the defence psychiatrist is not a witness of any sort—key or otherwise—in the U.S. Department of Justice's superseding indictment against Julian Assange. And it's that indictment that Stundin is reporting on, not the appeal presently lodged in the High Court of Justice in London. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)- What exactly is the point of that comment? It only underlines the truth of what I said, and highlights the fact that this discussion is going down the rabbit hole of discussing a legal battle which is not the one Assange currently faces, and may be one he never has to face.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland By that logic perhaps the U.S. courts should not have bothered spending hundreds of man hours drawing up two indictments against Assange: because he may never be extradited? That just won’t wash – there is a real possibility of Assange facing these charges in the U.S., and people interested in Assange will be interested in the validity of those charges – which are, it seems to a lot of people, at least somewhat undermined by the character of a witness and the way the FBI have behaved. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not really up to us to decide if things are key, just to try and report stuff in reliable sources with a neutral point of view. But the point here is that the main charges are of 'conspiring to obtain'. That's flatly contradicted by Chelsea Manning as she says she got no encouragement or help from Wikileaks or Assange, it was her own decision. However for instance if the prosecution can show Assange is some evil person encouraging and helping others to hack into things then that can be ignored, she'll be a good American turned by and defending an evil hacker rather than a whistleblower. The evil bit is easy because of the rape charges, and Thordarson was going to provide the encouraging and helping to hack into government sites to cause trouble to them side of things. Not saying that's what they would actually do of course, I'm no lawyer. NadVolum (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: It's not true that Chelsea Manning "flatly contradicted" the 2020 superseding indictment's allegation that Assange conspired with Manning to crack an encrypted password hash that would have enabled her to hack into a computer file accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges, which Manning did not have. She never mentioned that incident in her sworn statement during the 2013 pretrial court-martial hearing to which you allude, and prosecutors were forbidden by rule to cross-examine her on that occasion. She refused to testify before the 2019 grand jury in the case, and thereafter has said nothing publicly about this issue. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- See Forensic expert questions US claims that Julian Assange conspired to crack military password, evidence by a former criminal investigator in the US army. It really does need something like Thordarson's evidence to get anything to hang together. Removed speculation NadVolum (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: At 17:32 24 August 2021 in one thread on this talk page, you asserted
I made no speculations nor did I ask for any
and added in your edit summaryNo speculations here
. At 17:56, 24 August 2021 in another thread on this talk page, you remarkedSounds like a joke to me but that's just speculation
. It's unhelpful for you to speculate on any thread here. Please desist. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)- Removed that, Sorry. I came back to remove it but you beat me to it. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: When deleting content from one of your talk page contributions to which another editor has already responded, please use Wiki markup strikeout formatting; thus
Sounds like a joke to me but that's just speculation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: When deleting content from one of your talk page contributions to which another editor has already responded, please use Wiki markup strikeout formatting; thus
- Removed that, Sorry. I came back to remove it but you beat me to it. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: At 17:32 24 August 2021 in one thread on this talk page, you asserted
- See Forensic expert questions US claims that Julian Assange conspired to crack military password, evidence by a former criminal investigator in the US army. It really does need something like Thordarson's evidence to get anything to hang together. Removed speculation NadVolum (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: It's not true that Chelsea Manning "flatly contradicted" the 2020 superseding indictment's allegation that Assange conspired with Manning to crack an encrypted password hash that would have enabled her to hack into a computer file accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges, which Manning did not have. She never mentioned that incident in her sworn statement during the 2013 pretrial court-martial hearing to which you allude, and prosecutors were forbidden by rule to cross-examine her on that occasion. She refused to testify before the 2019 grand jury in the case, and thereafter has said nothing publicly about this issue. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly is the point of that comment? It only underlines the truth of what I said, and highlights the fact that this discussion is going down the rabbit hole of discussing a legal battle which is not the one Assange currently faces, and may be one he never has to face.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: The only occurrence in our Assange BLP of the term "key witness" is sourced to Stundin:
More reliable media have reported on this: The Hill, The Wire. Alaexis¿question? 12:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Williamson bit would be the very essence of UNDUE content. She polls at less than 1% last time I checked. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify an earlier comment about Baraitser's judgment. In the 132 page document, she mentions "Teenager" 22 times. Manning is mentioned 143 times, Kopelman 43 times.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@ JackUpland Not sure to what “earlier comment” you are referring, but just in case it’s mine you need to know that, in my stats I was referring to the U.S. Second superseding indictment | here – which is the most relevant document re. “teenager” and includes him 33 times. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify by "earlier comment" I was not referring to your comment. Obviously.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just looking at that I see a particularly important mention of teenager in what's titled "First Strand (Count 2)" which is all about hacking and ties Teenager and Ms Manning together. Strand 2 doesn't talk about Teenager, but talks about aided and abetted but that seems to be because the UK law has 'or' in it and that's enough rather than what is in the US charge which seems to require knowingly inducing and wilfully causing Ms Manning to disclose information as well as things like that. Strand 3 about actually disclosing the documents is counts 15 to 17 and seems to be the only one where Teenage wouldn't be involved in proving a case in the US. Basically most of the case is that he conspired to obtain the documents and a little to that he released them. It isn't called the 'First' Strand for nothing.
- The point is that some reliable sources say key. The Washington Post says not. There is no good reason to dismiss key as a real possibility just on the say so of the Washington Post. If if he is very possibly key it should be in. NadVolum (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum I agree – The Washington Post does not always get things right and every source has it’s biases – There’s no doubt in my mind that “teenager" is a key witness. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
interview.de/film/inside-julian-assange
https://archive.is/8qmul .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. But I can't see it being part of a bio here. I think probably the article should be split a little to be more manageable and then perhaps it could go in one of the parts as an external reference. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Why did Assange go to the Ecuadorian embassy?
As a matter of interest - has anyone really explained why he didn't just go back to Sweden to face the rape charge but went to the Ecudorian embassy? The business about being more likely to be sent to the US from Sweden just doesn't make sense to me. He was just as discredited or more by having the charges outstanding, and even if convicted the sentence would have had to to be pretty small. NadVolum (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well I know what I think, but I am not an RS [[6]] is clear it was because he was about the be extradited to Sweeden to face the rape allegations. Assange said he thought Sweden would extradite him to the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think this article would be much improved if we'd pretend it's an article about an archaelogical site or geological formation. Just research what the bulk of mainstream reliable sources present and forget all this endless, tiresome, pointless speculation and hero worship that has driven scores of good editors to avoid the article. With due respect, this is not a matter of interest. It's a distraction we should not endulge. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly what SPECIFICO says. Speculation like this is pointless, and ranges into not a forum territory anyway. Certainly speculate all you like in your own mind, but for purposes of writing the article, the question isn't what we as editors think or speculate, it is "Well, what do the best available sources say about that?". The answer to that question, and that alone, determines what we ought to put into the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I made no speculations nor did I ask for any. I was asking a question about what I see as a strange matter. You can think of it as directed enquiry. If at SPECIFICO's archaelogical site one uncovers a wall going east west not mny people would ignore it as senseless to wonder what it might be of and just continue digging north south. NadVolum (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- We have discussed this general topic several times in the past few years. His decision to enter the embassy was complex. As we note in the article, he said that the Swedish allegations were a radical feminist conspiracy and a pretext to extradite him to the USA. However, at that point there was no US indictment. He clearly expected to be able to go to Ecuador and not to be confined to the embassy for seven years and then face prison after that. There is a tendency to assume that Assange's comments and actions were highly rational, based on sound legal advice, and prescient. This is a false assumption.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes I guess assuming rationality isn't always sensible. NadVolum (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Further to that, NadVolum,
Some of Mr Assange's closest associates first learnt of his decision to seek political asylum when journalists rang them seeking comment overnight
[7]. I think perhaps this should be in the article. We have a series of explanations for his decision, which as you say, don't make much sense, but we don't say that this decision was made with minimal if any consultation. After all, this is a pivotal decision in his life and probably deserves better explanation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Further to that, NadVolum,
- Thanks. Yes I guess assuming rationality isn't always sensible. NadVolum (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- We have discussed this general topic several times in the past few years. His decision to enter the embassy was complex. As we note in the article, he said that the Swedish allegations were a radical feminist conspiracy and a pretext to extradite him to the USA. However, at that point there was no US indictment. He clearly expected to be able to go to Ecuador and not to be confined to the embassy for seven years and then face prison after that. There is a tendency to assume that Assange's comments and actions were highly rational, based on sound legal advice, and prescient. This is a false assumption.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I made no speculations nor did I ask for any. I was asking a question about what I see as a strange matter. You can think of it as directed enquiry. If at SPECIFICO's archaelogical site one uncovers a wall going east west not mny people would ignore it as senseless to wonder what it might be of and just continue digging north south. NadVolum (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note that there never were any rape charges. Assange went to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to seek political asylum, which he was granted, on the basis that Ecuador viewed his fears of political persecution by the United States as justified. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I will try to answer the question about why Assange chose to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy by listing what he knew at that time:
- There was a US grand jury investigation into Assange. This was known at the time as evidenced by numerous stories in the media. E.g. "In November 2010, US Attorney-General Eric Holder said there was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation" into WikiLeaks. It emerged from legal documents leaked over the ensuing months that Assange and others were being investigated by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia".(From Assange’s wiki page). "The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial".[1][2]
- Wikileaks publications had embarrassed Sweden. Wikileaks disclosures had presented evidence of secret agreements between Swedish government officials and the CIA and FBI regarding the channelling to USA of political and private information of Swedish subjects. This was done without the legal-necessary clearance of the Swedish Parliament, to keep the public unaware and avoid risking the pro-USA collaboration of the Swedish authorities. Sweden has an on-going strategic, military and political-police intelligence operation with the USA (the Pentagon, CIA and FBI). Among other things, this compromises sensitive data of the Swedish population, as disclosed by Wikileaks.
- Since the year 2000, the U.S. has requested the extradition of seven citizens from Sweden. Five of the requests were approved, and two were rejected because the suspects were no longer believed to be in Sweden.
- Sweden had participated in the US extraordinary rendition process. (see also Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery).
- The Stratfor leaks revealed a plan to tie Assange up for years in a legal quagmire: "Julian Assange was a frequent topic of discussion in emails from Stratfor staff in the period 2010–2012. Emails from Fred Burton (Stratfor's Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, and former Deputy Chief of the Department of State) indicated that he knew in January 2011 about a United States Government secret indictment against Assange. Stratfor emails gave a suggested strategy for dealing with Assange: "move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years" and "[bankrupt] the asshole first ... ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy" ". (From 2012–13 Stratfor email leak).
Burrobert (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the extent of planning that went into Assange's decision, we have this:
- "The drama being played out before us may be sticking to a well-rehearsed script, with asylum perhaps offered months ago during an interview between Assange and the Ecuadorean president ... On Assange's newly-launched television talk show which interviewed Correa via videolink earlier this year the pair swapped jokes and messages of encouragement. It was during the interview that Assange received an offer of asylum, according to a woman who was present during the shows and familiar with the offer".[2]
- Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks. So fearing extradition from Sweden after being tied up there for a while was not just paranoia, it had a sensible basis. NadVolum (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- It was a rational decision based on what he would have known at the time. The events that followed have vindicated his decision:
- A secret indictment was unsealed.
- The US has requested his extradition.
- He will be stuck in a legal quagmire for the foreseeable future.
- The situation is worse than he may have known. If he is extradited to the US, his case will be heard in the infamous espionage court in the Eastern District of Virginia. There will be limits on the type of defences that Assange can use and any jury will be chosen from a community that has a high proportion of intelligence services personnel, which is why the US chooses that district for its espionage cases. John Kiriakou, who was in the same court, said "No national security defendant has ever won a case in the EDVA. In my case, I asked Judge Brinkema to declassify 70 documents that I needed to defend myself. She denied all 70 documents. And so I had literally no defense for myself and was forced to take a plea".
- Burrobert (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- You have made a quagmire of words.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- It was a rational decision based on what he would have known at the time. The events that followed have vindicated his decision:
- Regarding the extent of planning that went into Assange's decision, we have this:
- The issue of planning seems to be a valid area for improvement of this article. We don't really explain what Assange hoped to achieve from entering the embassy. The likelihood that he would be stuck there was raised by journalists immediately.[2] Did he not realise this or did he actually plan to stay there indefinitely?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Julian Assange's right to asylum | Glenn Greenwald". the Guardian. 20 June 2012. Retrieved 25 August 2021.
- ^ a b c Topping, Alexandra; Batty, David; Malik, Shiv (20 June 2012). "Julian Assange requests asylum at Ecuador embassy - Wednesday 20 June". the Guardian. Retrieved 25 August 2021.
- It appears that Assange intended to get "safe passage" out of the embassy,[8][9][10] but I can't find a source which explicitly says that. The Correa interview mentioned above occurred in April 2012. Assange said he was prompted to enter the embassy by a letter from the Australian government which was apparently issued in May. As stated in the article, the Supreme Court of the UK rejected his appeal on 30 May. Assange entered the embassy on 19 June. Ecuador granted him asylum on 16 August. It is quite possible that Assange and Correa talked about asylum in April, but it doesn't sound like a firm decision had been made. It seems clear from the sources that Assange did not discuss the move with many of his close supporters or his legal team. No one seems to have said they knew about it beforehand. As I said, I think this is a valid question, but I can't find a comprehensive answer.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- According to CNN in July 2019, diplomats initially "hoped to take Assange swiftly to Ecuador" in the summer of 2012. "But that plan stalled amid British refusals to allow Assange safe passage outside the embassy. So he settled in for a protracted stay." CNN does not report that Assange expected safe passage onward before entering the embassy. But CNN does indicate that Ecuadoran diplomats thought it was at least possible from within the embassy once he was there. This of course proved false; yet it shows the wishful thinking prevalent in Assange's newfound environment, and suggests that if Julian considered safe passage a realistic option, he was not alone in that mistaken belief. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. It appears that Ecuadorians thought it was possible. The British media seems to have immediately concluded it was highly unlikely.[1] On 16 August, British foreign secretary William Hague said,
We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so... The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum.
[11] Ecuador and Britain have different asylum laws.[12] Assange may have been misled by the fact that he didn't discuss his plan widely. He may have received assurances from the Ecuadorian government that he could get safe passage to Ecuador. But we really don't have enough information to say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. It appears that Ecuadorians thought it was possible. The British media seems to have immediately concluded it was highly unlikely.[1] On 16 August, British foreign secretary William Hague said,
- According to CNN in July 2019, diplomats initially "hoped to take Assange swiftly to Ecuador" in the summer of 2012. "But that plan stalled amid British refusals to allow Assange safe passage outside the embassy. So he settled in for a protracted stay." CNN does not report that Assange expected safe passage onward before entering the embassy. But CNN does indicate that Ecuadoran diplomats thought it was at least possible from within the embassy once he was there. This of course proved false; yet it shows the wishful thinking prevalent in Assange's newfound environment, and suggests that if Julian considered safe passage a realistic option, he was not alone in that mistaken belief. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- It appears that Assange intended to get "safe passage" out of the embassy,[8][9][10] but I can't find a source which explicitly says that. The Correa interview mentioned above occurred in April 2012. Assange said he was prompted to enter the embassy by a letter from the Australian government which was apparently issued in May. As stated in the article, the Supreme Court of the UK rejected his appeal on 30 May. Assange entered the embassy on 19 June. Ecuador granted him asylum on 16 August. It is quite possible that Assange and Correa talked about asylum in April, but it doesn't sound like a firm decision had been made. It seems clear from the sources that Assange did not discuss the move with many of his close supporters or his legal team. No one seems to have said they knew about it beforehand. As I said, I think this is a valid question, but I can't find a comprehensive answer.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Swedish charges?
It has been said repeatedly — and just now — stated that Assange wasn't charged in Sweden. However, this says that There is no such thing as being charged in Swedish law
. If so, the statement that there were no Swedish charges is rather hollow and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- seems valid, we need to make this clear.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- The statement is in a Guardian blog and is being made by "Dan Lucas who used to be the UK correspondent for Dagens Nyheter, the leading morning paper in Sweden. He covered the Assange extradition drama, but notes that he is NOT a lawyer or legal expert." The process for investigating a crime in Sweden seems to commence with a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation may result in the prosecutor deciding to prosecute a person for the crime, which means there will be a trial. This is what did not happen in Assange's case. Whether you call it being charged, prosecuted or something else does not matter. Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a statement by a journalist. But is he wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- The statement is in a Guardian blog and is being made by "Dan Lucas who used to be the UK correspondent for Dagens Nyheter, the leading morning paper in Sweden. He covered the Assange extradition drama, but notes that he is NOT a lawyer or legal expert." The process for investigating a crime in Sweden seems to commence with a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation may result in the prosecutor deciding to prosecute a person for the crime, which means there will be a trial. This is what did not happen in Assange's case. Whether you call it being charged, prosecuted or something else does not matter. Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- A different explanation is given by Mark Klamberg, a Swedish law professor, who says,
Lastly, some words about the concept of 'indictment', it is a term used both in Swedish and English law. The indictment comes at the very end of the investigation in Sweden
. He quotes the English High Court:Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.
[13] It is clear that the claim that Assange wasn't "charged" is misleading. It is exploiting the differences in procedure to imply that the allegations had not reached a point where charges would have been laid if he was in England etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)- The word "charges" does not appear in Assange's bio in relation to Sweden. We only mention that an investigation was being conducted and was eventually dropped, which is consistent with the legal opinion you have received from your friend Mr Klamberg. There is no need to change anything we have written about the Swedish process as far as I can see.
- If you are talking about how we describe the situation on the talk-page, when an editor says Assange was not charged, they are saying Assange was not charged under Swedish law. How else can the situation be described? The Swedish process did not progress beyond an investigation.
- Burrobert (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is no valid reason to say he wasn't charged in Sweden. It's not applicable to the Swedish legal system. Can editors please stop saying this?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think charged is appropriate even if the precise meaning of the actual word differes in England and Sweden. However I must take exception to "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced". Under English law even now and discounting that it is terrible at prosecuting rape case I don't see that it would satisfy Rape in English law. That is definitely not the same as Rape in Sweden. I believe that professor was talking about the meaning of charge if the laws were the same. The title of the article was "Setting the record straight how detention and indictment works in Sweden – as illustrated by the Assange case" Personally I think Swedish Law is better here as English Law just isn't working. NadVolum (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- So the High Court got it wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Assange was never charged in Sweden. He was, however, granted political asylum by Ecuador (see the above discussion about whether to use the word "asylum" in a section title). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It sure seems like the concept of "charging" someone with a crime exists in Sweden:
- BBC: Sweden charges man over 1988 Iran prison massacre
- Reuters: Iranian charged with war crimes by Swedish court for 1988 prison killing
- Al Jazeera: Sweden charges man with spying for Russia
- Euronews: Swedish rappers jailed on kidnapping charges in major organised crime trial
- The Globe and Mail: Former top Bombardier employee charged in Swedish corruption probe
These are all recent news articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're agreed charge is an appropriate word to say they formally wanted him for an offence even if the Swedish system does do things differenly. NadVolum (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
References fo Stundin Thordarson recant section discussed above
I put in two citations for the section being discussed at #RFC inclusion of Sigurdur Thordarson claims and they were rejected, I'd like to know why and if they can be included as an improvement. They can then be removed if the whole section is removed.
- Kristinn Hrafnsson; Ögmundur Jónasson; Bjartmar Alexandersson; Julian Hill; Alexander Mercouris; John Kiriakou (18 July 2021). "Assange on the Brink". Consortiumnews (Interview). Interviewed by Lauria, Joe. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- Pilger, John (19 August 2021). "Julian Assange: A day in the death of British justice". Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 22 August 2021.
They were attached with the Stundin reference.
The removals said
refs. rm opinion piece and non-RS
not a valid BLP reference. Use talk, don't jump ahead of ongoing discussion
I replied to the first with
Both news source are reliable sources. Both contain some opinion but so does the original and the Washington Post. The interview is a primary rather than secondary source, it contains more from the author about his story plus from an ex-Icelandic interior minister about the facts and a lawyer on the claims. John Pilger is a famous investigative journalist who has attended the hearings
As to the second there was no ongoing discussion about them. I don't know what not a valid BLP reference means but I acknowledge if a second person removes it then it is certainly time to go to the talk page.
So what exactly is the problem with them please? They both discuss the Stundin article and the interview provides a lot of background. Thanks.
- until there is consensus, this should be removed, let alone altred.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lets just be clear about what the RfC is about then. Is it about removing the whole text and not mentioning Stundin and Thordarson at all until such time as perhaps it becomes silly not to? Or is it about some changes wanted in the wording to satisfy neutral point of view or something else like that? If you could explain the reasons for rejection that would also be very good - what is controversial about them? NadVolum (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- When there is an RFC no edits should really be made to any text as it just confuses matters.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you be clearer about what the RfC hopes to achieve? And is there anything controversial about the cites except that you think text under an RfC shouldn't be improved? NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- The RFC is about including the text in the RFC, but a number of people have expressed the view it should be there at all in any form. As such it is best if we were to stop getting it until the RFC has concluded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- So why did you change the text in the article after you raised the RfC? I didn't touch it until I saw you were doing that. And I argued against your change being reverted saying people had been arguing that it shouldn't be there at all rather than arguing about the wording and therefore it was appropriate to improve the text in an effort to make it acceptable. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- The RFC is about including the text in the RFC, but a number of people have expressed the view it should be there at all in any form. As such it is best if we were to stop getting it until the RFC has concluded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you be clearer about what the RfC hopes to achieve? And is there anything controversial about the cites except that you think text under an RfC shouldn't be improved? NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Any RFC is restricted to precisely what the question asks, because when it is transcluded into the the central RFC repository for that subject it only includes the question inside the RFC, without talk page context. So the RFC is to answer the question "Should the following text be in the article?" and the text is the one given here. Cambial foliage❧ 15:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the 'C' in RfC is Comment and it is a way of resolving disputes. It does talk about not changing text where there is controversy or edit warring which is the subject of the RfC. I don't think it was supposed to support keeping the text static for long periods of time without improvement. So just specifying it as a reason for stopping change without specifying something disputed about the change is just plain wrong. Here no actual dispute was specified for the text. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- That reference was not appropriate for this article in any circumstances. Adding it during the RfC compounded its flaws. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- As Specifico says, the references you added were totally inappropriate. They were not removed because of the RFC, and that played no part in the decision to remove them. The most recent WP:RS/N discussion about Consortium News is here. There was a general consensus in that discussion that it is not considered a reliable source. However, in both the sources you added, the question of the publication's editorial policy is not even the issue. One is a roundtable discussion where several individuals give their view. It is not a published piece of news. The other is expressly framed as an opinion piece: see the url and literally the first word below the website menu bar in block capitals "OPINION". We do not use opinion pieces or individual views with no formal publication process as citations for statements in Wikivoice. Cambial foliage❧ 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for explanation. I should have just said the interview was a primary source rather than particularly from a reliable site. Are we saying the interview mightn't be of whom they say or that they are not experts on the subject of the article or what they said is not very relevant? Or how exactly does WIkipedia deal with such stuff? As to John Pilger yes I agree it is an opinion - but he is an investigative reporter who has attended the hearings and can be considered an expert. Could they be cited as what they are rather than this Wikivoice? I'd have though it would be enough to add a note to the citations rather than putting text inline not in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even if some people considered someone the world's foremost expert, a text expressly framed as an opinion would not be usable as a reference to support a statement of fact, which WP largely deals in. If, and only if, there are reliable sources that indicate his views on the subject as noteworthy, you could argue for the inclusion of a relevant part of Pilger's view, with the text saying something along the lines of "journalist and author John Pilger commented". It could never support a statement of fact. Read WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR; you will find people quickly tire of having to explain policy to you. Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay so that's Pilger. Can a primary source as in the interview be used as a source though for an expert like the Icelandic ex Minister who has previous experience of the incident as described in his bio Ögmundur Jónasson saying anything from "Now, these are serious allegations, but I choose my words very, very carefully. Because I knew this from firsthand from within the Icelandic administration, they were told that the idea was to use Sigurdur Thordarson, an Icelandic citizen, as an entrapment to contact Julian Assange and involve him in a criminal case, to be used later in the United States. This I know for certain, and I have stated this time, and again, in February 2014, before 2013, I say, before, the Icelandic Foreign Affairs Committee and the Icelandic parliament, where this was discussed, and this, in fact, is not disputed. This is what happened." or any of his other statements about his experiences of Thordarson or the FBI? NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- As to WP:NPOV etc, thanks for the references but I do not believe a reference to long documents is a good explanation in an editcomment. Those documents have links to individual sections . If a person bothers to research and write something o Wikipedia then I think a person that wants to delete it should have the courtesy to be a bit specific about the reason. Otherwise new editors will be driven away which I see is a problem WIkipedia has. See the first and second problem under Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies#Examples of problems NadVolum (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Experts are academics who have written books and papers for academic publishers and typically teach a subject at a university. Per weight though, there's little reason to use them. We might for example prefer to use a description of the Mars rover written by a NASA engineer than one in a news article. As a general observation, for well covered topics, it's best to rely on major mainstream media and avoid issues of weight and reliability. TFD (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately whilst some things about Assange are covered well, as some media analysis sources and others have said others are subject to corporate bias and Wikipedia amplifies that if it cuts things out that aren't covered by AP and Reuters. My reading of WP:WEIGHT indictes people should not do that. I see no reason for Wikipedia to do or support Self-censorship as well. NadVolum (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Experts are academics who have written books and papers for academic publishers and typically teach a subject at a university. Per weight though, there's little reason to use them. We might for example prefer to use a description of the Mars rover written by a NASA engineer than one in a news article. As a general observation, for well covered topics, it's best to rely on major mainstream media and avoid issues of weight and reliability. TFD (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even if some people considered someone the world's foremost expert, a text expressly framed as an opinion would not be usable as a reference to support a statement of fact, which WP largely deals in. If, and only if, there are reliable sources that indicate his views on the subject as noteworthy, you could argue for the inclusion of a relevant part of Pilger's view, with the text saying something along the lines of "journalist and author John Pilger commented". It could never support a statement of fact. Read WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR; you will find people quickly tire of having to explain policy to you. Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for explanation. I should have just said the interview was a primary source rather than particularly from a reliable site. Are we saying the interview mightn't be of whom they say or that they are not experts on the subject of the article or what they said is not very relevant? Or how exactly does WIkipedia deal with such stuff? As to John Pilger yes I agree it is an opinion - but he is an investigative reporter who has attended the hearings and can be considered an expert. Could they be cited as what they are rather than this Wikivoice? I'd have though it would be enough to add a note to the citations rather than putting text inline not in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the 'C' in RfC is Comment and it is a way of resolving disputes. It does talk about not changing text where there is controversy or edit warring which is the subject of the RfC. I don't think it was supposed to support keeping the text static for long periods of time without improvement. So just specifying it as a reason for stopping change without specifying something disputed about the change is just plain wrong. Here no actual dispute was specified for the text. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- When there is an RFC no edits should really be made to any text as it just confuses matters.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Lets just be clear about what the RfC is about then. Is it about removing the whole text and not mentioning Stundin and Thordarson at all until such time as perhaps it becomes silly not to? Or is it about some changes wanted in the wording to satisfy neutral point of view or something else like that? If you could explain the reasons for rejection that would also be very good - what is controversial about them? NadVolum (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Nad, your statements are contrary to settled WP policy. It is that simple. Study our PaG's if you wish to collaborate jer
SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- That might as well be SImon Says when it is that unspecific. A collaborator would be lot more specific. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Radical feminist conspiracy
@Jack Upland: This is gutter tabloid journalism. Totally undue btw. The sources [14] and [15] are based on Laura Poitras's documentary Risk (2016 film). The docu is then reviewed in various news sites under their movies sections. The content is appropriate in Risk's article. Not here. - hako9 (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Again we back to, we already have way too many talking heads. Really what does this add?Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh well. Sorry if you're bored. But may I ask what's the reason to keep these tabloid claims? The only reason these are in the article is perhaps because they are published by RS. But the statement cannot be directly attributed to Assange since it was allegedly made in a documentary. These aren't his public statements. - hako9 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Which part of " we already have way too many talking heads" means "keep"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please point me to a recent discussion on this. - hako9 (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- On what? This material was only recently added, we do not have to discuss every single addition before making it. Now if you want to porose that OK.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ofcourse you don't have to discuss every single addition. But you need to give your reasoning after the addition is challenged. - hako9 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Which part of "we already have way too many talking heads" means "keep"? I really think you need to read what I have posted and think about it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- What does "way too many talking heads" mean? - hako9 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- That (please see many many talk page comments above and in the archive by me about this) we already have way too much bloat due to including any and every opinion said by anyone well known about Assange. That we need to reduce the amount of bloat, not add more of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again, please point me to a recent discussion on why the text is justified and in such prominence in the section. I am arguing why my removal of this content was reverted [16] with shoddy reasoning. You are obfuscating with your drivel. What's the reason for this to be kept? Please be on point. - hako9 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- What the hell are you arguing with me for? I did not revert you, so I can't say why you were reverted. I also suggest you read wp:npa. If you want to know why it was removed, stop asking me and ask the person who removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Again, please point me to a recent discussion on why the text is justified and in such prominence in the section. I am arguing why my removal of this content was reverted [16] with shoddy reasoning. You are obfuscating with your drivel. What's the reason for this to be kept? Please be on point. - hako9 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- That (please see many many talk page comments above and in the archive by me about this) we already have way too much bloat due to including any and every opinion said by anyone well known about Assange. That we need to reduce the amount of bloat, not add more of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- What does "way too many talking heads" mean? - hako9 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Which part of "we already have way too many talking heads" means "keep"? I really think you need to read what I have posted and think about it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ofcourse you don't have to discuss every single addition. But you need to give your reasoning after the addition is challenged. - hako9 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- On what? This material was only recently added, we do not have to discuss every single addition before making it. Now if you want to porose that OK.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please point me to a recent discussion on this. - hako9 (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Which part of " we already have way too many talking heads" means "keep"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- She says he did that while discussing the case with his QC? Who would have leaked that to anybody else for her to know about? That seems very strange. In the article it sounds like the filmmaker heard this herself. I can't say it is unbelievable that he'd say that but that's just not right. NadVolum (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven has made an edit [17] with the edit summary, Lets attribute one person views
. Why exactly should keeping one person's view not be undue weight. That too, these statements by Assange were allegedly made in a documentary and were not a public statement by him. This is also a BLP issue. I repeat, keeping this content is akin to tabloid journalism. - hako9 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, because if we keep it this is how we need to word it. Just like certain other contested material, my editing is not an endorsement for its retention. Now its no less one of his statements than a hell of a lot of material here people have claimed he has said. You are in fact arguing me round to retention.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this (Now its no less one of his statements than a hell of a lot of material here people have claimed he has said) is whataboutery. My contention is very specific and I am simply waiting for any editor who disagrees about whether this needs to be kept. Pinging @Jack Upland: again. But thanks for clarifying you aren't endorsing retention. - hako9 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think WP:REDFLAG applies to this. She hasn't said herself that he said it, she put it in her film as something he said to his QC and also has him saying he wouldn't say it in public. She hasn't actually said she got it from anywhere. And a QC would be in trouble if they disclosed what was said to them without permission. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's been pointed out to me that Risk (2016 film) is an actual documentary using the real Assange. So I withdraw any objection. And I think it should definitely be in! NadVolum (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with the source. For what it's worth, this has been in article since 2018. Similar comments have been reported: [18], [19]. I don't see how it's "undue" to include Assange's opinion on what was happening in Sweden.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland, Both of those sources conform to our guidelines much better than all other sources based on Laura Poitras' documentary. In my humble opinion, the current version of the text needs to be replaced with the statements made by him in the above cited. I won't argue or edit further. Thanks for this. - hako9 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The standing of Dr Michael Kopelman
Kopelman is described in just two reliable sources as:
“...internationally known for work in Neuropsychiatry” “...founder member of the Memory Disorders Research Society” “president of both the British Neuropsychological Society and the International Neuropsychiatric Association, and is currently Presiding President of the International Neuropsychological Society”
here and [20]| here] He also received a distinguished INS award in 2013 [21]. If anyone wishes me to be tiresome I could big out several other respectable sources which also draw attention to his exceptionally distinguished career and standing in his profession. It is certainly not “Wikipuffery” (as was claimed when the description was deleted from the article) to describe him as an “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” - if anything it’s rather downplaying his standing. Describing him merely as “a psychiatrist” may be technically correct, in the same way as describing Winston Churchill as “a politician”, but to omit mentioning Kopelman’s high standing is to miss the significance of the judge’s decision to call his evidence into doubt. So I repeat, the term “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” (or psychiatrist) is accurate, moderate, and relevant and should be reinstated. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Err of those only one has a wiki article, the "International Neuropsychological Society" and its president is Skye McDonald Presidential Term: February 2019 – February 2022 the oncoming president is Ida Sue Baron Presidential Term: February 2020 – February 2023.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok - Dr Michael Kopelman’s term as president of the “International Neuropsychological Society” is passed. As for the other bodies Wiki does not have sections for every meaningful institution in Science. The point here is: Does the description “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” fit? The sources say yes. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well I suppose, and? What does this tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- To cut a long story short - It tells us that the Judge stuck his neck out in making this ruling – that is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Does it, Being an expert and never being wrong or dishonest are not the same thing. His qualifications or awards do not contradict a statement "called "a misleading report" by neuropsychologist Professor Michael Kopelman", and to draw such a conclusion is wp:or via wp:syntheses. We need an RS disputing this statemnt.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Seems to me a wee bit of straw man going on here – nobody has said an expert can never be “wrong or dishonest” not even an “Internationally recognised” expert. However, the more eminent the person being accused of being “wrong or dishonest”, the more noteworthy the decision to publicly cast doubt on their judgement, or integrity. Incidentally there may well be RSs out there around the subject – I may look into that – but the only thing being asked for here is the inclusion of the words “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” which you have already accepted are supported by RS - we can leave the reader to decide the significance. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Which I do not agree does what you think it does, so I do not see a need for it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whether or not the wording “does what [I] think it does” it is information supported by sources – can you honestly say that the eminence, or otherwise, of a witness who’s evidence has been called into question, on a central point in Assange’s extradition proceedings, is of no importance to our readers? Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not is RS do not consider it so no. What matters is what the judge said, in a legal case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whether or not the wording “does what [I] think it does” it is information supported by sources – can you honestly say that the eminence, or otherwise, of a witness who’s evidence has been called into question, on a central point in Assange’s extradition proceedings, is of no importance to our readers? Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Which I do not agree does what you think it does, so I do not see a need for it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Seems to me a wee bit of straw man going on here – nobody has said an expert can never be “wrong or dishonest” not even an “Internationally recognised” expert. However, the more eminent the person being accused of being “wrong or dishonest”, the more noteworthy the decision to publicly cast doubt on their judgement, or integrity. Incidentally there may well be RSs out there around the subject – I may look into that – but the only thing being asked for here is the inclusion of the words “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” which you have already accepted are supported by RS - we can leave the reader to decide the significance. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Does it, Being an expert and never being wrong or dishonest are not the same thing. His qualifications or awards do not contradict a statement "called "a misleading report" by neuropsychologist Professor Michael Kopelman", and to draw such a conclusion is wp:or via wp:syntheses. We need an RS disputing this statemnt.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- To cut a long story short - It tells us that the Judge stuck his neck out in making this ruling – that is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well I suppose, and? What does this tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok - Dr Michael Kopelman’s term as president of the “International Neuropsychological Society” is passed. As for the other bodies Wiki does not have sections for every meaningful institution in Science. The point here is: Does the description “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” fit? The sources say yes. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The RS issue is dealt with – several professional sources have described Kopelman as an internationally recognised neuropsychologist – do not try to tell me that hacks at the Guardian etc outrank the expert journalists and peers in Kopelman’s own discipline. Let’s call Kopelman what the experts say and not the hacks – this is an encyclopaedia not a press facsimile. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- No they have not, they have talked about his qualifications have they questioned the judge's decision? In this case Lord Justice Holroyde, not the Guardian. But it is time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- You accept that expert RSs describes Kopelman as an internationally recognised neuropsychologist - but seem to be suggesting the experts (peers at Kings College London etc) must also “question[] the judge's decision” before we can use their description of Kopelman? Agree other opinions would be welcome. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
We must not embellish the cited source. In its 600-word story, The Guardian refers first to "Assange's psychiatric expert" and in the following paragraph identifies him as "Prof Michael Kopelman." The Guardian saw no need to tout the professor's credentials, and in our single sentence describing Lord Justice Holroyde's ruling, neither should Wikipedia. Slatersteven is right in objecting on the grounds of WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the suggested change implicates WP:NPOV because it would, in Wikipedia's voice, impugn the judge's legal qualifications by insinuating that Holroyde had the temerity to call a report by such a distinguished expert "misleading." Our 42-word coverage of the High Court's decision is sufficient as is, without naming Kopelman or tendentiously advertising his curriculum vitae. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 Actually we do need to name Kopelman in the text here because, as I said in my edit summary when first posting, “Dr Michael Kopelman was not the only Psychologist to give evidence for the defence at Assange’s 2020 extradition hearing (Dr Quinton Deeley gave testimony on Assange’s autism)” ie people need to know which expert the judge took issue with. I have now found a contemporaneous report from Jacobin (magazine) here which says: “Judge Baraister found the distinguished neuropsychiatrist to be credible and impartial” I can live with “distinguished neuropsychiatrist” (or similar) in the wiki article (hopefully the small addition won’t count as tendentiously advertising his curriculum vitae. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Prunesqualer: Thank you for the additional contemporaneous source. In the spirit of accommodation, I propose the following revised sentence to replace our existing text:
- On 11 August in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by a psychiatric expert,[2] whom Jacobin described as a "distinguished neuropsychiatrist,"[3] and that the issue could now form part of the appeal.[2]
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
guardian200612
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Rawlinson, Kevin (August 11, 2021). "Julian Assange loses court battle to stop US expanding extradition appeal". The Guardian. Retrieved August 11, 2021.
- ^ Gibbons, Chip (August 11, 2021). "Julian Assange Could Be Extradited to the US". Jacobin. Retrieved August 27, 2021.
- Please note that it is still not necessary to name Kopelman. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Prof Michael Kopelman was named and styled as such in the article like the judge was. He is an expert in his area like the judge is in his. In a court a judge makes the final decision. There is no need to talk about impugning for either of them. I'm sure they both can make mistakes or be biased and there's no way of determining an absolute truth here. Saying otherwise about the judge is ridiculous when Trump and the republican party put in so much effort getting conservative supreme justices. Just follow the source, even if I think it is a biased in its coverage Wikipedia counts it as a good reliable source. NadVolum (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Err this was a UK court, Trump has no power over who sits on its bench.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then how about the Birmingham bombing? I was just pointing it out for judges in general and for Americans to understand. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually Birmingham pub bombings is interesting as the judge ruled confessions as admissable and used them whereas there has been a study showing that having such an admission in a terrorism case make it less probable that the accused committed the offence. NadVolum (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- What has this to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was giving an English example since you seemed to think what American ones are like didn't apply. The last bit was an example of how a judge can give undue credence to forced confessions and have no feeling for probabilities - which is what one would have hoped they were particularly good at. I think everyone just lost their heads because it was an atrocity. NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- And I was asking what does any of this have to do with Lord Justice Holroyd's opinion on the evidence given in this trial?Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was saying the professor is an expert just like the justice and talking about impugning either was silly. You seemed tto think that I was trying to make some special point by giving the example of American judges rather than British ones having their biases an mistakes. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- And I was asking what does any of this have to do with Lord Justice Holroyd's opinion on the evidence given in this trial?Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was giving an English example since you seemed to think what American ones are like didn't apply. The last bit was an example of how a judge can give undue credence to forced confessions and have no feeling for probabilities - which is what one would have hoped they were particularly good at. I think everyone just lost their heads because it was an atrocity. NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then how about the Birmingham bombing? I was just pointing it out for judges in general and for Americans to understand. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Err this was a UK court, Trump has no power over who sits on its bench.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- to make it clear, I think Prof Michael Kopelman should be named and styled as such in the article. I don't think we need to include his accomplishments. NadVolum (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can live without his “accomplishments” being adumbrated in the article – as long as we let the reader know this is more than just an ordinary Psychiatric expert – not now calling for big claims just: “distinguished” which I think is reasonable. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- How about this just inserting " Prof Michael Kopelman,"
- I can live without his “accomplishments” being adumbrated in the article – as long as we let the reader know this is more than just an ordinary Psychiatric expert – not now calling for big claims just: “distinguished” which I think is reasonable. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
On 11 August in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by Assange's psychiatric expert Prof Michael Kopelman, and that the issue could now form part of the appeal.[1] The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.[2]
References
- ^ Rawlinson, Kevin (August 11, 2021). "Julian Assange loses court battle to stop US expanding extradition appeal". The Guardian. Retrieved August 11, 2021.
- ^ "U.S. granted more grounds to appeal on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange extradition". NBC News. Associated Press. August 11, 2021. Retrieved August 11, 2021.
- The sources describe Kopelman as a "psychiatrist" or a "psychiatric expert". We should not call him a "psychologist" or a "neuropsychologist". It's not the same thing. We don't need to add his accomplishments. Perhaps someone could write an article about him. However, I think we should name him. He is mentioned under "Hearings", and it looks like Kopelman's report will be an important part of the appeal. We should let readers know we are talking about the same person. Readers should be able to see how the appeal process flows from the extradition decision. The other thing is, the issue with the report is not some advanced neuropsychiatry, it's that Kopelman didn't mention that Assange had a relationship with Moris and two small children. We need to get back to basics and concentrate on the facts of the extradition, particularly the decisions and the reasons for the decisions.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland: Kopelman is mentioned only once under Hearings on extradition to the U.S.:
Psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell.
If you now propose tying this to Appeal and other developments, it will require more than just naming him in the latter subsection. You say the issue with his report on appeal is "Kopelman didn't mention that Assange had a relationship with Moris and two small children." That obviously has nothing to do with a hidden razor blade. To illustrate how the appeal process flows from the extradition decision, as you suggest, we'd have to describe this central issue on appeal that was not worth including under Hearings on extradition. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)- Actually what it says is,
Other witnesses testified that the conditions of imprisonment, which would be likely to worsen upon extradition to the U.S., placed Assange at a high risk of depression and suicide which was exacerbated by his Asperger syndrome. Psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell.
I think this could be better worded. Your understanding of the issue could be improved by a bit more reading, rather than just arguing about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)- Smug condescension aside, there is no mention there of how the eminent and distinguished Professor Kopelman misled the court about Assange's relationship with Moris and two small children. That was not included under Hearings on extradition to the U.S. and would need to be explained under Appeal and other developments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to me the Jacobin (magazine) article [1] handles all of this quite well – both the prosecution’s contention regarding Kopelman’s failure to mention Assange’s family circumstances, Kopelman’s reasons for doing so (to protect the identity and security of that family) and the defence assertion that Kopelman intended to disclose the information once he had sought legal advice. I would be happy to see these key points touched on in the article.
- Smug condescension aside, there is no mention there of how the eminent and distinguished Professor Kopelman misled the court about Assange's relationship with Moris and two small children. That was not included under Hearings on extradition to the U.S. and would need to be explained under Appeal and other developments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually what it says is,
- Jack Upland: Kopelman is mentioned only once under Hearings on extradition to the U.S.:
References
- Prunesqualor billets_doux 05:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just to expand on that. The August appeal ruling had some unusual aspects aside from the general significance of the Assange case. For example - whether we get to say so in the article or not - Dr Michael Kopelman is eminent in his field and as such, for his judgement, or integrity to be called into question publicly is an issue. Also, as Jacobin puts it; “...it is exceedingly rare for a higher court to second guess a judge’s rulings on matters like [the validity of expert witness testimony]” and also “...under most circumstances a judge’s decision about an individual risk of committing suicide would not be appealable”. I do understand concerns about article bloat but seems to me this ruling is unusual and noteworthy enough to give at least a few extra details - more than our current two sentence paragraph anyway. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Holroyde himself said it was unusual. However, I think we should bear in mind this should all be aired in October. I don't really see how Kopelman's eminence is really relevant to the question of whether he should have disclosed Assange's family circumstances.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Baraitser's judgment (p 107) says Kopelman's non-disclosure was "misleading and inappropriate", but that she was aware of Assange's family circumstances in April 2020, before she had read his report. Under these circumstances, I don't believe it is necessary to air the issue under "Hearings on extradition", as Baraitser nevertheless accepted Kopelman's opinion. However, the US prosecutors are revisiting this issue in order to overturn Baraitser's decision. I think it should be made clear what they are trying to do, which is not very complicated. However, as I said, the details can wait to October.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland On your first points - I accept that “Kopelman's eminence” is something of a side issue in regard to the appeal ruling - that should not debar it being mentioned, as it would add very little to the length of the paragraph - but I’ll leave that aside for now. Regarding: “Holroyde himself said [questioning Baraitser’s judgements] was unusual... this should all be aired in October” Why wait till October? The decision to allow an appeal on “unusual” grounds is noteworthy and should IMO be in the article. Re. it is not being necessary to air the issue under “Hearings on extradition" - that may be true but some coverage in the “Appeal and other developments” section would defiantly be in order. I note with interest your later, statement; “However, the US prosecutors are revisiting this issue in order to overturn Baraitser's decision. I think it should be made clear what they are trying to do, which is not very complicated. However, as I said, the details can wait to October.” This seems to be arguing that the only important POV here is that of the US prosecutors – It may be that the judge in this instance found in favour of the US prosecution arguments, it does not follow that everyone should agree with the judge’s conclusions, or that the unusual nature of the ruling should not be acknowledged in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was just saying that we should bear in mind that this will be covered more fully in October. I wasn't saying that the US prosecutors' POV is the "only important POV", just that we should note what their strategy is, in the interest of readers understanding what is happening.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland On your first points - I accept that “Kopelman's eminence” is something of a side issue in regard to the appeal ruling - that should not debar it being mentioned, as it would add very little to the length of the paragraph - but I’ll leave that aside for now. Regarding: “Holroyde himself said [questioning Baraitser’s judgements] was unusual... this should all be aired in October” Why wait till October? The decision to allow an appeal on “unusual” grounds is noteworthy and should IMO be in the article. Re. it is not being necessary to air the issue under “Hearings on extradition" - that may be true but some coverage in the “Appeal and other developments” section would defiantly be in order. I note with interest your later, statement; “However, the US prosecutors are revisiting this issue in order to overturn Baraitser's decision. I think it should be made clear what they are trying to do, which is not very complicated. However, as I said, the details can wait to October.” This seems to be arguing that the only important POV here is that of the US prosecutors – It may be that the judge in this instance found in favour of the US prosecution arguments, it does not follow that everyone should agree with the judge’s conclusions, or that the unusual nature of the ruling should not be acknowledged in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think Jacobin's article should be cited as well as the Guardian's. They are both strongly biased in different directions but including both will I think give a more balanced view if a reader bothers to read the citations. Any more text and the whole or a couple of sections will need to be broken out into another Wikipedia page, possibly it should be but even so this bit will then just be a summary. NadVolum (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note he was not a court-appointed psychiatrist, he was a defence appointed one. So if we are going to have the context that also needs adding. So let's stop adding stuff until it is agreed what we should say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure what you're saying. Are you saying we should not add a citation because the text can be cited to just one biased report? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- No I am saying we should not alter the text until we have an agreement on what it should say. And if we want context we need to give all context, including who was paying him for his medical opinion, and let the reader decide.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Please note the text already makes it clear who is “paying [Kopelman] for his medical opinion” . by saying “Assange's psychiatric expert”. Incidentally I changed the article text to “one of Assange’s psychiatric experts” (as explained in my edit summary and on your talk page) and for some unaccountable reason you changed it back to the patently misleading earlier version. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Err no it does not, as he might have been under court-appointed (or even NHS) care or observation (he was not), this was a defense witness. Nor does it matter if Assange had more than one, we do not say "all psychiatric evidence" just this one witnesses.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: less of the “err” stuff please – it’s obnoxious and unnecessary. Yes it is possible to read “Assange's psychiatric expert” and not take away take away the fact that Assange’s team hired the man, however most readers I think would take the correct interpretation – so I don’t know if we really need stipulate. Regarding the use of more than one defence psychiatric expert, why on earth would we want to mislead the readers in order to avoid using 7 extra characters – makes no sense at all. Kindly revert. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yet they can't figure out he was called because of his expertise? Or that only his evidence was called into question?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: This is getting silly - Please refer to comment on your talk page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds bit like puffery to me. Do we really need to say he is renouned, etc? Why not just name the guy and wikilink to an organization he is affiliated with if he doesnt have his own wikipedia article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok looks like references to Kopelman’s distinguished career won’t be making the cut – however “expert” really should stay, as it is used repeatedly in the source and in many (I’m guessing nearly all) other RS Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds bit like puffery to me. Do we really need to say he is renouned, etc? Why not just name the guy and wikilink to an organization he is affiliated with if he doesnt have his own wikipedia article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: This is getting silly - Please refer to comment on your talk page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yet they can't figure out he was called because of his expertise? Or that only his evidence was called into question?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: less of the “err” stuff please – it’s obnoxious and unnecessary. Yes it is possible to read “Assange's psychiatric expert” and not take away take away the fact that Assange’s team hired the man, however most readers I think would take the correct interpretation – so I don’t know if we really need stipulate. Regarding the use of more than one defence psychiatric expert, why on earth would we want to mislead the readers in order to avoid using 7 extra characters – makes no sense at all. Kindly revert. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Err no it does not, as he might have been under court-appointed (or even NHS) care or observation (he was not), this was a defense witness. Nor does it matter if Assange had more than one, we do not say "all psychiatric evidence" just this one witnesses.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Please note the text already makes it clear who is “paying [Kopelman] for his medical opinion” . by saying “Assange's psychiatric expert”. Incidentally I changed the article text to “one of Assange’s psychiatric experts” (as explained in my edit summary and on your talk page) and for some unaccountable reason you changed it back to the patently misleading earlier version. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- No I am saying we should not alter the text until we have an agreement on what it should say. And if we want context we need to give all context, including who was paying him for his medical opinion, and let the reader decide.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure what you're saying. Are you saying we should not add a citation because the text can be cited to just one biased report? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Problems with the “On 11 August in the High Court...“ Paragraph
The 11 August High Court hearing was not intended to reach definitive conclusions on the rights and wrongs of Baraitser’s January ruling – it merely ruled on whether the prosecution could later (October 27 th) question Baraitser’s judgements. The Current wording does not make’s that as clear to the reader as it should. Neither does the paragraph give any of the defence’s side of story. It does not give context in that three grounds for appeal had already been granted to the U.S. in July – in other words, the grounds for appeal mentioned in the paragraph are only two among five. Seems to me we should cover the whole U.S. campaign to appeal Baraitser, complete with the defence arguments, or make do with a short summary which touches on the whole picture. If the Latter I would offer up the following as a starting point.
Following Baraitser’s January 2021 ruling, the U.S. asked to appeal the decision on five counts. On the 7th of July the UK high court agreed that three of the counts could be appealed.[1] Further appeals and a High Court hearing resulted in the two remaining counts also being deemed permissible for appeal. The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.[2]
References
Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure we need over much detail, about every court proceeding, this page is about Assange, not his court cases. If anything we need to reduce the coverage not increase it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree – before posting this I tried re-composing and building on the existing text so that what is said is explained properly, is put in context, and is balanced (the current version fails those tests). I reached the conclusion that to do so would mean putting quite a bit more material into the article - hence offering the short replacement above which at least is none biased and refers to the 5 grounds for appeal instead of mentioning only two. Basically we need to explain the whole US appeal drive properly – with both sides of the arguments – or just make a neutral reference to them without any details Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I said I think we need to remove stuff before adding new detal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I may not have explained myself clearly – I propose replacing the existing paragraph with the one above. As a result the article will be about the same length, maybe a tad shorter (I haven’t toted up the words). Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies the article will be 4 words longer as a result of the substitution. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, I am opposed to any and all additions that add nothing new to our understanding of Assagne the man. Youy add 4 words, he adds 4 words tom add 2 words dick adds, until we have 100 more words, none of which are about Assagne, and may not even mention him as such.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- A biographical article always deals with events that befall a person – you cannot set yourself up as expert on which of those events are significant, and omit those you deem to “add nothing new to our understanding of the [person]” without giving good reason. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK what does this tell us about him?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- A biographical article always deals with events that befall a person – you cannot set yourself up as expert on which of those events are significant, and omit those you deem to “add nothing new to our understanding of the [person]” without giving good reason. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, I am opposed to any and all additions that add nothing new to our understanding of Assagne the man. Youy add 4 words, he adds 4 words tom add 2 words dick adds, until we have 100 more words, none of which are about Assagne, and may not even mention him as such.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I said I think we need to remove stuff before adding new detal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree – before posting this I tried re-composing and building on the existing text so that what is said is explained properly, is put in context, and is balanced (the current version fails those tests). I reached the conclusion that to do so would mean putting quite a bit more material into the article - hence offering the short replacement above which at least is none biased and refers to the 5 grounds for appeal instead of mentioning only two. Basically we need to explain the whole US appeal drive properly – with both sides of the arguments – or just make a neutral reference to them without any details Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposed replacement begins "Following Baraitser's January 2021 ruling…" However, the only previous mention of this ruling is in the preceding paragraph, which does not mention the date. For the replacement paragraph to make sense, the date would have to be added to the preceding paragraph. It could then be omitted from the replacement paragraph.
The proposed replacement also refers to "five counts" on which the U.S. appealed. Again, these five counts are not previously mentioned. The paragraph preceding the proposed replacement says merely that Baraitser denied extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States." This suggests only one count, not five. If the replacement paragraph refers to five counts, we need to explain what those are. We should likewise explain what differentiates the three counts accepted on July 7 for appeal from the two remaining counts that were at some unspecified later date(s) deemed permissible.
This extradition appeal process is vital to Assange's BLP. Its description should not be muddled by being truncated solely to keep down the word count. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Basketcase2022 I accept all of those points – as you suggest, most of those issues can be addressed with smallish tweaks. I just feel the current paragraph version (for reasons explained at the top of this section) is unacceptable – it completely brush’s over a chunk of the appeal process, cherry picks, in a rather arbitrary way, which counts to mention and give detail on – if we are to give detail we need to be balanced and explain the prosecution and the defence claims (not currently the case). In short it’s currently misleading incomplete and biased. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can make out the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTPAPER is that Wikipedia not a paper encyclopaedia. If something should be in an article it should be put in irrespective of the total amount of content. If the amount of space taken up by an article is too big then it should be split and subarticles created as described in WP:SPLIT. Then one can reasonably argue against undue expansion of a summary of the subarticle - the summary should not be longer than he intro of the subarticle. NadVolum (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- If we are going to deal with the grounds of appeal, there should be a succinct list of what they are. The current paragraph is selective and a bit garbled.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- With regard to the length, let's not forget that the whole Swedish extradition case, including appeals, is dealt with in 4 sentences. This article is at the stage where it is too big according to WP:SPLIT (readable prose size 68kB). We do not need to include every news story. I feel this appeal will be able to be summarised as it goes on, whatever we choose to do here.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- @NadVolum I agree than article length should not be our overarching concern – as long as material is accurate, clearly and succinctly written, reasonably relevant, and significant then it belongs regardless of article length.
- @JackUpland Yes I’m happy with a succinct list of the U.S.’s (prosecution) grounds for appeal as long as mention of the defences’ counter arguments are also included – after all we can’t just shop window the prosecutions’ points when those points have merely been ruled fit for hearing, not accepted as correct. Re. the Swedish extradition case – in fairness matters linked to the Swedish extradition crop up a fair bit in the article and as events have moved on, unless some new revelations surrounding things Swedish comes up or someone spots a significant gap in our coverage then the current length seems ok – comparing that with the article space given to the current appeal process might not be a good guide, but anyways, as you say: “this appeal will be able to be summarised as it goes on”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think if we are going to include the defence's counter-arguments we need to wait till October.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can’t agree with that Jack it is just not reasonable to list prosecution talking points without their counter arguments – before or after October. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- But how will you know the arguments and counter-arguments ahead of time?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can’t agree with that Jack it is just not reasonable to list prosecution talking points without their counter arguments – before or after October. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think if we are going to include the defence's counter-arguments we need to wait till October.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Rereading the “Appeal and other developments” section it strikes me that we are trying too rigidly to place information/paragraphs in chronological order at the expense of clarity of the narrative. As discussed above I’d like the whole appeal process explained a bit more clearly and think for starters we should try to keep paragraphs directly concerned with the extradition process together. I will do a little reshuffle – hopefully not ruffling feathers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be better to have a section on the appeal which is completely about the appeal. But that then raises the question of what to call everything else. I think you should bear in mind that the appeal is going to go on to October and beyond. I don't think anyone is going to understand the shuffle you've done in November.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your proposal to have a separate section for the appeal process makes sense. I’ve been working on the subject and offer the following - replacing current paragraphs1, 2 and 3 in “Appeal and other developments” (I just copied over paragraph 1) - needs citations and maybe some polishing though:
Title maybe just “Appeal Process”
On 6 January, Assange was denied bail on the grounds that he was a flight risk, pending an appeal by the United States.[1] The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[2] A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.[3] On July 7 2021 The UK Crown Prosecution Service released an email which listed the five grounds, (labelled “a” to “e”) on which the U.S. were appealing against Baraitser’s January ruling, and stating that two of those ground where refused. The two grounds refused where later ruled permissible in the high court, so that all five grounds for appeal were to be heard in the High Court in October 2021. The first three bases for appeal centre on Section 91 of the 2003 Extradition Act, which states that extradition should be barred in circumstances where “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.” Basis for appeal “a”, contends that Baraitser had made errors of law in her application of Section 91 and that “Had she applied the test correctly she would not have discharged Mr Assange.” Basis for appeal “b” contends that the judge should have notified the U.S. of her concerns around Section 91 giving them the opportunity of offering assurances to the Court. Basis for appeal “c” concerned the admissibility of evidence given by expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman. The U.S. appeal asserted that Kopelman had mislead the judge and that therefore his evidence should have been deemed inadmissible or failing that the judge should have given less weight to the professor’s opinions. In basis for appeal “d” the U.S. contends that Baraitser “erred in her overall assessment of the evidence going to the risk of suicide.” Basis of appeal “e” again addresses the Baraitser ruling that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Assange pointing out that the United States had by now provided the United Kingdom with assurances that "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States also provided an assurance that it "will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him."[4] However, an Amnesty International expert on national security and human rights in Europe said "Those are not assurances at all. It’s not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise."[5]
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
bail
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "US lawyers lodge appeal against block on Julian Assange's extradition". Express & Star. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
theduran.com
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Savage, Charlie (7 July 2021). "U.S. promises not to imprison Julian Assange under harsh conditions if Britain extradites him". The New York Times.
- ^ Maurizi, Stefania (24 July 2021). "Julia Hall, Amnesty International expert on National security: "Assange should be released"". Il Fatto Quotidiano (in Italian). Retrieved 5 August 2021.
Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- On reflection I would add some information to the appeal “c” “Kopelman” paragraph explaining a little about how and why Kopelman “mislead the court”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate Prunesqualer fleshing this out for us. As editors consider what to include, we must understand the background. However, now that I've seen it explained, I believe this is too much information. We should stop immediately after paragraph 2 in the preceding replacement text, adding for interested readers a reference to a WP:RS that describes the five grounds for appeal. Jack Upland has been advising us all along to wait until events shake out, and I agree with him. The hearing in October will, I presume, not result in an instant decision. It'll probably be 2022 before we know what the High Court rules; and the losing side will undoubtedly pursue additional avenues of appeal. Meanwhile, in trying to incorporate details of each step in a long, drawn-out process, we're getting lost in the thicket. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Basketcase2022 When composing the above I fully expected the section to be rewritten once the appeal proper kicks in – this was just to be a holding text explaining the most up to date legal position. However I can see it’s rather long and detailed (though quite a lot of it is already in the article in one form or another). Maybe see if others have an opinion (maybe a sudden rush of harmony will appear) Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- So why not wait?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- The suggested wording deals with the appeal process up to now not what will happen in October, but if others are happy to leave in place a rather patchy, and unbalanced account of the appeal process thus far – I won’t argue further. I may tweak the Kopelman paragraph to include the defence assertions though. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the existing paragraph should say that the Kopelman report could now be part of the appeal. This is what it originally said, but that has been lost.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: Please, which existing paragraph do you mean? I found this just now:
- I think the existing paragraph should say that the Kopelman report could now be part of the appeal. This is what it originally said, but that has been lost.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The suggested wording deals with the appeal process up to now not what will happen in October, but if others are happy to leave in place a rather patchy, and unbalanced account of the appeal process thus far – I won’t argue further. I may tweak the Kopelman paragraph to include the defence assertions though. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- So why not wait?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Basketcase2022 When composing the above I fully expected the section to be rewritten once the appeal proper kicks in – this was just to be a holding text explaining the most up to date legal position. However I can see it’s rather long and detailed (though quite a lot of it is already in the article in one form or another). Maybe see if others have an opinion (maybe a sudden rush of harmony will appear) Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- On 11 August 2021 in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by an expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman, and that the contested risk of suicide could now form part of the appeal.[453] The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.[454]
- What changes do you recommend here? Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have said what I said. For some reason this paragraph has been the source of much discussion, argumentation, and confusion. I don't want to add to it even further.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- What changes do you recommend here? Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Razor blade
All the "Hearings" section currently says about Kopelman is: Defence psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell.
[1] This is only mentioned briefly in the source. It is mentioned only three times in Baraitser's 132 page judgment, while Kopelman is mentioned 43 times. I think the article gives a distorted impression of what Kopelman's testimony was and how important the evidence of the razor blade is.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Greenberg, Andy (7 September 2020). "Julian Assange lays out his case against US extradition". Wired. Retrieved 29 September 2020.
- A search of “Assange razor blade” on Google comes up with over a hundred results including quite a few mainstream sources. The razor blade is only mentioned once in our article and strikes me as quite a significant thing (I’m pretty sure if someone close to me was in prison, had talked of suicide, and then a razor blade was found hidden in their cell I would be pretty concerned). Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that says it was the key thing Kopelman said?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- The razor blade information does not need to be “the key thing” thing Kopelman said in order for it to be noteworthy enough to include. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that says it was the key thing Kopelman said?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Assange's own expert, paid by his defence, asserting that a razor blade had been found hidden in Julian's cell is not the same as a WP:RS reporting such an actual discovery by prison authorities, which Wired fails to do. As is, without a better reference, we're giving too much weight to Kopelman's reputation. It's conceivable that Assange planted the razor blade so as to ensure its detection, as a way to bolster his threats of suicide—which are often used by manipulative individuals to get their way. A gullible psychiatrist on Assange's payroll should not be our only source on whether or not Assange was at that time genuinely suicidal. We should remove all mention of this razor blade on grounds of WP:NPOV.Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)- We could say "according to..." as long as it has had significant coverage. But it does seem a bit undue especially as his evidence has been criticised.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Surly nobody is suggesting that Kopelman made up the finding of the Razor blade? The finding of a hidden razor blade in Assange’s cell, whether it was smuggled there to attempt suicide, or to pretend to do so, is noteworthy. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- What you say about manipulative people is true, but on the other hand Sadam Hussein was not sending weapons of mass destruction around in ice cream vans. We should not be basing what is said upon our personal beliefs and imaginings about what kind of a person Assange is or what he would do. We have to assume Kopelman told the truth that there was a razor blade and the other fact is that it was his considered opinion that Assange was suicidal. And by the way the only people we have definite evidence of being manipulative is the FBI. NadVolum (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Prunesqualer, you're right: nobody is suggesting that Kopelman made up the finding of the razor blade. He accepted Assange's word on that, since there's no evidence the prison authorities found a razor blade hidden in his cell. Whether or not Assange fabricated the story, or planted a razor blade so it would be discovered, is unknown. But we have only Kopelman's testimony to this effect, apparently relying solely on Assange. Given that Kopelman is suspected of having misled the court about Assange's suicide risk, this is a flimsy foundation for incorporation into Wikipedia's BLP.Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- We could say "according to..." as long as it has had significant coverage. But it does seem a bit undue especially as his evidence has been criticised.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is not encyclopedic content, and the facts and significance have not been established. Googling for sources is just mechanized lazy person's cherrypicking and is the opposite of how we filter and source content. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Kopelman seems to have been a respected figure in his field up until recently - but after a few months working for the Assange team his name is apparently mud. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPEC Seems to me too often Wiki-editors filter and source content by reading mainstream establishment news sources, which are owned by the rich and powerful with vested interests – and then we just re-word what those organisations have to say. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
With apologies for creating a mess, I have struck through my two previous comments on this thread. In her ruling dated January 4, 2021, District Judge Baraitser wrote that a solicitor representing Assange had "produced a copy of the prison adjudication report, which confirmed that, on 5 May 2019 at 15.30 during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Mr. Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found 'half of a razor blade.'" I also note that Wired, which we reference to support the finding of a razor blade, additionally reports Kopelman's assertion that multiple potential suicide implements were confiscated from Assange. I recognize that since Baraitser's ruling is a primary source, editors may resist citing it, and that expanding half a razor blade to Wired′s multiple potential suicide implements may likewise prove untenable. But these items change my own view that we should remove all mention of the razor blade, and I wanted to bring them to everyone's attention. Thanks for bearing with me. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's right. But I think that if we mention the razor blade we should mention the other things Kopelman said. Otherwise it could be taken that Kopelman's testimony was mainly about finding a razor blade, which it wasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
All of the Kopelman materials needs to be together as we say he found one, but then elsewhere say his evidence was called into question. So it all needs to be in one place for context.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- We do not say that Kopelman found the razor blade (to the best of my knowledge he did not) – he merely made the discovery public (which is all the article suggests). If necessary we can detach the Razor blade incident from Kopelman and just say the razor blade was found during a search of Assange’s cell Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which would be worse, as there would be no way of the reader knowing that the evidence had been case into doubt. We need to out the claim of a Razor blade in that context if we include the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Just to be clear – the issue here is not whether a razor blade, or other suicide related articles were found in Assange’s cell – it’s a matter of record that they were. The issue that’s questioned by the prosecution is: whether Assange genuinely considered killing himself with them – the attempts by the prosecution to discredit Kopelman are in essence motivated by the professors assertions that Assange really was suicidal. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it is a matter of record that a defense appointed expert claims they were found. An expert whose use has been cast into doubt by the courts. Nor was it "the prosecution" it was a judge.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven You are in error – please read Baraitser’s Judgment (which Basketcase2022 has already linked to and referred to) find the following:
- No, it is a matter of record that a defense appointed expert claims they were found. An expert whose use has been cast into doubt by the courts. Nor was it "the prosecution" it was a judge.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Just to be clear – the issue here is not whether a razor blade, or other suicide related articles were found in Assange’s cell – it’s a matter of record that they were. The issue that’s questioned by the prosecution is: whether Assange genuinely considered killing himself with them – the attempts by the prosecution to discredit Kopelman are in essence motivated by the professors assertions that Assange really was suicidal. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which would be worse, as there would be no way of the reader knowing that the evidence had been case into doubt. We need to out the claim of a Razor blade in that context if we include the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
328. Mr. Guedalla is a solicitor at Birnberg Peirce Ltd. He produced a copy of the prison adjudication report, which confirmed that, on 5 May 2019 at 15.30 during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Mr. Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found “half of a razor blade”.
- Note the razorblade was found by a prison officer and officially reported and documented. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then there is a major issue as RS said it was Kopelman, and so do we. I think this needs removing until we can have new wording proposed. We (and this refers to the thread above) seem to give undue weight to Kopelman.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- No major RS problem, just a misreading of the RS. He observed signs of suicidal risk in Assange, the RS never said he actually found the razor himself. The wording in the article doesn't say that either. So no need to go around deleting everything in sight on that account. Not that I think there would be anyway even if the RS had made that mistake, any press report about anything I've known about has had some mistake, some quite large and annoying. NadVolum (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Err, we say he said it. That confuses the issue as it was nothing to do with him, as I said we give his opinion too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Enough with the insulting "Err" (again) - just to reiterate - at no point does the RS, or our article, say that Kopelman found the razor. Regarding the significance of Kopelman’s evidence surrounding the razorblade please note in Baraitser’s ruling (linked to above) the following “...the US submitted that it was strange that the finding of a razor blade should only be recorded as a disciplinary infraction rather than related to a suicide attempt, and that “enormous” weight had been given to the incident by Professor Kopelman. However, I [Baraitser] noted that Professor Kopelman recorded this incident faithfully and without embellishment.” (emphasis mine) this should be born in mind if anyone wants to change the wording Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- And in the appeal, Holroyd said Baraitser had given undue weight to Kopelman's opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The article said " Defence psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell". I'm pretty certain that does not say Michael Kopelman found the blade. So I don't know what the "Err, we say he said it" is about. What else does "it" mean if it does not refer to that? NadVolum (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nor does it say who did, thus the implications the reader might draw is it was him who found it. As I said, we give his opinion too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Enough with the insulting "Err" (again) - just to reiterate - at no point does the RS, or our article, say that Kopelman found the razor. Regarding the significance of Kopelman’s evidence surrounding the razorblade please note in Baraitser’s ruling (linked to above) the following “...the US submitted that it was strange that the finding of a razor blade should only be recorded as a disciplinary infraction rather than related to a suicide attempt, and that “enormous” weight had been given to the incident by Professor Kopelman. However, I [Baraitser] noted that Professor Kopelman recorded this incident faithfully and without embellishment.” (emphasis mine) this should be born in mind if anyone wants to change the wording Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Err, we say he said it. That confuses the issue as it was nothing to do with him, as I said we give his opinion too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- No major RS problem, just a misreading of the RS. He observed signs of suicidal risk in Assange, the RS never said he actually found the razor himself. The wording in the article doesn't say that either. So no need to go around deleting everything in sight on that account. Not that I think there would be anyway even if the RS had made that mistake, any press report about anything I've known about has had some mistake, some quite large and annoying. NadVolum (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then there is a major issue as RS said it was Kopelman, and so do we. I think this needs removing until we can have new wording proposed. We (and this refers to the thread above) seem to give undue weight to Kopelman.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note the razorblade was found by a prison officer and officially reported and documented. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven Your current edit does address the “over coverage” given to Kopelman but I now realise it has it’s own problems – Here’s the current wording
“The defence produced a prison service report which documented finding a hidden razor blade in Assange's prison cell.”
It now occurs to me that saying “The defence produced a prison service report...” might be ambiguous (to a lay audience anyway) i.e. maybe implying the defence actually created the report. Also the phrase “that said” about the report, might be a little weasel words given that the report came from the actual prison authorities. Could I suggest: “A prison service report confirming that a razor blade had been found hidden in Assange's prison cell was shown to the court by Assange’s defence.” Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
So we are back to saying it was Kopelman who found it, we just do not name him ". With it was a prison guard who found it and Kopelman talked about it, or Kopelman found it, it can't be both. The trail records say it was a prison guard. So I go back to this needs to be removed until we can decide what to say and why as right now it seems to contradict a court statement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I support saying a prison guard found it, but only if we include a citation to that effect. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose any more changes without consensus, and I said it needs removing until we have such consensus. It is time for an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a completed citation template to facilitate reference to the prison adjudication report, which confirmed that, on 5 May 2019 at 15.30 during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found "half of a razor blade." Please note this is a primacy source.
<ref name="Request for extradition">{{cite web|url=https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf |title=Request made by the Government of the United States of America for the extradition of Julian Paul Assange |publisher=[[Judiciary of England and Wales]] |date=January 4, 2021 |accessdate=September 4, 2021 |author=Baraitser, Vanessa}}</ref>
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- And this is way too much for something that a subsequent appeal having called into doudt. At best this warrentes a short line, not more words being added. So at this stage I have to oppose what seems to be being susegsted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven
Following my suggested wording:
- Slatersteven
“A prison service report confirming that a razor blade had been found hidden in Assange's prison cell was shown to the court by Assange’s defence”
You replied: “So we are back to saying it was Kopelman who found it, we just do not name him” – please re-read my suggested text and you will find it says nothing of the sort. Also re. your last comment “And this is way too much for something that a subsequent appeal having called into doudt” could we be clear: The finding of the razor blade was never called into doubt - not by the Judge or even by the prosecution – what was called into doubt was the significance of the finding – did Assange genuinely intend using the blade to harm himself or attempt suicide? We can go into the courtroom arguments on that subject in the article if there is consensus – or we can just leave it to the reader to conjecture – but let’s put to bed the notion that the razor did not exist or that it’s not significant - it was after all debated and disputed over in court and referred to more than once in Baraitser’s ruling. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)(seems comments wearn't directed at me)- If still not happy perhaps the following would be more acceptable (hopefully leaving no doubt about who did what)?
“During the court proceedings, defence drew attention to a prison service report, which confirmed that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's prison cell.”
- Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS here’s an RS for the suggested wording [22] Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer, just to be clear, you are proposing that
- During the court proceedings, defence drew attention to a prison service report, which confirmed that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's prison cell.
- should entirely replace
- A defence psychiatrist testified that he observed in Assange signs of suicidal risk including "the concealment of a razor blade as a means to self-harm."[448]
- Is that correct? If so, I support this change, as sourced to the Press Gazette story you referenced, with one exception: instead of "which confirmed" please substitute "stating"—confirmed is the wrong word if this is our first mention of the razor blade. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my suggested wording , and I’m happy with your suggested word substitution - I initially chose the word “confirmed” because that was the word used in the Baraitser ruling (it was the first mention of the razor there too, but clearly they had a less rigorous proof reader). Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer, just to be clear, you are proposing that
Proposals regarding section 4.5 “other developments”
It seems to me that, the three subsection titles within section 4.5 are not necessary, or helpful. The “La Repubblica”, “UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention” and “Chelsea Manning” subsections each contain just a single paragraph in which the title subject appears within the first sentence – the titles are not index linked to the contents at the article head, so there’s no browsing or navigational benefit in keeping the titles – so I suggest just deleting the titles. Also – regarding what’s in the “Chelsea Manning” subsection: The story of how Assange offered to serve US prison time in exchange for granting Chelsea Manning clemency seems a little inconsequential, and far back in history, to merit seven sentences and seven citations. Had the U.S. openly responded to the offer, then this would have been a big deal, but as it is, we just have Obama essentially saying that the early release of Manning had nothing to do with Assange, so that Assange’s offer, sincere or otherwise (and nobody can definitively prove ether way) amounts to little. I propose trimming to:
“In September 2016, Assange declared that he would agree to US prison in exchange for President Obama granting Chelsea Manning clemency. However when Manning was released in May 2017 Obama stated that Assange’s offer had not been a consideration.”
I appreciate that using the phrase “declared that” might skirt close to weasel words but wanted to implicitly concede Assange’s offer was not taken at face value by everyone – whilst at the same time keeping things short. Regarding the final Assange - balcony scene sentence. It should have it’s own paragraph, and be worded so as to not to conflate Manning’s release with Assange’s announcement – Thus:
“On the 19th of May 2017 Assange emerged on the embassy's balcony and told a crowd that, despite no longer facing a Swedish sex investigation, he would remain inside the embassy to avoid extradition to the United States.”
Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Whilst we are dealing with the “other developments” section: do we really need the second paragraph about the UN's Working Groups accusation of Arbitrary Detention? These events date back more than 5 years and have little current relevance - The accusation, as far as I can see, was never acted on by anyone and seems to have had no practical impact on events. Any thoughts? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree those tiny subsections were pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The into section Clinton emails paragraph
The into section currently contains a three sentence paragraph dealing with the Clinton DNC leaks. I recently removed the last two sentences leaving only:
“During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries.”
The sentences I removed where these:
“ In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with computer hacking, using WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the material. However, Assange said that the Russian government was not the source of the documents.”
The sentences have since been reinstated by SPECIFICO. I don’t think those sentence belong in the intro because whilst Wikileaks undoubtedly published the hacked e-mails, Muller was never able to prove (despite all the many months of effort and expense) that Wikileaks actually colluded with the Russians – please note pages 177 and 178 the second (less redacted) issue of the Muller Report | Here. In essence we are left with the fact that Wikileaks did publish the emails (that info’s already in the untouched sentence), but then so did other organisations – Yes there are detailed controversies around the issue – but the intro section is not the place to be unpicking those – that long story belongs in the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section, not the intro. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK - Just for the record it seems that SPECIFICO manually deleted the reinsated sentences putting them down in the relevant section – that’s fine – just wish I spotted it before typing all this - but at least a chance to explain the edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Mueller was not able to prove" is your misunderstanding of his mandate and report. No prosecutor's investigation will "prove" the facts. That would be up to a jury. The conclusions of the Mueller Report are clear and detailed. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The edit in the intro section is the one you self-reverted so we can talk about that another time – I’m fine with the material being moved (as you did) to the main section for now (and have already said as much)
- Regarding the other lets say “stealth” edits, here’s my statement on them:
- Turns out several previous edits where manually chopped and changed (in different parts of the article) by SPECIFICO all in the space of one edit with one edit summary – this cannot be good practice. Regarding the manual reverts he performed, only one is currently in place, but I should deal with all of them here:
- "Mueller was not able to prove" is your misunderstanding of his mandate and report. No prosecutor's investigation will "prove" the facts. That would be up to a jury. The conclusions of the Mueller Report are clear and detailed. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- The vanity square material I removed (and SPECIFICO reinstated) read as follows:
"Upon learning of the Access Hollywood tape, Roger Stone worked to get WikiLeaks to release email messages to counter the impact of the tape.[citation needed] Eric Lutz wrote in Vanity Fair magazine: "Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. 'Drop the Podesta emails immediately,' Stone instructed, seeking to 'balance the news cycle' after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. Thirty-two minutes later, WikiLeaks followed through""
There are just too many controversial points being made in one go here, all leaning on the say so of one journalist and one citation. If we really need to go into detail about 5+ year old events, given that there is already ample information about the DNC leak in the article (it’s currently the longest section in the article) we should at least make sure the facts are individually cited to by RS.
- Reinstaded at the same time by SPECIFICO was:
On 4 October 2016, in a teleconference with Assange, reporters spoke of a promise to reveal further information[clarification needed] which would bring Clinton's candidacy down, calling this "The October Surprise". Rightwing pundits as well as Trump campaign staffers like Roger Stone also hinted at further imminent releases.
I explained in my edit summary: What the source actually quotes Assange saying is: “If we’re going to make a major publication in relation to the United States, we don’t do it at 3 a.m,” Shortly after this quote the source describes Assange’s statements as a “drawn-out nonrevelation” – the press may have anticipated more but that’s not newsworthy. - In other words this 5+ year old story was pretty lame stuff even at the time and really not worthy on inclusion now.
- Also reinstaded at the same time by SPECIFICO was:
“Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.”
Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin are both academics who work in the field of journalism – they are not statisticians and their ability to reliably draw inferences from a handful of release dates that “WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls” is questionable – and frankly it’s another story that was barly woth drawing attention to even at the time let alone 5+ years later Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also removed the bit about the contacting Assange to do a drop of the Podester emails. It is not anywhere near a fact that Assange or Wikileaks was contacted. Costi denied contacting WAssange despite being offered a plea bargain if he implicated Assange. Also It had already been announced that Wikileaks would be doing drops ofthe emails aroundf then.
- Plus I removed the bit again which implied Assange favoured Trump over Clinton. The citation said it was Roger Stone made the assertion not Assange. NadVolum (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Things like some political scientists saying what they thought Assange was doing is I suppose admissable if it is reported in reliable sources. Seems more like talking heads gossip to me though and I'm surprised anyone wants it with the complaints about the article size. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum Will see how things pan out with the other edits but you’re right the Baum and Gussin piece is just inconsequential fluff (and 5+ years old fluff at that) Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer, I don't disagree with you on this edit, but I wanted to point out that the fact that something is "5+ years old" or not "current" is not a reason to remove it from the article. This article is about Assange's life, not just the "current" stuff.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hear you Jack Upland, but I think it healthy in an article that, as events move further into the past the bar for including material needs to change – details that seemed noteworthy at the time are less so viewed in a longer time scale, in other words it’s natural that in an article about a living person new material comes in and some of the older less noteworthy stuff moves out. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- And the more consequential content such as this stays front and center. As a matter of fact, there will be more information available after all applicable investigations are concluded. This was, of course, delayed by Barr's management of the Justice Department in the US. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO it you examine the exchange above you will see that Jack’s comment, where he says “I don't disagree with you on this edit” was almost certainly referring to the Baum and Gussin piece - That’s the singular edit that the conversation had turned to. So, in that context it appears when you piped in with “the more consequential content such as this stays front and centre” you are claiming the Baum and Gussin piece is particularly consequential. You yourself did put the sentence back into the article (after I had removed it) but I honestly cannot believe you are claiming the Baum and Gussin piece is particularly important? You must surely have misunderstood which edit we were talking about? As explained above the Baum and Gussin piece is just fluff and really should go. Some sidelining about general good practice and policy as we are doing here is fine - but then when it comes to adding to the article, or removing material, I hope we are careful to specify which specific edits we are talking about. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Don't post snide or insulting remarks on the article talk page. My comment speaks for itself. SPECIFICO talk 09:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please point to exactly what “snide or insulting remarks” you are talking about? I see none, just a call for more clarity – surely that’s not snide or insulting? I would like though to stick to one issue though - Is the Baum and Gussin piece the one you where referring to, and do you still think it worth keeping? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Don't post snide or insulting remarks on the article talk page. My comment speaks for itself. SPECIFICO talk 09:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO it you examine the exchange above you will see that Jack’s comment, where he says “I don't disagree with you on this edit” was almost certainly referring to the Baum and Gussin piece - That’s the singular edit that the conversation had turned to. So, in that context it appears when you piped in with “the more consequential content such as this stays front and centre” you are claiming the Baum and Gussin piece is particularly consequential. You yourself did put the sentence back into the article (after I had removed it) but I honestly cannot believe you are claiming the Baum and Gussin piece is particularly important? You must surely have misunderstood which edit we were talking about? As explained above the Baum and Gussin piece is just fluff and really should go. Some sidelining about general good practice and policy as we are doing here is fine - but then when it comes to adding to the article, or removing material, I hope we are careful to specify which specific edits we are talking about. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- And the more consequential content such as this stays front and center. As a matter of fact, there will be more information available after all applicable investigations are concluded. This was, of course, delayed by Barr's management of the Justice Department in the US. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hear you Jack Upland, but I think it healthy in an article that, as events move further into the past the bar for including material needs to change – details that seemed noteworthy at the time are less so viewed in a longer time scale, in other words it’s natural that in an article about a living person new material comes in and some of the older less noteworthy stuff moves out. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer, I don't disagree with you on this edit, but I wanted to point out that the fact that something is "5+ years old" or not "current" is not a reason to remove it from the article. This article is about Assange's life, not just the "current" stuff.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum Will see how things pan out with the other edits but you’re right the Baum and Gussin piece is just inconsequential fluff (and 5+ years old fluff at that) Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
As explained earlier on in this thread, a few days ago I removed the sentence beginning “"On 4 October 2016, in a teleconference ..." I gave good reason for doing so in my edit summary (further explanation above) – none the less SPECIFICO chose to manually reinstate the sentence whilst in the same single edit, adding and removing other text from different parts on the article, then giving a single inadequate text summary to cover the lot - a less than transparent way of deleting hours of work and carefully researched and explained edits. Another editor shortly after re-deleted the sentence (giving their own reasons) – then earlier today SPECIFICO reverts that edit saying “This removal of longstanding text has been challenged” – he then goes on to revert his own edit saying “undo edit conflict for 1RR” and then another editor (not recently active on the page) comes in and reverts his revert with the edit summary “What SPECIFICO said.” - in fact What SPECIFICO had said was “This removal of longstanding text has been challenged” - as far as I can make out: no - the removal has NOT been challenged in any meaningful way - No explanation as to why the sentence belongs in the article except to say it’s “long standing” and nothing has been offered in this thread (which SPECIFICO has read and posted in) where the validity of the sentence has been discussed - What is going on here? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly is being still disputed here? I see @SPECIFICO an @Calton: have reinstated bits I removed but have not come here to say why. I said why I removed them in my edit comments and above. All SPECIFICO says is that they are long standing and challenged but IU see no challenge except that they're long standing. Where is this 'DISCUSS' part that I was told about on my talk page? NadVolum (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- The content is well-sourced, very widely covered in media and analysis sources, one of the primary factors in Assange's current fame and reputation. That's why it's longstanding -- because NPOV readers and editors value this NPOV coverage of the topic with DUE WEIGHT to RS narratives. It would be up to you to establish a new consensus to remove it. Start an RfC if you feel strongly. The issue is sourcing and content, not your fellow editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then the new consensus is established per WP:BRD. It has been discussed here, reasons have been given for the removals. Tey do not satisfy WP:NOV because they say or imply things which are not supported by the source ANd because there is good evidence that's what implied is simply false. A bit of time has been give for discussion, and no good reasons to include them in the article have been put forward except that it was in the aricle for a while. It might be possible to rephrase what is said to be suitable for inclusion but I see little point in that, without the strong link to Assange they don't say very much. NadVolum (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO and Calton: (just figured out the template) NadVolum (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your next step would not be just to reassert your opinon. You can list an RfC and get an uninvolved close. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you have a point to make about why those bits should be included then just go ahead and make it. What bit of what I said do you think is wrong or why do you think it should be disregarded? As WP:BRD which you very helpfully pointed me to says "BRD is especially successful where: ... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus." NadVolum (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've commented repeatedly on the substance of the issue, most recently at 16:06 above. It is up to you to show why longstanding well-sourced, significant, consensus content should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- And I said at 16:11, 6 September 2021 why the bits should be removed. They both imply that Assange said or dd something that is not supported by the sources. In the first case it was somebody else who said the headline remark. In the second the person who was contacted denied he talked to Assange or Wikileaks. WP:BLPRS says it should be removed and being longstanding does not override that. You need something much better. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I suggest you start an RfC and perhaps your views will be vindicated. Nothing I've seen from the current small group of editors is going to overturn longstanding consensus over a period when many dozens of editors worked on the page. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion – I have given good reasons why each of these sections of text where removed (please see the bullet marked comments above - I can expand on the points or explain them more fully if you wish) – I would be very grateful if you could address some of the specific issues I have raised. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- And I'd appreciate it if you'd deal with the specific points I raised rather than just saying some invisible mass of editors from the past supported putting in the bits and you're standing up for them. Is there some talk page discussion where these past editors came to a decision about the points I raised? NadVolum (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Read WP:CONSENSUS. SPECIFICO talk 09:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I suggest you start an RfC and perhaps your views will be vindicated. Nothing I've seen from the current small group of editors is going to overturn longstanding consensus over a period when many dozens of editors worked on the page. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- And I said at 16:11, 6 September 2021 why the bits should be removed. They both imply that Assange said or dd something that is not supported by the sources. In the first case it was somebody else who said the headline remark. In the second the person who was contacted denied he talked to Assange or Wikileaks. WP:BLPRS says it should be removed and being longstanding does not override that. You need something much better. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've commented repeatedly on the substance of the issue, most recently at 16:06 above. It is up to you to show why longstanding well-sourced, significant, consensus content should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you have a point to make about why those bits should be included then just go ahead and make it. What bit of what I said do you think is wrong or why do you think it should be disregarded? As WP:BRD which you very helpfully pointed me to says "BRD is especially successful where: ... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus." NadVolum (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your next step would not be just to reassert your opinon. You can list an RfC and get an uninvolved close. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- The content is well-sourced, very widely covered in media and analysis sources, one of the primary factors in Assange's current fame and reputation. That's why it's longstanding -- because NPOV readers and editors value this NPOV coverage of the topic with DUE WEIGHT to RS narratives. It would be up to you to establish a new consensus to remove it. Start an RfC if you feel strongly. The issue is sourcing and content, not your fellow editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO Sharing entire help pages is less helpful than pointing to specific policies – Regarding the help page you linked to, did you intend drawing attention to the principle that: “All edits should be explained” If so it should be noted that all of my edits where carefully explained, whereas your bulk manual reversion of those edits was not. Or perhaps you referring to the “through discussion” section where we are encouraged to “work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense” again sorry but that’s something you have until recently refused to do and, it seems to me are still not engaging with the specific issues motioned above. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Is "narcissist" a legal finding under English jurisprudence?
On September 6, 2021, I deleted the following sentence:
- Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" and he had "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse".
My edit summary stated: remove judge's gratuitous insult and "no reasonable excuse" scolding, neither of which add value to his finding of guilt in an uncomplicated proceeding
.
This was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, who stated "edit goes too far."
I concede that the second half of that sentence helps to explain the ruling. However, I see no purpose to the judge calling Assange a narcissist other than to shame the prisoner at the dock.
I request consensus to remove "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" per WP:NPOV. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly is the NPOV argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:IMPARTIAL advises:
Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.
According to The Guardian, when District Judge Michael Snow called Assange a "narcissist" whose claim of not having had a fair hearing was "laughable," he also rebuked Assange's barrister for asserting in front of a "packed press gallery" that the chief magistrate who conducted the previous hearing was biased because her husband had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks. "This is grossly unfair and improper," said the judge in open court, "to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press." To me, Judge Snow sounds like a participant engaged in a heated dispute, indignantly defending his colleague. Accordingly, we should not quote him directly. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)- Plenty of people, including, I suspect, some judges, have described Donald Trump as a narcissist, but despite the fact that I can't stand the guy, I would never argue that such a description should appear in the Wikipedia article on him. Same applies to Assange. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:IMPARTIAL applies. If it did we would have to remove most of the quotes from Assange and his supporters from the article. It is not about whether you like or don't like Assange. This is a quote from the judge. It reveals the attitude that the judge had to Assange. I think the "no reasonable excuse" comment is the most important part of this. If we are going to have paragraph after paragraph about Assange's reasons for entering the embassy, we should include a brief response from the judge about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Plenty of people, including, I suspect, some judges, have described Donald Trump as a narcissist, but despite the fact that I can't stand the guy, I would never argue that such a description should appear in the Wikipedia article on him. Same applies to Assange. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:IMPARTIAL advises:
- While it is fine to quote the judge, the link is wholly inappropriate. Per "General points on linking style", "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." It's obvious that the judge was using the word in its normal meaning, a person who is self-centered. The link though was to Narcissistic personality disorder, which is a psychological condition for which AFAIK no evidence was provided and therefore the judge could not make as a finding of fact. TFD (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD, the link is not used in the article, and I don't think has ever been used in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I was going by the excerpt at the top of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD: I apologize for adding the internal link, which as Jack Upland points out, is not used in the BLP. I had no intention to mislead, and have removed it from my opening comment here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I was going by the excerpt at the top of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD, the link is not used in the article, and I don't think has ever been used in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think it breaks WP:Neutral point of view badly to quote the judge throwing out an insult like that without giving any context. Either it should be removed as not all that interesting or more about the context should be given. NadVolum (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
They are a judge summing up, it is as relevant as half the other stuff we have here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to me there are some good points being made on both sides here – I would add that the term narcissist has a quite precise meaning in psychology and I’m prepared to bet that the judge in this case was not qualified to publicly, in his official capacity, make such diagnosis or allegations about a man in a venerable position (essentially under the Judges power) It should also be noted that Assange barely said a word in the hearing so the judge does not even have the excuse of being momentarily provoked into the insult – several commentators have described the judges behaviour as rather dicgraceful (though less in the mainstream media). I think, if the Judges controversial statement is to be included, then quotes from someone like John Pilger criticising the Judges behaviour/words should also be included. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Much as I dislike adding more stuff, I agree we need both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Here’s a possible addition to balance the "Narcissist" remark:
- Much as I dislike adding more stuff, I agree we need both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
“Ex- embassador Craig Murray remarked after the hearing that: “It is clear the judge was extremely prejudiced. It was very short hearing today and he cannot possibly have formed during that time his judgement that Julian Assange is a ‘narcissistic personality’.
- Sourced from the World Socialist Web Site [ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/12/murr-a12.html | here] - I'm sure there are better quotes out there - just can't seem to find them. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given multiple people said much the same I think we can despense with attribtation and just have "but was critised as extremely prejudiced".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Can’t help thinking future editors will come across the observation and say “where’s the citation to support that?” (understandably). I'll have another look when I have more time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I thought we had a number already, pilger, Murray?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- This might be better:
- Can’t help thinking future editors will come across the observation and say “where’s the citation to support that?” (understandably). I'll have another look when I have more time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given multiple people said much the same I think we can despense with attribtation and just have "but was critised as extremely prejudiced".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sourced from the World Socialist Web Site [ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/12/murr-a12.html | here] - I'm sure there are better quotes out there - just can't seem to find them. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Ex- ambassador Craig Murray later commented: “There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion” and described the judgement as “a total disgrace”.[1]
References
- ^ "Chelsea and Julian are in jail. History trembles". Pressenza.
- Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer saying it was predjuduced, its a legal concept that mugtht have relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Both Craig Murray and John Pilger are diehard Assange supporters. I don't think they're the best people to quote if we need to quote anyone (which I doubt). They were never going to be happy about Assange's conviction. Murray's piece about the verdict is a colourful rant, and I don't think it's notable. Murray himself is currently serving a prison sentence for contempt of court on another matter.[23] He is by no means an impartial observer of the British judicial system.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the point here is that the Judge himself was “by no means an impartial”. I would say: If you want to allow a vicious rant by a Judge included in the article you should also allow an angry response from a past member of the UK establishment to answer it. We certainly don’t have consensus for the Judge's remarks to remain in the article – If the counter remarks above are included I’m ok with the Judges remarks staying – I think others here will agree and we then do have a chance of consensus for the Judge remarks to remain. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are we also going to counter every comment made by Assange and his supporters?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- If the quotes are outrageous attacks on venerable people under the power of Assange when he made the remarks then I would say yes. PS – Jack - I wish I had a pound for every die hard POV worrier quoted or used as source material in the article – Be they Clinton supporters, right wing patriots/nationalists, feminists, rich people whose tax dodging was exposed on Wikileaks (or hacks working for them) military folk who are incensed that war crimes got exposed etc - why suddenly make a fuss here. If you wish to be consistent we can go through the entire article purging all source material that comes from someone with a point of view on Wikileaks or Assange. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland: Please stick to the subject of this talk page section. Prunesqualer aside, no one has proposed that we counter every comment made by Assange and his supporters, and it does not logically follow that we must do so if we remove Judge Snow's singular insult. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- My comment was entirely relevant. I don't think you understood it.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are we also going to counter every comment made by Assange and his supporters?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the point here is that the Judge himself was “by no means an impartial”. I would say: If you want to allow a vicious rant by a Judge included in the article you should also allow an angry response from a past member of the UK establishment to answer it. We certainly don’t have consensus for the Judge's remarks to remain in the article – If the counter remarks above are included I’m ok with the Judges remarks staying – I think others here will agree and we then do have a chance of consensus for the Judge remarks to remain. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Both Craig Murray and John Pilger are diehard Assange supporters. I don't think they're the best people to quote if we need to quote anyone (which I doubt). They were never going to be happy about Assange's conviction. Murray's piece about the verdict is a colourful rant, and I don't think it's notable. Murray himself is currently serving a prison sentence for contempt of court on another matter.[23] He is by no means an impartial observer of the British judicial system.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer saying it was predjuduced, its a legal concept that mugtht have relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 Would you say at present: even if the Craig Murray comments where included to give balance and context you would still be against including the Judges remarks/insults? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just for clarity - my position is that: the judge’s remarks with Murray’s to give balance and context is acceptable –equally acceptable is taking out the judge’s comments/insults –not acceptable is having only the judges insults. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm okay with it but I thought something more from the Guardian would be better instead. It shows the judge dismissing a defence point that the previous judge Emma Arbuthnot was biased saying "“This is grossly unfair and improper to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press." I see it as the judge being annoyed about judges being attacked and not treating the point properly, othwers will see itas more bad things Assange has done, but at least it gives context for the later insult. Having someone else say it was unfair is kind of meh well they would say that wouldn't they. NadVolum (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Wp:blp applies to talk pages and judges.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- And presumably Wp:blp applies to Assange Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- The sections WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE might be applicable I guess. The first would I guess remove the judges remark altogether and the other would imply we shoud have a bit of context. Or is there another part of that long policy you think is applicable thanks? NadVolum (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes of course, so I could not call Assange a Narcisist, I can say that "X has called him a narcacist". So (for example) no one here should call a judge unbalanced, that is a violation of BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well if we're including the judge's remark I'd pefer we put in the bit about Judge Emma Arbuthnot in that trial to provide context instead of someone outside responding. The Guardian did that and they're not exactly pro Assange so I don't think you need worry about BLP for the judge. NadVolum (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to say he was criticised by a lot of people for this, and have two or three sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well if we're including the judge's remark I'd pefer we put in the bit about Judge Emma Arbuthnot in that trial to provide context instead of someone outside responding. The Guardian did that and they're not exactly pro Assange so I don't think you need worry about BLP for the judge. NadVolum (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the Judges “narcissist” insult to be included in the article why has it been re-instated? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- While it has been just three days, we have in this talk page section discussed at length whether or not to retain Judge Snow calling Assange "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest." We have clearly not reached consensus. WP:NOCONSENSUS advises that
for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.
Given that policy, I believe Judge Snow's insult of Assange should be removed until consensus is reached to restore it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)- Basketcase2022 Agreed Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The "policy" just says "often". In this case, the text has been in the article since 2019. There is no dispute that Snow actually said that. Snow's remarks were made in the context of Assange being convicted for skipping bail. There is no dispute that the trial should be in the article. There has been no consistent objection to including Snow's words. Sometimes we have been told it's an inappropriate medical diagnosis; sometimes were told it's an insult. In this case, I think lack of consensus should result in the status quo. In any case, it has only been three days.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are two views that seem to have support - to remove it as violating WP:BLPBALANCE or to add a bit about the remark being widely condemned. I don't think that balances out to putting it in and not having some comment about it. NadVolum (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The "policy" just says "often". In this case, the text has been in the article since 2019. There is no dispute that Snow actually said that. Snow's remarks were made in the context of Assange being convicted for skipping bail. There is no dispute that the trial should be in the article. There has been no consistent objection to including Snow's words. Sometimes we have been told it's an inappropriate medical diagnosis; sometimes were told it's an insult. In this case, I think lack of consensus should result in the status quo. In any case, it has only been three days.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 Agreed Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There are clearly still unresolved issues surrounding the inclusion of insulting statements by Judge Michael Snow. In an attempt to find a compromise/way forward I recently added the following text (after the sentence containing the judge’s remarks):
“However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.”
- Using | this as the citation.
This was essentially text suggested above by Slatersteven above (in this thread) - I personally thought the criticism of the judges words overly mild but hoped that using material from someone usually on the other side of debates may be appreciated as conciliatory. My edit was shortly afterward reverted by SPECIFICO who gave the following explanation:
“No, you have a single opinion piece by a fringe writer, not widespread criticism that is implied by this weasel passive voice "however..." sentence. Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.”
There are several points meshed together here but I’ll try to unpick: On the “you have a single opinion piece...” I would say: a single opinion piece in which someone strongly criticised the Judges remarks as extremely prejudiced (using some harsher words in fact), seems perfectly apt for supporting the statement “the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.” (not trying to be funny or snide here just frank BTW). Next was “...not widespread criticism that is implied by this...” – This I think is a stronger point (though to be pedantic “the Judges comments have been criticised” is ambiguous in that respect) I can try to dig out more criticisms of the Judge’s comments and include the citations in the article if we really think that necessary (I was trying to keep the thing concise but whatever). Next SPECIFICO refers to the reverted sentence as: “...this weasel passive voice... sentence...” – Not sure I get that: What’s weasel about openly saying the Judge was criticised when he clearly was? SPECIFICO finished with: “ ...Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.” First I would like to know in what context Murray is fringe – he has his own reasonable sized Wikipedia page and is a fairly high profile figure as a political commentator and human rights campaigned (among other things) – maybe SPECIFICO just meant his views are not mainstream – I’m not sure that Wikipedia is, as of yet, unable to include the views of commentators who deviate from mainstream. I’m also confused about the “...Nor can it be attributed to Murray” statement. Anyway, I would appreciate other views on the inclusion of the “However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced” sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're on a loser trying to put in quotes from people saying what the judge did was despicable. The people who do that may be very eminent - but corporate media won't publish them in this matter and you'll be arguing till Christmas oer points of Wikipedia policy. I think you should have a go at doing what I said and giving context in the form of the comments about Arbutnoth at the trial as mentioned in the Guardian. A bit more aboutthat judge not recusing and overseeing ater judgements is also well documented in reliable sources and as this shows is very relevant. NadVolum (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nad - You’re right about the media of course – but every now and then a piece slips through the net that can be used. Re the Arbutnoth material, better leaving that to you - I have a very poor success rate with making edits stick (though every now and then an editor seems to note something I’ve said here and act on it) – always happy to read your draft suggestions and citations, then give opinions (for what they’re worth). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're on a loser trying to put in quotes from people saying what the judge did was despicable. The people who do that may be very eminent - but corporate media won't publish them in this matter and you'll be arguing till Christmas oer points of Wikipedia policy. I think you should have a go at doing what I said and giving context in the form of the comments about Arbutnoth at the trial as mentioned in the Guardian. A bit more aboutthat judge not recusing and overseeing ater judgements is also well documented in reliable sources and as this shows is very relevant. NadVolum (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
“He attributed the allegations to radical feminism in Sweden”
Jack Upland Recently re-inserted the above into the Assange article | here saying in his edit summary: “There seems to be consensus for adding this back in”. Yet I can find no discussion on the talk page within the last couple of months to confirm this. I may be missing something but - presumably there was a reason the material was taken out in the first place - should we not talk about this now to confirm there really is consensus. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well he did say that didn't he and it made the news? What do you think is wrong with it being in or do you want to expand on it? After all it wasn't a totally unfounded belief but really I think anything like that could go into the separate subarticle. NadVolum (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Have you seen [24]?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK Jack thanks for the link – sorry, hadn’t spotted that – Not sure I’d exactly call it consensus, but if nobody’s currently objecting, your edit should probably stay. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's a misleading summary of the source, "Assange talks to Helena Kennedy QC, who is advising him on how to deal with the allegations. Assange says, as if to excuse himself, that it is a “radical feminist conspiracy.” The text presents something Assange said in the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer about people who have made accusations about him as his official statement. So you might want to add some context. TFD (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD: Neither the two sentences you quoted from The Guardian nor their surrounding context support your characterization of Assange as speaking in "the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer." The Guardian is in fact recounting what it calls an "astonishing scene" from Laura Poitras's documentary Risk, but without describing it as heated. Moreover, the conversation was obviously not private; both Assange and his lawyer the Baroness Helena Kennedy were undoubtedly aware that they were being openly filmed for eventual public exhibition. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- As you agree, he was talking to his lawyer about two women who had accused him of a criminal offense. The article is very clear about this. That's different from saying the same thing in a press conference. While it does not justify what he said, the circumstances in which statements are made are relevant to their severity. This was the type of documentary btw where the documentarian follows the subject around for an extended period of time which has the effect of people speaking more openly. While that's fine and Assange agreed to it, it is relevant to note the circumstances in which the comments were made, just as the source does. TFD (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which means anything, as it was his lawyer, rather than him thinking about his image. So whilst we could say "during an private interview with his lawyer" it's hard to see what else we could say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: In order to justify using the word "private" we would need a different source than The Guardian, which neither mentions nor implies that the conversation was held in private. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Whoever in their right mind would think a dscussion in front of a reporter with a camera is private whatever assurances they might have been given? Well people do I suppose but they deserve what happens. It certainly wasn't the privacy of a talk with a lawyer. NadVolum (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- If a documentarian followed you around for an extended period of time, you would begin to behave as if they were not there. That incidentally is why obervational documentarians spend lengthy periods of time with their subjects. They expect their subjects to let their guard down and speak candidly. David Simon for example spent time with both Baltimore's homicide squad and its drug dealers, which led to the TV series Homicide and The Wire. My question would be who in their right mind would agree to this? TFD (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which means anything, as it was his lawyer, rather than him thinking about his image. So whilst we could say "during an private interview with his lawyer" it's hard to see what else we could say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- As you agree, he was talking to his lawyer about two women who had accused him of a criminal offense. The article is very clear about this. That's different from saying the same thing in a press conference. While it does not justify what he said, the circumstances in which statements are made are relevant to their severity. This was the type of documentary btw where the documentarian follows the subject around for an extended period of time which has the effect of people speaking more openly. While that's fine and Assange agreed to it, it is relevant to note the circumstances in which the comments were made, just as the source does. TFD (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD: Neither the two sentences you quoted from The Guardian nor their surrounding context support your characterization of Assange as speaking in "the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer." The Guardian is in fact recounting what it calls an "astonishing scene" from Laura Poitras's documentary Risk, but without describing it as heated. Moreover, the conversation was obviously not private; both Assange and his lawyer the Baroness Helena Kennedy were undoubtedly aware that they were being openly filmed for eventual public exhibition. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also cited The Times, and there is an article from The Australian in the previous discussion that could also be used.Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC).
- @Jack Upland: I did a word search for The Times and for The Australian on this talk page but could find neither reference. Are you alluding to an archived discussion? In any case, if you'd please be so kind as to hyperlink those for us on this thread, it would help move us forward. Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- [25], [26]. The Times article is used as a citation and I don't understand how you can't find it or the discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland: Thank you for the links, which proved most helpful. I took the liberty of replacing in our BLP the reference to The Guardian that concerned TFD in this thread, with references to The Australian and The New Yorker. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter discussed in this talk page section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I said earlier: I can live with the inclusion of the “He attributed the allegations to radical feminism in Sweden” line in being in the article – however I’m not so happy with its current positioning and lack of context. I would say it looks rather tacked on to the first paragraph, and it’s prime position in that opening paragraph rather implies it’s an important definitive assessment from Assange – rather than what it actually was (as TFD put it earlier: “The text presents something Assange said in the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer about people who have made accusations about him as his official statement”). If the line is to be kept in, it should be moved further down the section and should be given some context showing it was remark from an interview and not Assange’s considered official stance – To put it in a human context - Yes a person’s off the cuff remarks can be telling, but personally I would hate to be definitively judged, for the rest of time, based on any of the silly, or ill considered remarks I have thrown out over the years.Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian article which mentions the conversation is not currently cited in the article. There are in fact many sources which record Assange voicing this opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I object to the current text which suggests this was one comment that Assange made. It wasn't. It was a well-developed opinion that Assange had that he voiced on many occasions.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK Jack I take your point, and I’ve changed the edit to make clear he repeated the claim. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS Just for the record I can only find three instances where Assange made reference to Sweden’s “radical feminist ideology” (They are of course quoted in numerous articles) so not sure if “many occasions” is quite the right phrase - but then I may have missed some in my brief search. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actually his defence team went so far as to accuse the prosecutor Marianne Ny of being a malicious radical feminist.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actually Brita Sundberg-Weitman was not a member of Assange’s defence team but was flown over by them to speak as an expert witness – It should be noted also – P.C. or not - that as well as unpleasant men who dislike women there also unpleasant women in this world some of who dislike men – I have no Idea if ms Ny is one of them but Ms Sundberg-Weitman clearly thinks she is Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- They chose to run with that under Assange's instructions.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't know what that means - could you explain more fully? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I won't elaborate because this is a side issue. Suffice it to say that Assange has blamed "radical feminists" several times.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't know what that means - could you explain more fully? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- They chose to run with that under Assange's instructions.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actually Brita Sundberg-Weitman was not a member of Assange’s defence team but was flown over by them to speak as an expert witness – It should be noted also – P.C. or not - that as well as unpleasant men who dislike women there also unpleasant women in this world some of who dislike men – I have no Idea if ms Ny is one of them but Ms Sundberg-Weitman clearly thinks she is Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actually his defence team went so far as to accuse the prosecutor Marianne Ny of being a malicious radical feminist.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I object to the current text which suggests this was one comment that Assange made. It wasn't. It was a well-developed opinion that Assange had that he voiced on many occasions.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian article which mentions the conversation is not currently cited in the article. There are in fact many sources which record Assange voicing this opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I said earlier: I can live with the inclusion of the “He attributed the allegations to radical feminism in Sweden” line in being in the article – however I’m not so happy with its current positioning and lack of context. I would say it looks rather tacked on to the first paragraph, and it’s prime position in that opening paragraph rather implies it’s an important definitive assessment from Assange – rather than what it actually was (as TFD put it earlier: “The text presents something Assange said in the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer about people who have made accusations about him as his official statement”). If the line is to be kept in, it should be moved further down the section and should be given some context showing it was remark from an interview and not Assange’s considered official stance – To put it in a human context - Yes a person’s off the cuff remarks can be telling, but personally I would hate to be definitively judged, for the rest of time, based on any of the silly, or ill considered remarks I have thrown out over the years.Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jack Upland: Thank you for the links, which proved most helpful. I took the liberty of replacing in our BLP the reference to The Guardian that concerned TFD in this thread, with references to The Australian and The New Yorker. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter discussed in this talk page section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Here is some background to Assange’s statement. I don’t think it was an off-hand remark. At the time there was a political push to strengthen the rape laws in Sweden involving several players in Assange's Swedish drama. Note that general elections were held in Sweden on 19 September 2010. Firstly the dramatis personae:
- In 2010, Claes Borgström successfully appealed the decision to close the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and became the legal representative of the two Swedish women against whom the Swedish police have accused Assange of sexual misconduct.
- Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström were partners in the legal firm which took on this role.
- Ms A was one of Assange’s accusers.
- Marianne Ny was the Director of Public Prosecution who, on 1 September 2010 (a few weeks before the election), decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.
Now some background:
- “The election is approaching and the two ministerial candidates Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström have once again spoken out on their favorite issue - violence against women”.[1]
- Ms A, Borgström & Borström belong to the same “political and ideological feminist cohort” that have profited in their campaign for a “further radicalization of the rape-laws” by making a “symbol” out of Assange.[2]
- ““Prosecutor Marianne Ny, Thomas Bodström, formerly at the Ministry of Justice, and Claes Borgström, formerly the Gender Equality Ombudsman, together constituted the core of the governmental committee set up for the promulgation of the new Swedish 2005 rape legislation. At the bottom of that radical-feminist constellation we found at the time the Social Democratic Christian organization called the Brotherhood, of which Ms A was then the political secretary”.”[3]
- “The prosecutor leading the rape and sexual assault case against Julian Assange is a "malicious" radical feminist who is "biased against men", a retired senior Swedish judge has told the hearing into Assange's extradition to Sweden.”[4]
- Alongside the obvious questions of freedom of information and criminal justice, the Julian Assange affair has also made visible a multitude of contemporary anxieties concerning sex and gender. This was brought into sharp relief by claims that Assange's prospects of a fair trial might be compromised by the possibility that Sweden's chief prosecutor Marianne Ny is a "malicious radical feminist" with a "bias against men".[5]
References
- ^ "Bodström och Borgström tar poäng i populism | SvD Debatt". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). 14 April 2010. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
- ^ "Assange case, a symbol for Swedish right-wing "radical-feminism"". The PROFESSORS' BLOG – Science, Culture & Human Rights For All. 30 September 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
- ^ "Anna Ardin signaled 'CIA spy' amidst NATO-Sweden's plot against Assange". The Indicter. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
- ^ "Julian Assange 'would face bias in Sweden', retired judge says". the Guardian. 7 February 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
- ^ "Radical feminism: what it is and why we're afraid of it | Jonathan Dean". the Guardian. 9 February 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
Burrobert (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I had thought that radical feminism was a slur against feminists but apparently it is a neutral term for a strand of feminism with its own Wikipedia article that includes some of Assange's accusers. According to an article in Guardian, it studies "the role of male violence against women in the creation and maintenance of gender inequality."[27] Eva Lundgren is described in the PROFESSOR'S BLOG as a "Professor in Radical Feminism." So it seems that Assange was referring to a specific group of people by their correct name, rather than slurring feminists in general. TFD (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is NOT A FORUM to discuss various editors' views about women.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD: Here is the sentence under discussion in this talk page section, as it appears in its latest incarnation in the BLP (minus inline citations).
- Assange told journalist Raffi Khatchadourian that Sweden has a "very, very poor judicial system" and a culture of "crazed radical feminist ideology", a view that he repeated in later interviews.
- The reliably sourced quotation attributed to Assange significantly begins with the adjective crazed, which obviously precludes his opinion in this instance from being called neutral. He may have been referring to a specific group of people by their correct name, but he was at the same time slurring them. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well I assume the term crazed is a slur, but that doesn't mean the term radical feminist is not any more than the term feminist is. TFD (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD:Thank you for assuming the obvious. Given that the term radical feminist appears only once in the BLP—in the reliably sourced quotation attributed to Assange beginning with crazed—I trust you have no further concerns or suggestions on this point. Basketcase2022 (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters for our purposes whether Assange was neutral or accurate. He said it several times and it expressed his public view of the Swedish case, though his defence might have modified its approach as the legal process progressed [28].--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I for one found the material from Burrobert interesting – actually I would go so far as to say his whole description should be lifted and put in the article, as it explains a set of events far more clearly than much of our editing has achieved. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding our current wording – I must take a chunk of responsibility for that and I now see I may have produced a wording which wrongs Assange. He did not use the damning adjective “crazy” on the other occasions he attacked Sweden’s “radical” feminist culture – we have simply: “radical feminist conspiracy” – a statement which at least a case could be made for – and: "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism... I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." Again, under the circumstances, not as unwarranted as the under-informed might jump to conclude - and frankly it is our job to inform people of all the relevant facts as best we can – it’s fine to include Assange’s harsh views on Sweden but we also need to clearly explain the context in which he said what he did. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- If so, you should also include more information about what Assange was actually accused of.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters for our purposes whether Assange was neutral or accurate. He said it several times and it expressed his public view of the Swedish case, though his defence might have modified its approach as the legal process progressed [28].--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD:Thank you for assuming the obvious. Given that the term radical feminist appears only once in the BLP—in the reliably sourced quotation attributed to Assange beginning with crazed—I trust you have no further concerns or suggestions on this point. Basketcase2022 (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well I assume the term crazed is a slur, but that doesn't mean the term radical feminist is not any more than the term feminist is. TFD (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The reliably sourced quotation attributed to Assange significantly begins with the adjective crazed, which obviously precludes his opinion in this instance from being called neutral. He may have been referring to a specific group of people by their correct name, but he was at the same time slurring them. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Provided the information is noteworthy and has good solid evidence suggesting it’s accurate (not just “he said she said”) accompanied by context and a fair airing of Assange’s counter claims – then yes. Seems after further reflection that Assange’s remarks about Sweden should not be included at all without the background information which at least partly explains his P.O.V. Burrobert explained some of the background to Assange’s remarks extremely well, and I genuinely would be happy to see his contribution above placed into the article (with some minor tinkering so it fits in properly Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned earlier: I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources. Later I’d like to look at adding context for Assange’s remarks as discussed above Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The times headline includes "crazed feminism".Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This edit by Prunesqualer is completely unacceptable. Note that he removed the telltale word crazed from the reliably sourced, directly attributed quotation "crazed radical feminist ideology" despite its being immediately followed by this reference, which reiterated the quote:
<ref name="Man without a country">{{cite web|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country |title=Julian Assange, a Man Without a Country |work=[[The New Yorker]] |date=14 August 2017 |accessdate=9 September 2021 |author=Khatchadourian, Raffi |quote=He spoke of Sweden's 'very, very poor judicial system,' weakened by external political meddling, careerism, and a culture of 'crazed radical feminist ideology.'}}</ref>
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is a good point, we do not alter quotes without good reason.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- THius is also why this article is too large, we have to go into uneeded detail all the time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Did anyone actually read my explanation for the edit made on this thread shortly before making the edit (and refered to in my edit summary)? I’ll repeat it in case not :
“As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...”
Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- And as I pointed out one of them did say it "Julian Assange referred to the two Swedish women who accused him of sexual assault as “treacherous” and claimed that the allegations were the result of “crazed radical feminist ideology”, from the Times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Prunesqualer: I urge you to abandon this approach, which is verging on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven please note the Times article you mention directly quotes from the Raffi Khatchadourian, The New Yorker magazine piece (already cited after the “crazed” quote) so we only have one occasion on which Assange used the word “crazed” in this context – making the following ““a view that he repeated in later interviews” misleading. One of them should go Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which is why I have now reworded it. But if that was your objection you should have removed the part that was not accurate, and not altred a quote (that was).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The rewording makes the article still longer but as long as the extra length is only taken up adding seemingly Assange incriminating quotes, with no mitigating context, then I guess few on here will object. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I do object, but as I said have no choice.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- The rewording makes the article still longer but as long as the extra length is only taken up adding seemingly Assange incriminating quotes, with no mitigating context, then I guess few on here will object. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which is why I have now reworded it. But if that was your objection you should have removed the part that was not accurate, and not altred a quote (that was).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven please note the Times article you mention directly quotes from the Raffi Khatchadourian, The New Yorker magazine piece (already cited after the “crazed” quote) so we only have one occasion on which Assange used the word “crazed” in this context – making the following ““a view that he repeated in later interviews” misleading. One of them should go Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Assange's calls to suicide prevention charity should be in intro
I recently added to the intro section the information that Assange “has made several calls to suicide prevention charity the Samaritans whilst in the prison.” I think the information deserves to be in the intro because: it should be pointed out prominently that Assange’s mental health has suffered during his imprisonment – the “calls to suicide prevention charity” information hint’s at that side of Assange’s predicament, is a documented incontrovertible fact, and was properly cited. My edit was been removed by Jack Upland who commented in the edit summary “This doesn't belong in the introduction. It is already alluded to in the extradition ruling”. I believe I am right in saying that - every single fact in the current intro section also appears further down in other parts of the article, ie saying that the material “is already alluded to in the extradition ruling” is not really consistent or relevant. No other reason is given for the material not belonging in the intro so unless there is some more pertinent objection, I would like to reinsert the sentence in the intro. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I meant that the introduction already mentions concerns about Assange's mental health. We could mention many other things, but the introduction is supposed to be an overview. We previously had an RfC on a similar topic where some editors argued against including health status in the introduction. I would say that any information should be generalised rather than specific.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The intro section does not really describe Assange’s health status – it merely quotes Baraitser saying that to extradite him to the US would be "oppressive" given his mental health. That’s about as vague as it could be regarding his current health condition (which by many accounts is pretty poor). Frankly the intro, for the most part, reads like a worlds most wanted report – I would like to see a much stronger acknowledgement that we are dealing with a human being - not just the subject of a court charge sheet. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Although subsection 5.4 Imprisonment in the UK repeatedly mentions Assange's health (physical, mental, and emotional), it says nothing about suicide. Wouldn't that be the appropriate place to introduce his calls to a suicide prevention charity? Shoehorning it into the lead with no presentation in the body—and with no recognition that he might be gaming the system—seems WP:UNDUE. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The man has spent well over two years in a prison designed for the UK’s most serious criminals – he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome – he faces possibly 175 years in high security prisons – he’s surrounded by murderers and terrorists – he and his family face regular death threats and you want to talk about him “gaming the system” – sorry but the man is in a position that would have finished most people off – it seems some editors are determined that the man should receive as little human sympathy as possible – but my view of the world says he should be seen as a vulnerable human being and that the intro section should at least somewhat reflect that view. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS nothing to say the “calls to Samaritans” can’t go in the main section too – as stated earlier all of the other material in the intro also appears in other sections. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're auditioning for the 4th chair in Davide Dormino's itinerant "monument to courage" Anything to Say? The only thing standing in your way is WP:SOAPBOX. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just for once it would be nice to talk about the merits of a case in a human common sense way without somebody throwing out WP:THIS and WP:THAT. The intro lacks the human touch - I think that is a valid point and not soap-boxing – I would be grateful if editors could address the sincere and commonsense points I’m making about the tone of the intro without resorting to the harshest possible interpretations on WP guidelines. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. The introduction is not a notice board for the latest news about Assange. I don't think the phonecalls that he made belong in an overview of his life. I don't see any evidence that he is gaming the system. Given the wreck that his life has become it's not surprising that he's suicidal. But that's not the point. There are websites where you can express your support and sympathy for Assange. This isn't one of them. Here, we document his life, for better or for worse.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone would think I’ve asked for a Mills and Boon purple prose style intro – I’ve asked for the inclusion of a short sentence telling people that Assange has made several calls to a suicide help line – ie just a hint that there might be a real human being behind the dour, world’s most wanted, list of charges and accusations that currently make up the bulk of the intro section. As for - “we document his life, for better or for worse” it seems we don’t - if the part of life to be documented might possibly give the impression he’s suffering or worthy of compassion. I’m asking for that small part of his “life” to be “documented” in the intro as a representative nod to Assange’s suffering Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. The introduction is not a notice board for the latest news about Assange. I don't think the phonecalls that he made belong in an overview of his life. I don't see any evidence that he is gaming the system. Given the wreck that his life has become it's not surprising that he's suicidal. But that's not the point. There are websites where you can express your support and sympathy for Assange. This isn't one of them. Here, we document his life, for better or for worse.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just for once it would be nice to talk about the merits of a case in a human common sense way without somebody throwing out WP:THIS and WP:THAT. The intro lacks the human touch - I think that is a valid point and not soap-boxing – I would be grateful if editors could address the sincere and commonsense points I’m making about the tone of the intro without resorting to the harshest possible interpretations on WP guidelines. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're auditioning for the 4th chair in Davide Dormino's itinerant "monument to courage" Anything to Say? The only thing standing in your way is WP:SOAPBOX. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why? the lede is a summary of the article, does this take up a significant part of the article?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- To answer both questions in one - issues surrounding Assange’s mental health do take up substantial parts of the article, and have become increasingly significant over the past few years. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- And it is, but needs rewording to something like "his mental health has been called into question, as he suffers form aspergers."Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- To answer both questions in one - issues surrounding Assange’s mental health do take up substantial parts of the article, and have become increasingly significant over the past few years. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- It should not be in the article, let alone the lead. An encyclopedia does not publish a "hint" as you call it. Maybe he is a donor and was inquiring whether his cheque had arrived? Maybe his uncle works there and he wanted to discuss the football matches. Mabye who knows? If you have a direct source that Assange called in order to solicit their suicide prevention services, then that would perhaps go in the article. Otherwise, no. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I’m guessing that, in her official published summing up, Judge Baraitser didn’t just invent the fact that Assange called the Samaritans on several occasions - and also guessing that Assange didn’t chat with the Samaritans about the football scores. A perfectly good citation (ant there are plenty more out there) plus a judges written word are sufficient to evidence he made the calls and that’s all the currently omitted sentence says. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Instead of wasting your time with snide asides, why don't you simply respond to the point I clearly articulated in the immediately preceding post above? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Address you points? Ok let’s do that – you firstly took my use of the word “hint” in a misleading context - then went on to make ludicrous suggestions about why Assange may have called the Samaritans (presumably intending to be funny or “snide” as you call it) – In your third point you suggest that in order to be included in an article I need a “direct source that Assange called in order to solicit their suicide prevention services.” As I hinted in my response no reasonable person would conclude he had called a suicide help line on numerous occasions to talk about anything but suicide – whether he was sincere in his calls is not at issue - as it’s not claimed in my currently omitted sentence. However I would say under his dire circumstances it’s pretty heartless to not concede there’s an extremely good chance he is suicidal – but I repeat the sincerity of the calls is not asserted in the missing sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- We do not make inferences from our sources and we certainly do not ask our readers to join us in speculation, inference, interpretation, or the like. We write clear, specific, unambiguous, well-sourced text. And this ain't that. My alternative possibilities were counterexamples to demonstrat that your Original Research inference was unwarranted, thus refuting your claim that it meets WP content standards. Now, you may in fact be able to find a source that says the man was "on the brink". If so, use that. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Please answer this: Do you accept that Assange is known to have called the Samaritans many times from prison (as evidenced in several sources and Baraitser’s Judgment)? Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- We do not make inferences from our sources and we certainly do not ask our readers to join us in speculation, inference, interpretation, or the like. We write clear, specific, unambiguous, well-sourced text. And this ain't that. My alternative possibilities were counterexamples to demonstrat that your Original Research inference was unwarranted, thus refuting your claim that it meets WP content standards. Now, you may in fact be able to find a source that says the man was "on the brink". If so, use that. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Address you points? Ok let’s do that – you firstly took my use of the word “hint” in a misleading context - then went on to make ludicrous suggestions about why Assange may have called the Samaritans (presumably intending to be funny or “snide” as you call it) – In your third point you suggest that in order to be included in an article I need a “direct source that Assange called in order to solicit their suicide prevention services.” As I hinted in my response no reasonable person would conclude he had called a suicide help line on numerous occasions to talk about anything but suicide – whether he was sincere in his calls is not at issue - as it’s not claimed in my currently omitted sentence. However I would say under his dire circumstances it’s pretty heartless to not concede there’s an extremely good chance he is suicidal – but I repeat the sincerity of the calls is not asserted in the missing sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Instead of wasting your time with snide asides, why don't you simply respond to the point I clearly articulated in the immediately preceding post above? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I’m guessing that, in her official published summing up, Judge Baraitser didn’t just invent the fact that Assange called the Samaritans on several occasions - and also guessing that Assange didn’t chat with the Samaritans about the football scores. A perfectly good citation (ant there are plenty more out there) plus a judges written word are sufficient to evidence he made the calls and that’s all the currently omitted sentence says. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Getting away from all that ELIZA type dialogue - I'd have to say I really don't think the suicide calls should be in the intro. The summary by Judge Baraister is quite enough and readers cam look down into the article if they are interested in more about that. NadVolum (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nad - I don’t come from a computing background so the ELIZA reference is a bit lost on me – I appreciate your opinion on the Samaritans intro inclusion – clearly we’ll have to differ on this – I wonder though if you could re-read the intro section some time and reflect on the impression it gives to the significant number of casual Wiki users, who will get little or no further into the article than the intro. As I’ve said above – seems to me the general tone is reminiscent of a courtroom charge sheet or world’s most wanted poster – any indication that Assange is a man in a pretty dire position facing appalling conditions and prospects at the hands of powerful enemies is missing. I wanted to in some way redress that imbalance. However there are several people editing here who most certainly do not think the same way. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- ELIZA, the original Chatbot. The Wikipedia policies force a bias towards corporate media to some extent, but I don't think the intro is too bad, It lists the basic facts and doesn't go into reasons and its about the right size for a person to read as a summary. NadVolum (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Re. the ELIZA reference I guess it’s a more nuanced version of “talk to a brick wall” (seems apt anyway). Re the intro – it’s quite short - which it should be within reason - but could afford another couple of sentences – aside from the existing mostly courtroom charge sheet - about his human predicament but I’m getting repetitive so will leave it (for now) to each editors conscience. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- ELIZA, the original Chatbot. The Wikipedia policies force a bias towards corporate media to some extent, but I don't think the intro is too bad, It lists the basic facts and doesn't go into reasons and its about the right size for a person to read as a summary. NadVolum (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nad - I don’t come from a computing background so the ELIZA reference is a bit lost on me – I appreciate your opinion on the Samaritans intro inclusion – clearly we’ll have to differ on this – I wonder though if you could re-read the intro section some time and reflect on the impression it gives to the significant number of casual Wiki users, who will get little or no further into the article than the intro. As I’ve said above – seems to me the general tone is reminiscent of a courtroom charge sheet or world’s most wanted poster – any indication that Assange is a man in a pretty dire position facing appalling conditions and prospects at the hands of powerful enemies is missing. I wanted to in some way redress that imbalance. However there are several people editing here who most certainly do not think the same way. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Opinions and activism
We have a section "Writings and opinions", but the only thing it says about Assange's opinions is that In 2010, Assange said he was a libertarian and that "WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical"
. In the first sentence we describe him as an activist
, but we don't explain what he is an activist for. I would question whether we need the section "Writings and opinions". The writings could be covered by the "Bibliography" section, I think. He did not actually write Cypherpunks or Underground, and they are mentioned in the text earlier anyway. When Google Met WikiLeaks seems to be essentially the transcript of a discussion. Alternatively, if this section is important, it needs more information about his notable opinions. Also, if Assange is just a publisher of leaks - if as he said in relation to the 2016 US election We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.
[29] — then I don't think he should be called an activist.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The section “Writings and opinions” contains a few quotes from Assange where he gives opinions on Wikileaks: the internet: Ian Hislop and Private Eye’s treatment of Israel Shamir. The section also lists several of his opinion pieces that have been published and goes into the circumstances surrounding the publishing of his book. Those all seem to fit nicely under the heading “Writings and opinions”. Also, I think there’s enough to warrant a section though I’m sure there are some other notable things to quote which can be added. For instance the following are some quotes I’d like to see in the section:
“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” “What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.” “Secrecy breeds incompetence because where there is failure, failure is kept secret.” “Society develops a type of self-censorship, with the knowledge that surveillance exists - a self-censorship that is even expressed when people communicate with each other privately.” “It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.” “If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth.”
Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've put in a more direct link to Wikiquote for the main things he's said or have been said about him. The section in the article should just have the most interesting stuff giving an overall view. It should be more of a overall summary. I think the bit about someone saying he is antisemitic and him denying it should be removed, anything like that gets heated and blown up and there's no real indication he is actually another Jeremy Corbin that way. NadVolum (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikileaks says of Israel Shamir that he "never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so" so I think I'll just remove that bit. NadVolum (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest then you do not remove cited content with SPS as the source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think a bit of common sense is called for. Even Shamir himself has only described himself as a freelancer. The Guardian describes how a request from Shamir for some info from Wikileaks was refused. The strongest link is that he has a son who is actually associated with Wikileaks - so basically this is damming Wikileaks because the father of an associate is a virulent antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- both the guardian and HAeatrz saying "Private Eye published a report saying that one of Assanges associates in Russia, Israel Shamir, was a Holocaust denier." both say "n that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed a Jewish conspiracy was attempting to discredit the organization" both the Guardian and Private Eye are hardly anti-Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes they said the same thing. But the evidence is strong that he wasn't an associate of Wikileaks, just someone who admired it. Yes Assange said it looked like a plot to discredit him with the Jewish community but we know he can say things that sound paranoid - whether it was true od false in this case we don't know, my guess is false. The interesting bit is the allegation of antisemitism by emplotying a rabid antisemitic and that looks pretty definitely false unless they're saying Israel Shamir's son is also volubly antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that the Guardian has leaned towards being anti Assange ever since one of them published a book with a Wikileaks secret key in it. NadVolum (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- No the evidence is not, as the only evidence you refer to is SPS denying it. To counter an RS you need an RS, not a wp:MANDY denial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Provide a reliable source saying that what is said is wrong rather thanan official denial from the organization itself. I guess that'll be hard. It is also striking as far as the Guardian goes in the article there is no mention of David Leigh and his book giving the key to the unredacted cables to the world. I'll have to figure out under what peculiar reasonng that wasn't put in. NadVolum (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Israel Shamir's relationship is described in the Guardian's denier in charge of handling Moscow cables where he used the name Adam instead, presumably Adam Emash which he'd changed his name to a few years previously while continuing to use Israel Shamir for his rantings. There is no indication there that Assange or even Wkileaks knew who he actually was or that he was particularly close to Wikileaks. It is not a basis on which to hang an antisemitism sign on Wikileaks. NadVolum (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Or maybe they did and did not care, this is why we go with RS and nit wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly did you see as OR in a reliable source showing no particular strong link? Particularly an article where the title of the article implies there was a strong link? And I certainly think the disconnect between the title and the contents shows antipathy on the part of the author. NadVolum (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did not see any OR in the linked article I also saw nothing to imply "Assange or even Wkileaks knew who he actually was". That is the OR to which I referred.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The article now has "...that a WikiLeaks associate[470] in Russia, Israel Shamir, ..." What exactly is an associate? The citation is headed "Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson confirms Israel Shamir's involvement with Wikileaks.". But the only quote for that I can find is 'A spokesman for WikiLeaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson, confirmed this when I called to ask if Shamir was directly connected to the organization. “No, he is not,” said Hrafnsson. “He only worked on the Cable Gate release, like hundreds of other journalists.”' Which I take as referring to that occassion I referenced above where he used his Adam Emash name instead. NadVolum (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:NadVolum: Here is the definition of "associate" at our sister project Wiktionary. The sources cited here and here support this description of Holocaust denier Israel Shamir as a WikiLeaks associate in Russia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which of those definitions would you say Israel Shamir satisfied going by the actual quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson? NadVolum (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:NadVolum: The cited source states (see quote in citation template): "Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson confirms Israel Shamir's involvement with Wikileaks." Holocaust denier Israel Shamir thus qualifies as an associate under the Wiktionary definitions to which I linked:
- A person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner.
- Somebody with whom one works, coworker, colleague.
- A companion; a comrade.
- A member of an institution or society who is granted only partial status or privileges.
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- How about actually using the wording in the source then 'involvement' or 'involved' rather than associate? No need to say associate when the source doesn't say so and there's good evidence he was not an associate by the dictionary definition. NadVolum (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's good evidence that Wikipedia editors have accepted by consensus the description of Holocaust denier Israel Shamir as an associate of WikiLeaks in Russia. For corroboration, please see the entire section of Wikipedia's BLP devoted to Shamir's association with WikiLeaks. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please also note I have now added a quote to the citation template for The New York Times, which states:
He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier.
(Emphasis added for this talk page only.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)- Ian Hislop didn't say Assange denied Israel Shamir is a holocaust denier. The New York Times is operating at third hand. But I do agree that another quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson in a cite in the Israel Shamir article says Israel Shamir is associate with Wikileaks. And then immediately follows with saying "There are a lot of controversial people around the world that are associated with us" which is rather worrying. So I'll have to agree with associate. NadVolum (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should bear in mind that WikiLeaks reportedly had only four or five full-time staff in 2010, and they were only being paid some of the time.[30][[31] It's unclear to me whether they were actually employees. WikiLeaks is a shadowy organisation. It provides very little information about its structure. Saying Shamir didn't "work" for WikiLeaks seems to me to be weasel words.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ian Hislop didn't say Assange denied Israel Shamir is a holocaust denier. The New York Times is operating at third hand. But I do agree that another quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson in a cite in the Israel Shamir article says Israel Shamir is associate with Wikileaks. And then immediately follows with saying "There are a lot of controversial people around the world that are associated with us" which is rather worrying. So I'll have to agree with associate. NadVolum (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- How about actually using the wording in the source then 'involvement' or 'involved' rather than associate? No need to say associate when the source doesn't say so and there's good evidence he was not an associate by the dictionary definition. NadVolum (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:NadVolum: The cited source states (see quote in citation template): "Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson confirms Israel Shamir's involvement with Wikileaks." Holocaust denier Israel Shamir thus qualifies as an associate under the Wiktionary definitions to which I linked:
- Which of those definitions would you say Israel Shamir satisfied going by the actual quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson? NadVolum (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:NadVolum: Here is the definition of "associate" at our sister project Wiktionary. The sources cited here and here support this description of Holocaust denier Israel Shamir as a WikiLeaks associate in Russia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The article now has "...that a WikiLeaks associate[470] in Russia, Israel Shamir, ..." What exactly is an associate? The citation is headed "Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson confirms Israel Shamir's involvement with Wikileaks.". But the only quote for that I can find is 'A spokesman for WikiLeaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson, confirmed this when I called to ask if Shamir was directly connected to the organization. “No, he is not,” said Hrafnsson. “He only worked on the Cable Gate release, like hundreds of other journalists.”' Which I take as referring to that occassion I referenced above where he used his Adam Emash name instead. NadVolum (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did not see any OR in the linked article I also saw nothing to imply "Assange or even Wkileaks knew who he actually was". That is the OR to which I referred.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly did you see as OR in a reliable source showing no particular strong link? Particularly an article where the title of the article implies there was a strong link? And I certainly think the disconnect between the title and the contents shows antipathy on the part of the author. NadVolum (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Or maybe they did and did not care, this is why we go with RS and nit wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- No the evidence is not, as the only evidence you refer to is SPS denying it. To counter an RS you need an RS, not a wp:MANDY denial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- both the guardian and HAeatrz saying "Private Eye published a report saying that one of Assanges associates in Russia, Israel Shamir, was a Holocaust denier." both say "n that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed a Jewish conspiracy was attempting to discredit the organization" both the Guardian and Private Eye are hardly anti-Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think a bit of common sense is called for. Even Shamir himself has only described himself as a freelancer. The Guardian describes how a request from Shamir for some info from Wikileaks was refused. The strongest link is that he has a son who is actually associated with Wikileaks - so basically this is damming Wikileaks because the father of an associate is a virulent antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest then you do not remove cited content with SPS as the source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Irrespective of whatever content we settle upon, the placement of "Writings and opinions" as a section is less than elegant. It's jarring to see it separated from "Works" by two sections—"Children" and "Honours and awards"—that are unrelated to Assange's literary oeuvre. I like Jack Upland's idea of making "Writings" a subsection of "Works". We could then use NadVolum's {wikiquote-inline} template to direct the reader to the richer compilation of Assange quotations at our sister site, and bypass the need to offer only a few quotations in this BLP, sadly limited by space restrictions. (And really, does any mere selection do justice to the Quotations of Chairman Julian?) Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose the children could be moved to a person life section after early life at the beginning and have his marriage moved into it. The Honours could be moved after the bibliography. Then you'd have the two together. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 “the Quotations of Chairman Julian” – Really? I think your slip is showing a little there. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that quotations actually deal with the issue. Assange is big on promotional rhetoric, but that doesn't actually clarify what his opinions actually are. He intones against secrecy, but WikiLeaks is a highly secretive organisation.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding anti-Semitism, there is more to the accusation: [32].--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's quite interesting - but which bit did you see as antisemitic? Was it He’s always ben a rat,” Assange posted in the Twitter group in response. “But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.” 'And' would imply antisemitism,but it says 'But' which is the opposite - it is saying the person has some good qualities. Unless I've got my English very mixed up. And later he says it is bizarre that a lot of his critics are Jewish. He does come across as crass but I don't see any paricular antisemitic bits quoted there though it does say other people think that of him. NadVolum (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- To me, the most damning things are:
WikiLeaks has faced charges of anti-Semitism before. In 2013, former WikiLeaks volunteer James Ball explained that he left the group over what he said was Assange’s close relationship with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir... Former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg raised similar concerns about Shamir.
andwould-be ghostwriter of Assange’s autobiography, Andrew O’Hagan, said that, amid preparations for the book in 2011, Assange had "uttered, late at night … many sexist or anti-Semitic remarks"
When people close to him are raising the issue, it can't lightly be dismissed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)- It'd be better if there was some quote to back that up. It seems awfully easy for people to turn things like criticizing Israels firing rockets at flats in Palestine into antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has mentioned Palestine. In any case, your opinion about whether something is antisemitic is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- You were saying you found something "most damning". I pointed out that the bit you talked about didn't have quoted corroboration like the rest of the article and it is easy to be accused of antisemitism when people have a bent to do it. I wasn't actually putting forward any opinion on the matter, it was you who were. You should not do that and then say other peoples opinions on the matter are irrelevant. NadVolum (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I shouldn't have answered your question. The point is the source says that Assange has a history of being accused of antisemitism, including by people close to him, and was using neo-Nazi symbols in his private emails. The opinions of you or me are irrelevant. These people know the context of remarks, and in some cases know what his tone of voice was, and in some cases know how WikiLeaks operated from the inside. We don't. Convoluted speculation that he might have been talking about Palestine or whatever amounts to very little.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- You were saying you found something "most damning". I pointed out that the bit you talked about didn't have quoted corroboration like the rest of the article and it is easy to be accused of antisemitism when people have a bent to do it. I wasn't actually putting forward any opinion on the matter, it was you who were. You should not do that and then say other peoples opinions on the matter are irrelevant. NadVolum (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has mentioned Palestine. In any case, your opinion about whether something is antisemitic is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It'd be better if there was some quote to back that up. It seems awfully easy for people to turn things like criticizing Israels firing rockets at flats in Palestine into antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- To me, the most damning things are:
- I noticed this quote from Andrew O'Hagan that is relevant to my original point:
I think it’s one of the weaknesses of the libertarian tradition: that they will go to bed with anyone, metaphorically. Julian has always claimed the relationship of WikiLeaks to its sources as being an invisible one, including to me. Look at his recent comments on the character of the sources. “It’s not Russia, I can say categorically!” he says. How can he say that if he doesn’t know? In other words, he is freely aware of the sources in both cases. And freely employing his skills as a selector and editor of materials; he’s shaping the material and shaping its public perception. I feel absolutely bamboozled that anyone would be as naive to imagine that promoting Donald Trump, seemingly in league with Russian forces, would be a freedom-fighting act. … This is the kind of person Julian decides to campaign for. And it is baffling and ruinous to the cause, his cause.
[33] Is "libertarian" the only thing we can say about his "cause"? What is he shaping the material in order to do?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- the obvious conclusion is tht he thought he did know where it casme from and that it wasn't Russia. I think he was almost certainly wrong but the Russians would have had no compunctions about making up some believable cover story and contact to fool him. It's quite possible a link would be kept up if one person involved died. As to Trump he made it quite clear he despised Trump just as much as Clinton and did not collaborate with Stone. The GOP used not be Trump and he did say he favoured the GOP to Clinton because basically he though it would mean less people dying in America's wars. Retrospection is so much clearer but we can't go saying people are stupid for not having it in advance. NadVolum (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- If he isn't working with or for Trump and Russia, what is he working for? That's the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why does he have to be working for anybody like that? What reason have we to disbelieve what he said and think he had some other motive? As to the effect of Trump being elected - well I guess he did disengage America from foreign wars so that was in line with what Assange said he wanted even if he did compare the choice of Clinton or Trump to cholera or gonorrhea. NadVolum (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, the question is: what are his opinions? Saying that he is not working for Trump and Russia doesn't answer the question.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why does he have to be working for anybody like that? What reason have we to disbelieve what he said and think he had some other motive? As to the effect of Trump being elected - well I guess he did disengage America from foreign wars so that was in line with what Assange said he wanted even if he did compare the choice of Clinton or Trump to cholera or gonorrhea. NadVolum (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- If he isn't working with or for Trump and Russia, what is he working for? That's the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- the obvious conclusion is tht he thought he did know where it casme from and that it wasn't Russia. I think he was almost certainly wrong but the Russians would have had no compunctions about making up some believable cover story and contact to fool him. It's quite possible a link would be kept up if one person involved died. As to Trump he made it quite clear he despised Trump just as much as Clinton and did not collaborate with Stone. The GOP used not be Trump and he did say he favoured the GOP to Clinton because basically he though it would mean less people dying in America's wars. Retrospection is so much clearer but we can't go saying people are stupid for not having it in advance. NadVolum (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, not what we think is true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess we should have Andrew O'Hagan's Secret Life in somewhere. And so should WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. The bibliography with The Unauthorized Autobiography sounds wrong - where should they go? NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- What?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought I was clear. O'Hagan's biograpy was quoted just above but not listed in the article. There is an unauthorized autobiography in the bibliography setion. I would have thought they should be in a biography section and Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy could go in there too. What section should they be in or should there be no section or should no biography be mentioned for some odd Wikipedia policy reason? 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- What has this got to do with what we are discussing? Please can you keep focused, we can't discuss 15 issues at once.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought I was clear. O'Hagan's biograpy was quoted just above but not listed in the article. There is an unauthorized autobiography in the bibliography setion. I would have thought they should be in a biography section and Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy could go in there too. What section should they be in or should there be no section or should no biography be mentioned for some odd Wikipedia policy reason? 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Anyway as to what's in there at the moment, WikiLeaks vs. Private Eye on anti-Semitic rant quotes what Ian Hislop wrote about the call. Ian Hislop talks about a Wikileaks associate not Assange's. In the article it says 'Assange, who was especially angry about Private Eye′s report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier.' Ian Hislop does not say that. He says Assange was angry at what he said was a smear campaign against Wikileaks. There is nothing about being angry about it saying or denying that Israel Shamir is a holocause denier, only with the linkage with Wikileaks being given prominence in Private Eye. Going by the RS is one thing, but choosing a biased way of writing it into the article is something else. NadVolum (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- So we change Assange to Wikileaks, other that how does this contradict what we say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- As shown in the quote parameter of the citation template referencing the sentence in question, The New York Times described Israel Shamir as "an Assange associate in Russia," not as a WikiLeaks associate. We shouldn't alter that without consensus.
<ref name="Jewish Conspiracy">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html |title=Report Says Assange Cited Jewish Conspiracy |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=1 March 2011 |accessdate=12 September 2021 |author=Somaiya, Ravi |quote=He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.}}</ref>
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it say Assange associate? The evidence is for Wikileaks associate if anything. Are we really in the business of biasing it more than the evidence warrants or do we think the New York Times has special knowledge not available to Ian Hislop when reporting about what Ian Hislop says? Hislop is an intelligent person with a good command of English and his facts. And yes I think that is about enough to counter the bias in the sentence. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- You would need to ask the RS. We are in the business of reporting what RS say. Moreover, the NYT does not say Hislop said it, they say it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum: Purely as a matter of curiosity, please let me ask you: in the context of March 2011, how many associates of WikiLeaks would not also have been associates of Julian Assange? It's my impression that WikiLeaks was in those days a fairly small operation, and that its editor-in-chief ran a tight ship. It hardly seems like a grand leap of logic to conclude that Shamir, as a known WikiLeaks associate in Russia, could be considered ipso facto an Assange associate. BTW, editors may find it amusing to view this photo of Holocaust denier Shamir looming over Assange's shoulder, with both men dressed for a quick getaway in winter, as published in November 2011 by The Guardian under the headline "Israel Shamir and Julian Assange's cult of machismo." If anyone knows how to upload that photo to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, it would make a valuable addition to this BLP's Writings and opinions section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022, that photo is copyright — unless the owner of the photo tells us it isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- How big is "a lot of journalists that are working with us all around the world"? If I rooted around I'm pretty sure I could find pictures of various members of the family with members of the royal family. Doesn't mean they'd know them from Adam. And we already know Israel Shamir was associated with Wikileaks. NadVolum (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just so I understand: you are likening Julian Assange with the British royal family? Whoa! I'm off to do a Google Image search for photos of Elizabeth II and/or her illustrious kin with Holocaust denier Israel Shamir. This could be a real scoop for Wikipedia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- And if an RS said they were associates it would be a good clue they were.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- He was associated with Wikileaks yes. Even in a small company hoe many people would you say are an associate of the general manager by name rather than of the company? NadVolum (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The real problem is that putting Assange in there implies that Assange was annoyed Israel Shamir was called a holocaust denier. That just distorts what Ian Hislop said. He said he was annoyed that Wikileaks was being smeared. NadVolum (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the real problem is that the article implies the Hislop incident was the only time that Shamir's friendship with Assange was raised and the only time that Assange was accused of anti-Jewish attitudes. I would prefer to see a general comment about Assange's association with Shamir and his history of being accused of antisemitism.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but that is no rationale for biasing this particular incident away from what the source Ian Hislop actually said happened. He has no problems about articulating what he means. When he said wikileaks associate it is because he meant to associate him with wikileaks and he never said anything about Assange being annoyed about Shamir being called a holocaust denier, only about Wikileaks being smeared. The New York times has rewritten and biased what Hislop said - the sort of thing Assange was accusing Hislop of doing in fact so on his terms it would be two levels of biasing. We don't need to and should not add a third. NadVolum (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- And in the opinion of the RS he was an associate of Assange, that is what the RS is staying, it is not saying Hislop said it.,Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then how about an RS that reported the incident more accurately Julian Assange 'Jewish conspiracy' comments spark row. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Odd, as that was rejected a whole back as being by a biased source, its why we now use the NYT. But it still doe not contradict the NYT said he was an associate of Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why choose NYT over the Guardian when the Guardian agrees with Hislop? NadVolum (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian story reports, among other things, that Assange claimed that Private Eye was
part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian [emphasis added] which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'
. As the alleged leader of this Jewish conspiracy, The Guardian is not an impartial source. We should cite it only if The Guardian directly denies or refutes Assange's accusation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)- The NYT article said "He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks". The article here splits off the first sentence as if it was complete in itself to give the impression Assange was personally annoyed about Shamit being called a holocaust denier. The report is titled 'Report Says Assange Cited Jewish Conspiracy'. It was not trying to say anything like what is here. I believe what is here counts as a form of WP:SYNTH NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian story reports, among other things, that Assange claimed that Private Eye was
- Why choose NYT over the Guardian when the Guardian agrees with Hislop? NadVolum (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Odd, as that was rejected a whole back as being by a biased source, its why we now use the NYT. But it still doe not contradict the NYT said he was an associate of Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then how about an RS that reported the incident more accurately Julian Assange 'Jewish conspiracy' comments spark row. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- And in the opinion of the RS he was an associate of Assange, that is what the RS is staying, it is not saying Hislop said it.,Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but that is no rationale for biasing this particular incident away from what the source Ian Hislop actually said happened. He has no problems about articulating what he means. When he said wikileaks associate it is because he meant to associate him with wikileaks and he never said anything about Assange being annoyed about Shamir being called a holocaust denier, only about Wikileaks being smeared. The New York times has rewritten and biased what Hislop said - the sort of thing Assange was accusing Hislop of doing in fact so on his terms it would be two levels of biasing. We don't need to and should not add a third. NadVolum (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the real problem is that the article implies the Hislop incident was the only time that Shamir's friendship with Assange was raised and the only time that Assange was accused of anti-Jewish attitudes. I would prefer to see a general comment about Assange's association with Shamir and his history of being accused of antisemitism.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The real problem is that putting Assange in there implies that Assange was annoyed Israel Shamir was called a holocaust denier. That just distorts what Ian Hislop said. He said he was annoyed that Wikileaks was being smeared. NadVolum (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- He was associated with Wikileaks yes. Even in a small company hoe many people would you say are an associate of the general manager by name rather than of the company? NadVolum (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it say Assange associate? The evidence is for Wikileaks associate if anything. Are we really in the business of biasing it more than the evidence warrants or do we think the New York Times has special knowledge not available to Ian Hislop when reporting about what Ian Hislop says? Hislop is an intelligent person with a good command of English and his facts. And yes I think that is about enough to counter the bias in the sentence. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- So we change Assange to Wikileaks, other that how does this contradict what we say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Odd wording?
Does anyone else think this wording is odd?
- "Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material".
- "continued to deny" and "even though" sound pointy.
- "continued to deny": The word "continued" suggests that Assange denied something, then Rich died and he talked to Russian hackers, then he resumed his denying.
- "he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers": this should be attributed as a finding of the Mueller report rather than written in Wiki voice.
- "... even though ...": let's for the moment assume the Mueller report is correct on these points. The phrase "even though" suggests that receiving the emails after Rich's death should have led Assange to somehow realise that Russia was responsible. I can't see the connection and the source does not say that. It also assumes that Assange was aware that he was talking to Russian hackers. Assange has said the source of the emails was not Russia so presumably he knows, or thinks he knows, who sent the emails. Does any source actually say he was talking to Russian hackers and knew they were Russian hackers?
- the source for the quote actually says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement" and "the report ... showed that WikiLeaks corresponded with the true source of the leaked emails — Russian hackers — after Mr. Rich’s death".
The previous version of this said "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". This is a better phrasing, except that the claims should be attributed to the Mueller report. Burrobert (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes – there are some unsound conclusions here – Starting with the most controversial point – there is on this page (and on Wiki generally) a strong tendency to treat the Muller report as though it where gospel instead of the politically motivated and contested enterprise that it was - I’m not saying anything in the Muller report is wrong - just that it should not be treated as a gold standard, totally unbiased, source. The wiki page that deals with the DNC leaks comes down strongly on the “Russian hackers did it” side but a perusal of the talk page reveals a little more uncertainty and frankly in this world of information warfare we can’t be absolutely certain of anything eg it’s not impossible the hackers where not working for the Russian state but some other interested party (there’s some very rich oligarchs who had indirect links with Trump for instance) - anyway I’ll leave that can of worms alone and just say we really don’t know for sure exactly what information Assange had at what time – and we can’t even infer with certainty that Assange knew Seth Rich wasn’t involved –if he thought Rich wasn’t working alone there’s no reason the e mails wouldn’t keep coming after Rich’s death (I realise there are some who have absolutely made up their minds on this – to the point where casting the merest shred of doubt at their version of events is tantamount to blasphemy). I think a wording which reflects these doubts would be in order. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) PS Just to be cleare I’m not saying that Seth Rich was involved in any way – just that we can’t be sure Assange knew that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is all very problematical. It seems to be assuming that Assange knew the Russians were the source and lied. In a bio unless we have good evidence otherwise ee should be cautious. Assange said it wasn't the Russians so we have to assume he thought he knew who the source was and was convinced they weren't the Russians. And why should Assange think the American's knew the Wikileaks source better than him? And why should Rich's death necessarily have stopped the leaks within a short time? We'd have to see the actual emails to know about that but I'm sure the Russians could make up a good story. I think all the facts and citations can be kept but it should be written without the loaded style. NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- We go with what RS say, and here is why "why should Rich's death necessarily have stopped the leaks within a short time?", because dead people do not send out e-mails, they stop immediately they are dead, as (generally) the dead are not very good are using the internet (at least In my experience).Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- If Wikileaks was supposed to be in direct contact with him, we simply don't know the story from inside Wikileaks or how the link was supposed to work. Hopefully that will come out some day. I think the Russians are perfectly capable of fooling people with some made up story. NadVolum (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think some form of Hanlon's razor may apply here. NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- You need to take that up with the RS, not with us. We go with the RS. I find it impossible that...but that would be OR, and neither mine (or yours) is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that's why I said the facts and citations could all be kept, just it seemed written up in a biased way and it should be done without the loaded style - which comes from Wikipedia editors not the sources and doesn't seem consistent with WP:BLPSTYLE. As it says there 'Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.' And WP:OR "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." NadVolum (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- And we do just that, we do not add alter or embellish a single thing the sources say. We (in fact) virtually quote them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's not quite true. For instance "Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material" That's just sticking bits which are alleged into a whole OR statement as if it is established truth. It assumes Assange had said Rich was the source and it implies he knew the people who sent the files were Russian. The sources say allegation that Rich was the leaker was started by right wing conservatives not Assange. What we do know is he offered a reward for information about the killer and that led to more speculation. There's no indication whether he thought he really was the informant or not. According to a source tht the chronology was damning was said by a lawyer for Rich, it showed that Rich was not the person who did the leaking and that the people who said that should stop. The ones who come out of this bad are Fox News and the Washington Times who did 'original research' rather than following the known facts. And anyway where did this 'conferring to coordinate the release of the material' come from? NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- We now have a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- A source for what? If anything it seems to be a source showing that Wikileaks wouldn't have known it was talking to the Russians. And they said 'we' so that makes it more possible Assange could reconcile the rumours about Rich with the data was still coming. We'd need more to be sure about that. Do we mention the Russians using fronts to fool Assange? NadVolum (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- A source for both the claim that both he implied rich was the source, and that he was receiving the email after rich had died.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- A source for what? If anything it seems to be a source showing that Wikileaks wouldn't have known it was talking to the Russians. And they said 'we' so that makes it more possible Assange could reconcile the rumours about Rich with the data was still coming. We'd need more to be sure about that. Do we mention the Russians using fronts to fool Assange? NadVolum (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- We now have a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's not quite true. For instance "Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material" That's just sticking bits which are alleged into a whole OR statement as if it is established truth. It assumes Assange had said Rich was the source and it implies he knew the people who sent the files were Russian. The sources say allegation that Rich was the leaker was started by right wing conservatives not Assange. What we do know is he offered a reward for information about the killer and that led to more speculation. There's no indication whether he thought he really was the informant or not. According to a source tht the chronology was damning was said by a lawyer for Rich, it showed that Rich was not the person who did the leaking and that the people who said that should stop. The ones who come out of this bad are Fox News and the Washington Times who did 'original research' rather than following the known facts. And anyway where did this 'conferring to coordinate the release of the material' come from? NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- And we do just that, we do not add alter or embellish a single thing the sources say. We (in fact) virtually quote them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that's why I said the facts and citations could all be kept, just it seemed written up in a biased way and it should be done without the loaded style - which comes from Wikipedia editors not the sources and doesn't seem consistent with WP:BLPSTYLE. As it says there 'Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.' And WP:OR "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." NadVolum (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- You need to take that up with the RS, not with us. We go with the RS. I find it impossible that...but that would be OR, and neither mine (or yours) is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- We go with what RS say, and here is why "why should Rich's death necessarily have stopped the leaks within a short time?", because dead people do not send out e-mails, they stop immediately they are dead, as (generally) the dead are not very good are using the internet (at least In my experience).Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have wandered off from the original points so I will condense and rephrase them to try to focus editors’ attention:
- "continued to deny" and "even though" sound pointy. See MOS:EDITORIAL "Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ..."
- "continued to deny": The word "continued" suggests that Assange’s denials preceded Rich’s death and then restarted after Rich’s death. No source says that because it makes no sense.
- "he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers": this should be attributed as a finding of the Mueller report rather than written in Wiki voice.
- the source for the quote actually says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement".
Burrobert (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hardly an announcement of fact. The intelligence agencies said "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." I certainly thought Russia was behind them. But how convincing would thatbe to someone who thought he had inside information and knew better? NadVolum (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, WE do not try and guess what someone might have known.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- But WIkipedia editors do choose things and stick them together. I think it would be even worse to go find some Trump follower RS saying the Russians didn't do it but that seems to be the level of argument. I really would like a bit more though put in to whether what was being stuck in really was backed up by the known facts. NadVolum (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- What "known facts"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm complaining about the pushing of assumptions and bias when some RS has got things wrong. If people know that the RS has put in their own thoughts or in Wikipedia terms done OR rather than accurately reporting on what's happened they should be careful about including the opinion bit even if it is in an RS. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then complain to the RS if you think they are inaccurate, not to us. Also how do you know they are wrong? How do you know this man was not an associate of Assange?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm complaining about the pushing of assumptions and bias when some RS has got things wrong. If people know that the RS has put in their own thoughts or in Wikipedia terms done OR rather than accurately reporting on what's happened they should be careful about including the opinion bit even if it is in an RS. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- What "known facts"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- But WIkipedia editors do choose things and stick them together. I think it would be even worse to go find some Trump follower RS saying the Russians didn't do it but that seems to be the level of argument. I really would like a bit more though put in to whether what was being stuck in really was backed up by the known facts. NadVolum (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, WE do not try and guess what someone might have known.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have wandered off from the original points again. Let's take baby steps:
- "continued to deny" and "even though" sound pointy. See MOS:EDITORIAL "Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ..."
Burrobert (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence we are discussing is problematic. It says: “Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material” however as far as I can see the closest any of the sources comes to saying this is the New York Times piece: “Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement and told a congressman that the D.N.C. hack was an “inside job,” ....” Assange saying that the “D.N.C. hack was an “inside job,”” is not the same as him continuing to say Seth Rich was the leaker, as our wording implies. Also note that there is still doubt about what Assange knew, and when, about who exactly was behind Guccifer 2.0 thus, saying Assange “was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material” is misleading. I suggest this sentence needs a re-write (or scrapping). Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe not those words but "As Isikoff’s reporting makes obvious, it’s in fact much more accurate to pin the broad embrace of Seth Rich conspiracies on WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange " "The TEN_GOP tweet was also more than a week after WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange implied in an interview on Dutch television both that Rich’s killing was suspect and that he might be the source of the material stolen from the DNC that WikiLeaks had published the prior month. " "Mueller’s report suggests Assange hoped to “obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing” by blaming Rich.", so yes at least one source does discuss the idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, we could change it to "Assange continued to imply that Rich was the source..." in accordance with what the sources seem to be saying.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The previous version of this said ""Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". This is a more neutral wording. It should still be attributed to the Mueller report. If you want to say something about Assange continuing to do something, the source says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement". We shouldn't use phrases like "even after", "even though" or "continued to deny" due to pointedness. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed -“Imply” might be slightly better but the “continued” I find rather misleading – how many times did Assange actually imply Seth was the leaker after the events already discussed in the article? “continued” placed in a sentence at the end of the section does imply he carried on implying Rich was the leaker after the events already discussed in the article- yet the source only says he carried on denying the Russians where the leakers (not the same thing). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would add I find the “continued to confer with the Russian hackers” problematic because – unless I’m missing something - it is not proven that Assange knew who was behind Guccifer 2. at the time so that “continued to confer with Guccifer 2.” would be better. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your quote says nothing about what he knew, and there is nothing wrong with the larger wording under diiscussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree the wording does imply something which simply is not supported by the facts as reported. The reasonng against changing here seems to be that Wikipedia should follow the exact wording rather than commonsense. There is WP:COMMON but I'm afraid WP:NOCOMMON which closely follows it is the rule here so you'll need actual citations policies or guidelines to counter this sort of thing. WP:BLPCRIME says we should not assume something criminal has actually been done unless a conviction has been got. An assumption by some newspaper is not a conviction yet except in the public court as far as I'm aware. NadVolum (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- For someone like Assange I guess WP:BLPPUBLIC applies so if multiple independent RS can be found saying it in the biased way rather than saying something like he continued to talk to Guccifer2 and denied he was Russian we'd have to accept that. NadVolum (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- BTW on how to act I see Wikipedia has an article on Tit for tat but doesn't cover generous tit for tat which might be a good addition. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The previous version of this said ""Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". This is a more neutral wording. It should still be attributed to the Mueller report. If you want to say something about Assange continuing to do something, the source says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement". We shouldn't use phrases like "even after", "even though" or "continued to deny" due to pointedness. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
OK so do we have consent to change continued to implied?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Something like that would be better I think. NadVolum (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- No. It could be changed to "continually", but the current wording is OK. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- SlaterSteven If you wish to swap “continued for implied that would be fine by me (an improvement) but we will still need to deal with the other issues – simply asserting that: “nothing wrong with the larger wording under discussion” as stated by another editor - without addressing the issues raised is not I believe satisfactory. My suggested text would go with Burrobert but substitute Russian hackers for Guccifer 2 as follows:
“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Guccifer 2 to coordinate the release of the material"
- This accords with the sources and known facts Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Excpety ity does not as Muller said that the persona is operated by Russian military intelligence agency GRU, so Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be phrased as if Assange knew that at the time. The security services had already issued a statement saying they believed the source was Russian and yet Assange continued saying the source wasn't Russian. Either a fool or a liar but saying he continued talking to the Russians denies a theory of mind in the act of talking or discussing. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Since we don’t have the space to give full context in our article (unlike the full Muller report or W.P. article) we should be careful not to give misleading implications - to say that Assange was in communication with the Russians leaves the impression he knew at the time who was behind front man Guccifer 2. We simply don’t know that to be true and should not even indirectly imply it. If you want to expand my suggested version to include mention of the Russian hackers I suggest the following “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with Guccifer 2 (who acted as a front man to Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material". Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/ "in a December interview on Hannity’s radio show, he left open the possibility that Guccifer 2.0’s activities were linked to the Russians. “Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”", so yes he did seem to have an idea it might be the Russians.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but “he did seem to have an idea it might be the Russians” is not the same as knowing it was the Russians, and we should not imply he did – we could go on to include the “December interview on Hannity’s radio show” and explain all it’s possible interpretations – explaining that some people have interpreted his words as meaning Assange may possibly have had a suspicion that the Russians where behind the leaks - but frankly we already give three paragraphs to the Seth Rich issue – that’s more than enough. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is simply nonsense. He is a competent businessman. Sources are clear. Drop the stick. We need to stay NPOV. We have RS telling us it was the Russians and Assange knew the source. He didn't say that he releases explosive data without knowing the source. That would certainly fly in the face of various editors' insistence that Assange is a good-faith journalist. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsence? Really that's a bit rich SPECIFICO. To the best of my knowledge Assange never claimed to know the source of every leak that Wikileaks published and since the Wikileaks model was somewhat deferent from other news/information outlets that seems reasonable – in this instance the leak was coming from someone calling themselves “Guccifer 2.” Whether Assange knew more than that we may never know and we can’t just assume and imply otherwise – the RSs we use gives enough detail to explaining the “Guccifer 2.” Middle man aspect, so readers understand that Assange did not necessarily know he was dealing with the Russians - we need to explain that too (if we feel it necessary to mention the Russia/Russians yet again - they come up 22 time in the article at present). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS SPECIFICO – You say you are concerned about sticking with the RS - well if you can demonstrate that my wording contradicts RS, or contains information that is not in our existing citations I will concede (I’m pretty sure you can’t) otherwise I think you are the one who should drop the stick - in this instance clinging to a wording which is clearly misleading. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is simply nonsense. He is a competent businessman. Sources are clear. Drop the stick. We need to stay NPOV. We have RS telling us it was the Russians and Assange knew the source. He didn't say that he releases explosive data without knowing the source. That would certainly fly in the face of various editors' insistence that Assange is a good-faith journalist. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but “he did seem to have an idea it might be the Russians” is not the same as knowing it was the Russians, and we should not imply he did – we could go on to include the “December interview on Hannity’s radio show” and explain all it’s possible interpretations – explaining that some people have interpreted his words as meaning Assange may possibly have had a suspicion that the Russians where behind the leaks - but frankly we already give three paragraphs to the Seth Rich issue – that’s more than enough. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/ "in a December interview on Hannity’s radio show, he left open the possibility that Guccifer 2.0’s activities were linked to the Russians. “Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”", so yes he did seem to have an idea it might be the Russians.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Since we don’t have the space to give full context in our article (unlike the full Muller report or W.P. article) we should be careful not to give misleading implications - to say that Assange was in communication with the Russians leaves the impression he knew at the time who was behind front man Guccifer 2. We simply don’t know that to be true and should not even indirectly imply it. If you want to expand my suggested version to include mention of the Russian hackers I suggest the following “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with Guccifer 2 (who acted as a front man to Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material". Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be phrased as if Assange knew that at the time. The security services had already issued a statement saying they believed the source was Russian and yet Assange continued saying the source wasn't Russian. Either a fool or a liar but saying he continued talking to the Russians denies a theory of mind in the act of talking or discussing. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Excpety ity does not as Muller said that the persona is operated by Russian military intelligence agency GRU, so Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- This accords with the sources and known facts Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Are we still talking about this sentence: ""Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material"? It dates from 13 September 2021. The long-standing version before that was "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". Apart from making little sense and being pointy, the current version does not follow what reliable sources say. Burrobert (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert Yes same sentence – and yes: the current version is at least misleading. Little progress is made because what we see as the problems with the current version are not currently being acknowledged. Additionally I would like the sentence to acknowledge that Assange conferred with Guccifer 2. who was front man for the hackers (as noted in the RSs). Would an RFC be helpful here? Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it may be time for an RFC, as this is going nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I thought this was going to be easier than this. If it is necessary to have an RfC to decide the issue then I believe the policy is that the long-standing version should remain until a decision is reached. Thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is how it works, we stick with the version that had consensus before, the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The long-standing version is "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". Who will be brave enough to make the change? Burrobert (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is it Version of 30 July 2021 "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. as it is for 31 August 2021. and for 29 June 2021 its "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.". It seems to ber that is the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The long-standing version is "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". Who will be brave enough to make the change? Burrobert (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is how it works, we stick with the version that had consensus before, the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
This is worse than I thought. Yes that version could be considered the longest standing version but it is arguably even worse than the current version. It was in effect for months before Basketcase2022 introduced a more reasonable version on 13 September.[34] The edit summary for Basketcase2022’s change is “Stating what "Assange must have known" in Wikipedia's voice is conjecture”, which makes good sense. The current version was introduced later on 13 September. Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- So we rest to the last stable version and then launch an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
RFC now up, lets let others have a say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: With your consent, I'd like to insert a tag into the disputed sentence:
- Assange must have known
{{According to whom|date=September 2021}}
that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.
- This will not materially alter what you have identified as the last stable version, but it will assist the RfC by focusing editors' attention on an especially problematic point. However, if you object, I will not tamper. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
O'Hagan's biograpy
It has been suggested we include this., how?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I was wondering where biogrphies should be in the article. There unauthorize autobiography is in but that does not really look like an work by Assange to me. And there is another one where a Guardian editor caused trouble by publishing a secret key, I'd have though that should be in too. NadVolum (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- THis is part of the problem, what do you want to use it for. As a source, as "Further reading", something else, you need to say what you want to do with it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why should having a place to put biographies into a biography article be a problem? It just seems to me to be a sensible thing to do. NadVolum (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- We do have a place, its called the "Further reading" section. This is why I am asking what you want to do with it, as it seems you want to do more with it than just list it, otherwise, why ask when the answer is obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- No that's fine. I'll set up a section in Further reading. I'm sorry I only saw the subsection headings and didn't see the main title there. It's probably obvious I guess to someone who's been WIkipedia for a while. I'm not up to anything strange, just reluctant to start new sections without checking. NadVolum (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why do we need a section, why not just put the book in there?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I seem to have mixed up the Works section and the Further reading section. There's all those citations in between and they have similar headings. Okay I can just put things into the Books in Further reading section. NadVolum (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well as long as they do not fail things like undue yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I seem to have mixed up the Works section and the Further reading section. There's all those citations in between and they have similar headings. Okay I can just put things into the Books in Further reading section. NadVolum (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why do we need a section, why not just put the book in there?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- No that's fine. I'll set up a section in Further reading. I'm sorry I only saw the subsection headings and didn't see the main title there. It's probably obvious I guess to someone who's been WIkipedia for a while. I'm not up to anything strange, just reluctant to start new sections without checking. NadVolum (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- We do have a place, its called the "Further reading" section. This is why I am asking what you want to do with it, as it seems you want to do more with it than just list it, otherwise, why ask when the answer is obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why should having a place to put biographies into a biography article be a problem? It just seems to me to be a sensible thing to do. NadVolum (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- THis is part of the problem, what do you want to use it for. As a source, as "Further reading", something else, you need to say what you want to do with it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And this is why I asked you to be carefully David Leigh and Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Guardian Books (1 February 2011), ISBN 978-0-85265-239-8 is already used as a source, we do not need it in the Further reading section.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:FURTHER says "This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content". But it was not used as a general reference for the article. It is used to cite some particular things and could easily be missed out as a general source. If it was a general source one would expect it to be used at least one in the introduction. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section".Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's currently over 500 citations in the article. We're not talking about duplicating anything like that. The biography is not mentioned in the lead anywhere. I'm just saying as a commonsense thing we should include an important biography that is used a number of times in the article rather than expecting people to trawl the 500+ references trying to find general references for the topic. As if they'd even think of doing that. If it was used in the lead I could see your point but it isn't. NadVolum (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelvant, it is used in the article and MOS is clear, we do not include in the further reading section books already cited. And read wp:lede it is a summary of important parts of the article, not a newspaper-style leader.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 'Should not normally' is not the same as must not in every single case even when it seems sensible to. WP:POLICY says "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense". Don't know where you got the bit about newspapers from. NadVolum (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of wp:lede "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.", you really do need to actually start reading policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've figured out what you're up to now. You think because I used the word lead that I thought the starting section of an article is like a newspaper lede? The guideline you point at calls it the lead section. I did not say lede. But I still don't see what I wrote that you thought was based on such an assumption or what difference it made to you. NadVolum (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- And? how I spelled it is irrelevant, we do not put books in the "Further reading" section that we cite, and your reference to the lead was and is a distraction. It does not matter if it is not in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've figured out what you're up to now. You think because I used the word lead that I thought the starting section of an article is like a newspaper lede? The guideline you point at calls it the lead section. I did not say lede. But I still don't see what I wrote that you thought was based on such an assumption or what difference it made to you. NadVolum (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of wp:lede "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.", you really do need to actually start reading policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 'Should not normally' is not the same as must not in every single case even when it seems sensible to. WP:POLICY says "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense". Don't know where you got the bit about newspapers from. NadVolum (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Irrelvant, it is used in the article and MOS is clear, we do not include in the further reading section books already cited. And read wp:lede it is a summary of important parts of the article, not a newspaper-style leader.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's currently over 500 citations in the article. We're not talking about duplicating anything like that. The biography is not mentioned in the lead anywhere. I'm just saying as a commonsense thing we should include an important biography that is used a number of times in the article rather than expecting people to trawl the 500+ references trying to find general references for the topic. As if they'd even think of doing that. If it was used in the lead I could see your point but it isn't. NadVolum (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section".Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Editors maligned
This is not the correct page to discuss editor conduct. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
With this edit at his user page, Prunesqualer has impugned the present editors of Wikpedia's Julian Assange:
I realize that user conduct is not normally discussed on an article talk page, but in this instance I believe everyone actively editing our Assange BLP should be aware of how we're being publicly maligned by a user in our midst as representing "the prosecution" in making our good faith contributions. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss users' conduct, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Unauthorised Autobiography
I have added a tag following the Bibliography item Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography.
{{Disputed inline|Talk:Julian_Assange#Unauthorised_Autobiography|for=Assange has renounced this book|date=September 2021}}
I do not request that this book be removed from the Bibliography, but readers must be cautioned that it was immediately disowned and denounced by its purported author, who accused Canongate Books of "screwing people over to make a buck" by having published this work "against my wishes" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That seems like a reasonable approach. Burrobert (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mmm, as he claims to to have written it I think it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: In opening this discussion, I hyperlinked the words
who accused
. You seem to have either missed that or not bothered to read Assange's statement. In its second paragraph, he declares:
- Slatersteven: In opening this discussion, I hyperlinked the words
- I am not "the writer" of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan.
- I reiterate, I am not requesting that we remove this book from the Bibliography. But to pretend Assange has not disavowed its authorship is dishonest. At the very least, readers ought to be informed that the book's legitimacy is disputed by Assange himself. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say YOU did, I am saying given this I think it should be. As it claims to be by him, and its not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: I responded to your comment that he claims to have written it. Now you declare "it claims to be by him." Mmm, those are two different things. I'm beginning to understand why these threads are so needlessly bloated. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- TYpoo, that should have been "as he claims not to have written", the extra to should have been an not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: I responded to your comment that he claims to have written it. Now you declare "it claims to be by him." Mmm, those are two different things. I'm beginning to understand why these threads are so needlessly bloated. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say YOU did, I am saying given this I think it should be. As it claims to be by him, and its not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I reiterate, I am not requesting that we remove this book from the Bibliography. But to pretend Assange has not disavowed its authorship is dishonest. At the very least, readers ought to be informed that the book's legitimacy is disputed by Assange himself. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Absent an explanation in the body of the BLP, I do not support removing this book from the Bibliography. I trust that no editor will disappear it without consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then you need to read WP:ONUS. it is the job of those wanting to include to get consensus for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- You've already stated that it should be removed. Why have you not done so? Basketcase2022 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Because I was willing to let the discussion run its course, but as you have decided to make an issue of it I invoked policy. But I shall now remove it per your request.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I asked you a question. I most emphatically did not request that you remove the book from the Bibliography. Please don't twist my position, which I repeatedly made clear, out of childish spite. Basketcase2022 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Becaue you were correct, I should have obeyed policy. Also read wp:talk, you discuss content, not users, as you have done more than once in this thread. My point was you are correct, I should have removed it, I should have obeyed wp:brd and once the objection was raised should have deleted the content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I asked you a question. I most emphatically did not request that you remove the book from the Bibliography. Please don't twist my position, which I repeatedly made clear, out of childish spite. Basketcase2022 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Because I was willing to let the discussion run its course, but as you have decided to make an issue of it I invoked policy. But I shall now remove it per your request.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- You've already stated that it should be removed. Why have you not done so? Basketcase2022 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this such a major biography we have to have a discussion of it in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is just more words, that tells us nothing about him or his actions. We need to stop adding everything ever said about Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography as one of the notable publications of 2011 in Australian literature.
- In addition to reporting on the book's release, The Guardian also reviewed it, calling Assange's memoir "surprisingly revealing."
- The Independent published timely "exclusive extracts".
- AFP disseminated a contemporaneous report of Assange's denunciation.
Three years later, Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography gained renewed attention when Andrew O'Hagan wrote an account of his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, published in the London Review of Books.
This in turn generated coverage by
Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography is noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph in his BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- So, it still tells us nothing about him, this is one paragraph that says "he did not like it, and the author then wrote a bit about it". This really does feel like trying to get it in here by hook or by crrok, hell we do not even say what Hagan said about it, only what Asange did (which also violates wp:npov, as we only give one side).Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
RFC, how should we word the material about Assange and rich?
Should we say
A "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material"
B. "Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."
C. "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."
D. “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Guccifer 2 to coordinate the release of the material"
E. Exclude.
F. “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Guccifer 2 (who acted as a front man to Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material".
Note sources are currently in the article or the talk page section titled Odd wording?Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have added an option “F” which was a wording I suggested a couple of days ago. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Prunesqualor and Slatersteven: Prunes, you can't just add your personal preference to an RfC underway. That is how these things end up failiung. Please strike that and !vote and comment within the framework provided. It already was perhaps too diffuse. RfC's work best when they are the closest to a binary choice. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO It is not reasonable for an interested party to word a RFC and to have sole ownership of which options can be chosen from. In this instance I am very happy to give Slatersteven the benefit of the doubt and assume that when compiling the list of choices he accidently overlooked the option I had suggested on the previous day | here. As for a binary choice – that would be nice but, unfortunately, IMO not at this stage appropriate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Prunesqualor and Slatersteven: Prunes, you can't just add your personal preference to an RfC underway. That is how these things end up failiung. Please strike that and !vote and comment within the framework provided. It already was perhaps too diffuse. RfC's work best when they are the closest to a binary choice. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Voting
- Option C: I presume the choice should be based on the two sources that have been provided on the article page.[1][2] The ‘’Washington Post’’’ article does not mention Rich so is not relevant. The word “continued” is inappropriate in all options. It implies Assange was doing something before Rich’s death which he resumed after Rich’s death. This makes no sense and is not in the source. The phrases “Assange must have known”, “continued to deny” and “even though” are not appropriate due to pointiness. Each of the options should contain a phrase attributing its statements to the Mueller report. This attribution appears in the New York Times article - “according to the report” appears four times in the article. Taking these shortcomings into account, the least objectionable version is option C, with the following changes:
- change “continued to confer” to “conferred”
- Attribute the statement to the Mueller report by saying at the start of the sentence “According to the Mueller report … “
- Burrobert (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option D or F: but as with :Burrobert above: change “continued to confer” to “conferred”. This option does not misleadingly imply that Assange knew he was conferring with Russian hackers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option B' Or C This seems to afford the best coverage of what the RS say, and we should use all of them if needed, not cherry pick.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option D or F This describes what happened without making an unwarranted implication that Assange knew the person he was talking to was a Russian hacker. We shouldn't be implying things like that in a Biography of a living person. We can also say he continued denying Russian involvement. What's in D and F also assumes he thought or asserted he was communicating with Rich but I think the wording will just about pass. NadVolum (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
I could only access the WaPo article and I could not find where it concludes that Assange must have known the Rich was not the source because he was dead. I notice too the use of the qualification "allegedly" in the WaPo article. "Allegedly" means an assertion has not been proved, although it does not exclude that there is a high probability of it being true. Also, since this is a biography of a living person, we should not make allegations of dishonesty as fact unless reliable sources report them as facts. TFD (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- We also could use this [[35]].
- This [3]<ref>Knott, Matthew (19 April 2019). "'A monster not a journalist': Mueller report shows Assange lied about Russian hacking". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 24 April 2019.</refSlatersteven (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can make out no credible source is saying that Assange knew he was conferring with Russian hackers whilst “coordinat[ing] the release of the [DNC] material” as the current wording implies. Some clearly believe he did, some don’t - it’s boils down to speculation/opinion and shouldn’t be implied as fact in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mervosh, Sarah (20 April 2019). "Seth Rich Was Not Source of Leaked D.N.C. Emails, Mueller Report Confirms". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 April 2019.
- ^ Bump, Philip (13 July 2018). "Timeline: How Russian agents allegedly hacked the DNC and Clinton's campaign". Washington Post. Retrieved 17 September 2021.
- ^ Poulsen, Kevin (18 April 2019). "Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
Observation: The RfC in this matter refers to the talk page section above titled Odd wording? Between its creation on 13 Sep 2021 and RfC opening on 17 Sep 2021, that section attracted 51 comments from four editors totaling 3,692 words (not counting signatures and time/date stamps). That strikes me as an inefficient process to reach an impasse over a single sentence, the last stable version of which comprises just 40 words. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think the article should include a misleadingly worded sentence even if getting it changed does take a lot of time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- The role of argumentation for its own sake should not be discounted here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot speak for others – but can assure you that my concerns re. the sentence in question are sincere. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- The role of argumentation for its own sake should not be discounted here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was clear to me it was not going anwhere fast. As such I thought OUTSIDE input was needed, fresh opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)