Line 1,724: | Line 1,724: | ||
:'''2.''' This proposal isn't an RfC (not listed as such), yet it is structured as ''if'' it is one, which probably undermines rather than aids its utility. FWIW. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 03:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
:'''2.''' This proposal isn't an RfC (not listed as such), yet it is structured as ''if'' it is one, which probably undermines rather than aids its utility. FWIW. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 03:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
:*In the close, {{ping|Mikehawk10}} repeatedly refers to "content" rather than "text". I do not think that contentious material that's been contested as UNDUE among other flaws can be cured simply by minor tweaks to wording or googling additional mentions in the press. I think a new explicit consensus is needed to reinsert that ''content'' and I have reverted to the status as of the RfC by removing the new text that does not have demonstrated consensus on talk.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
:*In the close, {{ping|Mikehawk10}} repeatedly refers to "content" rather than "text". I do not think that contentious material that's been contested as UNDUE among other flaws can be cured simply by minor tweaks to wording or googling additional mentions in the press. I think a new explicit consensus is needed to reinsert that ''content'' and I have reverted to the status as of the RfC by removing the new text that does not have demonstrated consensus on talk.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{ping|Prunesqualor}} I see that you have reverted the removal of this content, thus violating the Consensus Required page restriction. Please self revert. It's clear that there are several editors with policy-based objections -- for some of the same reasons the RfC did not find consensus for including this content. You may continue to pursue consensus on talk, but an involved editor should not simply declare that their view is correct, or has consensus, without being able to demonstrate such.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for comment on Yahoo report == |
== Request for comment on Yahoo report == |
Revision as of 20:55, 10 October 2021
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RFC inclusion of Sigurdur Thordarson claims
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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” [1]. 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)
Has this RfC run its course? If so, I'd like to manually archive it to Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 27 and place it following
- Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_27#Witness_Recants and
- Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_27#References_fo_Stundin_Thordarson_recant_section_discussed_above
in order to group these three related sections together for future reference. Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- It needs to be closed first.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have restored the two prematurely archived sections related to this RfC and grouped them, respectively, before and after this section to allow editors to see the discussions in context. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
What is the status of this RfC?
According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins.
Since there is no RfC template in this section, presumably the bot removed it. I also find that this RfC is no longer listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. As a newcomer, I am unfamiliar with the RfC closing process. Please advise: may I manually archive this RfC—plus its two related sections Talk:Julian_Assange#Witness_Recants and Talk:Julian_Assange#References_fo_Stundin_Thordarson_recant_section_discussed_above—or does someone intend to restart the RfC? I believe this talk page is unwieldy due to overlong discussions that have failed to reach consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- We should get an uninvolved editor to close it. There's no point having an RfC with no result.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- How do we find an uninvolved editor? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022: Make a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. ––FormalDude talk 02:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have just made a request.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022: Make a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. ––FormalDude talk 02:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- How do we find an uninvolved editor? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 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 [[2]] 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
[3]. 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,[4][5][6] 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.
[7] Ecuador and Britain have different asylum laws.[8] 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,[4][5][6] 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)
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.[2] 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.[3]
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
guardian200612
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/us/politics/julian-assange-extradition-appeal.html.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ "Archived copy". Retrieved 2021-08-27.
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)
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.[9] 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.[9] 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 [10]?--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)
- [11], [12]. 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."[13] 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 [14].--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 [14].--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.
[15] — 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.[16][[17] 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: [18].--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.
[19] 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.[20] 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)
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)
- I added what O'Hagan said. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: My edits today following your removal of Julian Assange, The Unauthorised Autobiography from the Bibliography have added a net total of 1,205 bytes. This does not seem excessive. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- And when the nest lot is only 1,205 bytes. it will not seem excessive. This is why the article is so bloated, one line here, another line there. None of which really add anything to our understanding of the man. What does this tell us we did not already know?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It tells us that in 2011, Canongate Books published Julian Assange, The Unauthorised Autobiography. That Assange immediately disavowed it, stating, "I am not 'the writer' of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan." That Assange accused Canongate of breaching their contract by publishing, against his wishes, a draft that Assange considered "a work in progress" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." And that in 2014, O'Hagan wrote about his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, recalling, "The story of his life mortified him and sent him scurrying for excuses. He didn't want to do the book. He hadn't from the beginning." Until I added that today, readers of our BLP would not have known any of it, unless they were already familiar with this noteworthy episode in Assange's life. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- And? What does it add to our understanding of the topic? So what if they knew nothing about it, they do not know what Assahgen had for breakfast this morning. We need to stop adding material unless it really adds to out understanding of him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: You are not the sole arbiter of what "really adds to our understanding" of Julian Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stop with the attacks on me, I am fully aware of our policies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: You are not the sole arbiter of what "really adds to our understanding" of Julian Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- And? What does it add to our understanding of the topic? So what if they knew nothing about it, they do not know what Assahgen had for breakfast this morning. We need to stop adding material unless it really adds to out understanding of him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It tells us that in 2011, Canongate Books published Julian Assange, The Unauthorised Autobiography. That Assange immediately disavowed it, stating, "I am not 'the writer' of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan." That Assange accused Canongate of breaching their contract by publishing, against his wishes, a draft that Assange considered "a work in progress" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." And that in 2014, O'Hagan wrote about his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, recalling, "The story of his life mortified him and sent him scurrying for excuses. He didn't want to do the book. He hadn't from the beginning." Until I added that today, readers of our BLP would not have known any of it, unless they were already familiar with this noteworthy episode in Assange's life. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- And when the nest lot is only 1,205 bytes. it will not seem excessive. This is why the article is so bloated, one line here, another line there. None of which really add anything to our understanding of the man. What does this tell us we did not already know?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
But I have had my say, I do not see why we need this or what it adds. It is just more bumpf, and so I will draw a line under this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
RFC, how should we word the material about Assange and Seth 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 conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by 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)
NOTE To assist editors who are coming here via a notification, the text is at the end of the following passage at the end of the article section 2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a July 2016 interview, Assange implied falsely that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. Seeking clarification, the interviewer asked Assange whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder," to which Assange answered, "No. There’s no finding. So, I’m suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."[291] WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder and wrote,[292]
We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications.
Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[293][292][294] and set off a spike in attention to the murder. Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet.[295] According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.[296][297][298] Assange must have known[according to whom?] 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.[296][273]
SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 19 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)
- Yes and no. I could not give every single option as there were so many variants, and all F is is a variant of D.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:Prunesqualer, the creator of an RfC does have a sort of ownership, so others must use persuasions to get them to alter it. If others are still verydissatisfied, they can !vote in a way that causes the RfC to fail and/or implode. An RfC doesn't always provide a final solution. Later RfCs may seek to modify previous results, so see an RfC as a step toward improvement. -- Valjean (talk) 20:35, 19 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)
There is concern that there are too many options for a clear result – could I suggest we can now drop all but two options:
- Drop A and E since there are no takers
- Drop B with only one taker (who shares their vote with C)
- Drop D since everyone who voted for D also voted for F (so F can represent that camp)
Leaving a binary C or F vote. Might I suggest that votes already registered for C or F still stand unless the person who voted explicitly changes their vote. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC) PS If agreed we could simply strike through options A B D and E and their accompanying text for clarity. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Leave it, we need to make sure that no ones "choice" is railroaded, which is why E is there at all (and as can be seen below is one of only two that have been explicitly rejected, along with A).Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
In acknowledgment of a valid point raised by Geogene I would like to alter the wording of option F to the following:
“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."
Please note the term “persona” is the one used in both the Muller report and our RS. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Could editors please note I have updated the text in option ‘’’F’’’ (after consulting and with the express approval of each editor who has so far voted F) to correct a fault spotted by Geogene re. Guccifer 2.0’s identity, and simplify “continued to confer” to “conferred”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:01, 25 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 F: This option covers the facts but 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)
- D or F, per above. A is pure OR, and B and C strongly imply guilty knowledge. E is a no-go, since there's no reason to suppress the information, only to write it properly. Agree with "conferred" edit. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option F. Option C implies that Assange knew it was Russians which I don't see in the cited sources. Alaexis¿question? 11:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I'm fine with the new wording ("a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers") too. Alaexis¿question? 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option E We cannot draw conclusions not stated in sources, per synthesis. Furthermore, we cannot state as facts information that is reported as allegations in sources, per biographies of living persons. I suggest that we only report conclusions that have been reported in reliable sources and report allegations as allegations. TFD (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- C is neutrally worded and meets the objections of editors who feel that A includes speculation as to Assange's thinking. A is also supported by RS reporting, however, and is acceptable as an alternative. Option F insinuates that Guccifer 2 was not part of the Russian operation, contrary to all RS narratives and the Mueller report. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here are some additional references regarding Assange's relationship with the Russians and his lie about Rich.
- Charges undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins
- Julian Assange’s claim that there was no Russian involvement in WikiLeaks emails
- Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians
- What the Latest Mueller Indictment Reveals About WikiLeaks’ Ties to Russia—and What It Doesn’t
For background on Guccifer 2.0 according to RS, see our article. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your first link says "Whether Assange knew that those behind Guccifer 2.0 were Russian agents is not addressed in the indictment. But it seems unlikely that Assange, a former hacker who once boasted of having compromised U.S. military networks himself, could have missed the extensive coverage blaming the Kremlin for the DNC hack." The second sentence is AP's opinion, which while possibly being notable, isn't enough to say it in wikivoice. Alaexis¿question? 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option E Are we really having an RFC to argue for the inclusion of WP:SYNTH? Even local consensus here by a few politically-minded editors that are interested in this subject (one way or the other) cannot overrule wikipedia policy. The entire proposed sentence should be struck, leaving only the position of the muller report, as that is due and readers can make up their own mind. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option C or F "Guccifer 2.0" is a nom de guerre used by the Russian hackers, whether Assange knew it or not. Using it in place of "Russian hackers" is obfuscation.
F needs editing though because theRevised F has addressed that Geogene (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)(who acted as a front man to Russian hackers)
implies that the G2.0 online persona was a natural person, which it was not.- Somewhere in here, Prunesqualor's suggested tweaking that to read "(a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers)". Something like that would work. We need to keep in mind that none of the proposed text in the options above is immutable forever; we need to be looking at the general "shape" and intent of it, and not get hung up on a particular word here or there. The goal is to produce encyclopedic text, not for a particular proponent of one particular exact wording above to "WP:WIN". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- None of the above: the single-minded obsession with Assange's involvement with the USA is a monumental obstacle in this article. It is trivial in the extreme whether Assange was misleading in an interview or knew this or knew that or had dealings with Russian agents or drank his tea with lemon or milk. We know that Assange runs a secretive organisation connected to dubious people, and we know that he publishes a wide range of highly confidential information which come from a wide range of sources. I don't see the relevance whether he obtained his information from a Russian minx, a Canadian muskrat, or a Swedish beaver. This is a global encyclopedia. This article should not obsess with tawdry American politics, any more than it should obsess with the politics of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Australia. I fully understand that American editors are hyperventilating about what Assange said about the chipmunk, the bison, or the black squirrel. But, hang on a minute, people in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Australia might equally be salivating at the bit, wanting to vent their spleen. Globally, who cares? Did the woodchuck chuck wood? Did the bear defecate in the national park? Is the moose really an elk? Questions of this ilk have little relevance here. I think attention here should principally — if not solely — be given to the sacrosanct Wikiwhatever principles of WP:UNDUE, WP:GLOBAL, and WP:NPOV — and all the other crap I haven't mentioned. In short, this is not all about the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nice imagery Jack. This is our version of the mediaeval question How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Burrobert (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Utterly vacuous. OJ Simpson -- Sports hero. Benedict Arnold -- Revolutionary war hero. Rudy Giuliani -- Respected attorney. Jack, things change and the most noteworhty events of a person's life are not always the ones for which they were first known. Also, the creative writing expeditions are best done elsewhere, not on a WP article talk page. They weaken whatever message you have. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jack, it would be more helpful if you focused more on adding views from other regions than on implying we should suppress what RS say about Assange's USA-related activities. Make a constructive suggestion. Would an article split help solve your issues with this article? -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Unseemly diatribe, Jack. When Slatersteven opened this RfC, Assange's BLP devoted 3 paragraphs, comprising 232 words, to Seth Rich; that has now grown to 4 paragraphs, comprising 313 words. I agree that this is too much. It could easily be reduced to a single paragraph, comprising 115 words:
- In a July 2016 interview on Dutch television, Assange hinted that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder but wrote, "This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications." Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet. According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.
- However, I dispute your larger point that editors' "single-minded obsession with Assange's involvement with the USA is a monumental obstacle in this article." Under Julian Assange's direction, WikiLeaks' most prominent target since November 2007 has been the United States. If there's a single-minded obsession here, it's Assange's self-declared 14-year war against America's national security and its domestic politics. For Wikipedia to minimize that involvement would do history a glaring disservice. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- It has to be said that this debate, if nothing else, has at least resulted in some editors being more open about their P.O.V.s re. Assange. They are pretty well as I would have predicted, but nice to have it in slightly plainer speech rather than having to judge by editing trends - It’s a shame that Wikipedia has no mechanism for ensuring an even balance, in terms of the numbers of editors contributing on each side of a controversial subject. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- With regard to Valjean's comment, we do have other articles which deal with this topic, including 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Murder of Seth Rich. I don't think a split would really make sense. In addition, bulking up the article with information about other countries is impractical, as this article is already oversized. Can I also take this opportunity to apologise for the animal motif? It did have a point, but in the cold light of day, I have forgotten what it was.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option E or F. Tracing this back to the GRU is something that piqued the interests of Muller's witnesses, not Assange. Implying that Assange looked into Guccifer 2.0's identity rather than respecting the anonymity wishes of his soruce would require much more than the assertions currently available. Connor Behan (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Option D is factual and does not draw inferences on who is a Russian hacker and who is not and whether Assange knew they were Russian hackers. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion (II)
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 [[21]].
- This [3][4] Slatersteven (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)
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)
Comment with -six- options? the chances of reaching a consensus in this RFC? isn't likely. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, as we already seem to have consensus heading towards D or F.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- And maybe C (one less "vote").Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I have suggested similar (a bit tucked away above) – suggested striking through all the options except C and F (explanation above). Since you opened the RFC if you’re in agreement perhaps you could do the honours? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- See my response above.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK Just so long as we go along with an option that has some support and a reasonable rationale after waiting a few more days I’m fine - it seems clear, on both those grounds, the current wording is not acceptable. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have already stated we seem to be heading for consensus. But I seem to recall the usual time for an RFC is about a week.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, ok, thanks (I guess I’ve become a little too mistrustful and defensive in my old age) Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- RfC's remain open for a month, not a week. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The guidance says: “An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration;”. Since quite a bit of time and effort has already gone into dealing with the issue in hand I’m sure most editors would welcome a reasonably timely conclusion without unnecessary delays - and a common sense acceptance of an option that is not misleading or inaccurate (nearly everyone so far involved, accepts that the current wording is, at least, misleading). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- We are not going to rely on your opinion to shorten this RfC. It needs to run its month. There is no emergency. The purpose of an RfC is to get uninvolved editors to examine the issue. So far we have barely scratched the surface and several views have ignored or contradicted the sources. I will solicit some participation on related article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to address those issues.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- We are not going to rely on your opinion to shorten this RfC. It needs to run its month. There is no emergency. The purpose of an RfC is to get uninvolved editors to examine the issue. So far we have barely scratched the surface and several views have ignored or contradicted the sources. I will solicit some participation on related article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The guidance says: “An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration;”. Since quite a bit of time and effort has already gone into dealing with the issue in hand I’m sure most editors would welcome a reasonably timely conclusion without unnecessary delays - and a common sense acceptance of an option that is not misleading or inaccurate (nearly everyone so far involved, accepts that the current wording is, at least, misleading). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- RfC's remain open for a month, not a week. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, ok, thanks (I guess I’ve become a little too mistrustful and defensive in my old age) Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have already stated we seem to be heading for consensus. But I seem to recall the usual time for an RFC is about a week.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK Just so long as we go along with an option that has some support and a reasonable rationale after waiting a few more days I’m fine - it seems clear, on both those grounds, the current wording is not acceptable. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- See my response above.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I have suggested similar (a bit tucked away above) – suggested striking through all the options except C and F (explanation above). Since you opened the RFC if you’re in agreement perhaps you could do the honours? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Can we please put out posts above the reflist? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, while I agreed that A is synthesis, so is C: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It implies that Assange was aware Rich was not the source because he knew Rich was dead when the files were received by Wikileaks. I don't think that so little has been published about Assange that we need to add our own opinions. `TFD (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. Not following that. I think it's well-sourced Assange knew Rich was dead and not his source. He amplified the nascent dark-web Rich conspiracy theory to broadcast it worldwide. See the section of our Murder of Seth Rich article SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Just to stick to the logical, Assange, if he really believed Rich to be involved in the leaks, may have believed other actors to be involved also (the supposedly “true” Russian hackers account certainly involved several players) so from Assange’s POV the e-mails may not necessarily have dried up on Rich’s death under such circumstances. The “amplified the nascent dark-web Rich conspiracy theory” point is already abundantly dealt with in the article and does not need yet another iteration in the currently contended sentence. IMO though, most pertinent and compelling: no reliable source (to the best of my knowledge) claims that Assange knew he was dealing with “Russian hackers” when “[coordinating] the release of the material” – we just don’t know - and should not misleadingly imply he do know (whatever our personal opinions on the subject). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently you have not read the sources I provided with my !vote above. Assange was promoting Russian disinformation and went out of his way to do so. We need to reflect the weight of RS, not what an editor may feel is "logical". SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to repeat myself but it has never been established that Assange knew he was dealing with the “Russians”. When you use phrases like “Assange was promoting Russian disinformation” you imply he did know. This is misleading. If the RSs do use similar phrases it is because they have explained the background so the reader knows that Assange was actually dealing with Guccifer 2. acting on behalf of Russian hackers. Option F makes this clear. Perhaps you could reconsider option F, or explain why you think it not acceptable? Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently you have not read the sources I provided with my !vote above. Assange was promoting Russian disinformation and went out of his way to do so. We need to reflect the weight of RS, not what an editor may feel is "logical". SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Just to stick to the logical, Assange, if he really believed Rich to be involved in the leaks, may have believed other actors to be involved also (the supposedly “true” Russian hackers account certainly involved several players) so from Assange’s POV the e-mails may not necessarily have dried up on Rich’s death under such circumstances. The “amplified the nascent dark-web Rich conspiracy theory” point is already abundantly dealt with in the article and does not need yet another iteration in the currently contended sentence. IMO though, most pertinent and compelling: no reliable source (to the best of my knowledge) claims that Assange knew he was dealing with “Russian hackers” when “[coordinating] the release of the material” – we just don’t know - and should not misleadingly imply he do know (whatever our personal opinions on the subject). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
To say that Assange knew that Seth Rich was not the source because Assange knew Rich was dead is a "conclusion." A conclusion is defined as "the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises." (Merriam Webster.)[22] And that is specifically prohibited by policy. If we had a source that reported this conclusion, then we might be able to include it. TFD (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please refer to the sources I gave with my !vote and to our WP Seth Rich article. There's plenty of sourcing Assange knew and was promoting Russian disinformation. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO You stated next to your vote “Option F insinuates that Guccifer 2 was not part of the Russian operation”. Sorry but that doesn’t add up to me: Option F explicitly says “Guccifer 2 ... acted as a front man to Russian hackers” surly a front man is usually part of an operation – only his job is to not be seen as such by the outsiders he interacts with. Regarding the four articles you shared – I should point out not one of them definitively claims that Assange knew at the time he was dealing with Russian Hackers – there is just speculation.
- Your first Source (A.P.) it says: “... But it seems unlikely that Assange, a former hacker who once boasted of having compromised U.S. military networks himself, could have missed the extensive coverage blaming the Kremlin for the DNC hack.” That is not at all conclusive and even if he knew that the Russians where being blamed in some quarters it does not follow he believed the Russian connection himself let alone knew it to be true.
- Your second Source (W.P.) it says: “While Assange... appears to claim that Russia is 1,000 percent certain not to be the source of the documents published on WikiLeaks,’’’ the facts are not nearly as certain’’’ “ Again there is plenty of speculation and theorising but it remains inconclusive.
- Regarding your third Source (The Daily Beast) it is not considered a sound source. Also then I didn’t spot any definitive statement that Assange knew he was dealing with Russian Hackers – in the article.
- Your fourth Source (The New Yorker) adds nothing relevant to the issue and is equally inconclusive just dealing with ifs and maybes.
Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Note it has been suggested we change option F, I have suggested rather add a new option.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify – I’ve suggested a slightly altered wording for F which reads:
“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."
This newer version substitutes: “continued to confer” with the less pointy: “Conferred” (a change already agreed on by several editors), and also swaps: “who acted as a front man to Russian hackers” for: “a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers” (as pointed out by Geogene - Guccifer 2.0 is not generally thought to be a single individual, and “a persona” is the term used in the Muller report and our RS). I’m hoping that those who voted F will be just as happy (or more so) with the tweaked version and that the altered version can keep the votes given to the older version (so far the front runner). I’ve contacted and asked for explicit agreement to the change from editors who voted for the old F - hopefully they will all respond Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC) (all did respond in the positive, and the wording is now changed accordingly) Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing pointy about "continued". It's common English usage. Have you read our Guccifer article and its sources, including the Mueller Report? If not, I think it's reasonable to expect you would do that now, given the level of control you apparently wish to assert over this wording. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Continued" means "to begin again or return to after an interruption". If you say X continued to do something after Y happened, then you are implying that X had been doing that thing prior to Y. I think we can all agree that Assange was not conferring with Guccifer 2.0 prior to Rich's death. Burrobert (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- No. And anyway, he got the emails before Rich's murder. Lots of conferring going on. Read the Mueller report. Read our Guccifer 2.0 article. Read the sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. I have tweaked the Guccifer 2.0 article to include that info. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sends Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirms that he received it. WikiLeaks publishes the file's contents on July 22. The Mueller report asserts that Assange was "working to shift blame onto [Seth Rich] to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing".[5] -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Valjean Just to be clear – the article already talks at length about Assange’s roll in the DNC leaks, gives three paragraphs to the Seth Rich side of the story and already says (just before the sentence we are discussing) “According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.” Seems to me there is no need to keep repeating ourselves on that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS on reflection the preceding sentence probably needs altering to avoid the misleading impression that Assange knew his source was Russian (as explained repeatedly, that has never been proven). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. I have tweaked the Guccifer 2.0 article to include that info. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sends Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirms that he received it. WikiLeaks publishes the file's contents on July 22. The Mueller report asserts that Assange was "working to shift blame onto [Seth Rich] to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing".[5] -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- No. And anyway, he got the emails before Rich's murder. Lots of conferring going on. Read the Mueller report. Read our Guccifer 2.0 article. Read the sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Continued" means "to begin again or return to after an interruption". If you say X continued to do something after Y happened, then you are implying that X had been doing that thing prior to Y. I think we can all agree that Assange was not conferring with Guccifer 2.0 prior to Rich's death. Burrobert (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well I think you've established clearly that you think whistleblowers are criminals. Deep throat should have been jailed for his bit in the Nixon saga. People who tell about their company dumping toxic waste in rivers are turncoats who should be made to suffer for the rest of their lives. NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Dumping poison is a crime, reporting that to the authorities is a duty, not a crime. As you would know if you were familiar with the Mueller Report, theft of a campaign's internal emails is a crime. Please be more careful not to misrepresent or disparage other editors. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- In what way am I disparaging or misrepresenting? The Mueller report calls it theft and leaves it at that unless you can point to a place that says more. The emails were damaging to Clinton, and they say that too. Whistleblowing very often involves tradeoffs, and a person showing their company doing polluting very possibly will have to have corroborating internal emails or other documents. NadVolum (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Dumping poison is a crime, reporting that to the authorities is a duty, not a crime. As you would know if you were familiar with the Mueller Report, theft of a campaign's internal emails is a crime. Please be more careful not to misrepresent or disparage other editors. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well I think you've established clearly that you think whistleblowers are criminals. Deep throat should have been jailed for his bit in the Nixon saga. People who tell about their company dumping toxic waste in rivers are turncoats who should be made to suffer for the rest of their lives. NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
"No. And anyway, he got the emails before Rich's murder".
From our article on our hero:
"Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead ..."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Burrobert (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I noticed that too. It has to be a typo made by SPECIFICO. -- Valjean (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Since you sidelined into labels of “criminal turncoat”: just for a little perspective: The act of revealing to the world that the Democratic Party may have cheated Bernie Sanders out of a chance to stand for President is not necessarily viewed as a bad thing by everyone - perhaps if more such disreputable behaviour was uncovered on political circles we would have a less corrupt and dysfunctional leadership. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the take-home point is that Assange's intervention might have been traumatic for certain persons of a US of A persuasion but equally could be "Snoresville" for denizens in a functioning polity. The reality is that Assange's leak (which could have come from a Russia barely disguised source) was ostensibly favourable to Sanders but could have in reality favoured Trump. Or been irrelevant. So I suggest all the US citixens involved in this discussion take a moment to adjust their underpants in private, in the comfort of their own homes or something similar, and not come to this page to screech about the irritation in their nether regions concerning a concocted issue that is trivial in the extreme. Sure, Assange shouldn't made his stupid comment about Rich — or any of the myriad of stupid comments that have pockmarked his stupid career. But honestly give it a rest. How many pages do we need to take mulling the Mueller Report? To we have to analyse all the crap that Assange said in an interview with someone from the Low Countries? Do we have to crawl deeper and deeper into the possible implications of his asinine and obviously self-serving remarks? No, no, no, we don't. And we shouldn't. If we have to include information about this non-event, it should be short, factual, and should exclude silly speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am rewording a point I made earlier to avoid accusations of “NOTFORUM”: I seems to me WP|SYNTH has been used to imply Assange in some way characterised Seth Rich as a “criminal turncoat”. I think it reasonable to point out that: Democratic Party officials behaved badly, and may well have cheated Bernie Sanders out of a chance to stand for President. The act of revealing such to the world has not been viewed as a bad thing by everyone (some see such whistle-blowing activity as constructive, democratic and brave) it would certainly not necessarily earn the label “criminal turncoat” in everyone’s eyes. It’s extremely likely that Assange saw the whistle-blower/s in this case in a positive light and possibly could not see misleading hints re. Seth Rich possible involvement as harmful (if so, given Rich’s family’s later reaction, he badly miscalculated) that much may be speculation but my point is: we cannot assume malice, and we certainly cannot imply that Assange wanted anyone labelled with pejorative terms like “criminal turncoat”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: I calmly and politely denounce your petty broadside fired at "certain persons of a US of A persuasion." As proclaimed at my user page, I am a proud resident native citizen of the United States. Since 5 August 2021, I have made 160 edits of Julian Assange—33.1% being minor. (Admittedly, this pales compared to your own 604 edits over the past two years.) I have also made more than 10% of total edits to this talk page since 15 August 2021. None of my contributions can reasonably be construed as "screeching about the irritation in my nether regions" or as demonstrating that my underpants require adjustment. I find your anti-American vulgarism offensive and ask you to, in your own words, honestly give it a rest. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022:I won’t defend vulgarity but I think Jack has a point saying the DNC leak scandal has taken too much prominence in the article – Assange may have backed a horse in 2016 and published information damaging to the Clinton Campaign – but exactly the same can be said about the New York Times, Washington Post and others. Seems to me the Clinton Campaign got caught behaving badly and then they, and their supporters in the MSM, whipped up hysteria about the messengers as a distraction from their own shortcomings. Seems our article has been sucked into that vortex – Sure the issue must be covered but not given 13 paragraphs and well over a thousand words. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022:I won’t defend vulgarity but I think Jack has a point saying the DNC leak scandal has taken too much prominence in the article – Assange may have backed a horse in 2016 and published information damaging to the Clinton Campaign – but exactly the same can be said about the New York Times, Washington Post and others. Seems to me the Clinton Campaign got caught behaving badly and then they, and their supporters in the MSM, whipped up hysteria about the messengers as a distraction from their own shortcomings. Seems our article has been sucked into that vortex – Sure the issue must be covered but not given 13 paragraphs and well over a thousand words. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the take-home point is that Assange's intervention might have been traumatic for certain persons of a US of A persuasion but equally could be "Snoresville" for denizens in a functioning polity. The reality is that Assange's leak (which could have come from a Russia barely disguised source) was ostensibly favourable to Sanders but could have in reality favoured Trump. Or been irrelevant. So I suggest all the US citixens involved in this discussion take a moment to adjust their underpants in private, in the comfort of their own homes or something similar, and not come to this page to screech about the irritation in their nether regions concerning a concocted issue that is trivial in the extreme. Sure, Assange shouldn't made his stupid comment about Rich — or any of the myriad of stupid comments that have pockmarked his stupid career. But honestly give it a rest. How many pages do we need to take mulling the Mueller Report? To we have to analyse all the crap that Assange said in an interview with someone from the Low Countries? Do we have to crawl deeper and deeper into the possible implications of his asinine and obviously self-serving remarks? No, no, no, we don't. And we shouldn't. If we have to include information about this non-event, it should be short, factual, and should exclude silly speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Since you sidelined into labels of “criminal turncoat”: just for a little perspective: The act of revealing to the world that the Democratic Party may have cheated Bernie Sanders out of a chance to stand for President is not necessarily viewed as a bad thing by everyone - perhaps if more such disreputable behaviour was uncovered on political circles we would have a less corrupt and dysfunctional leadership. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn’t look as though we are going to get an explanation Valjean. I would like to use your defence in any murder trial I am involved in: "Your honour, it was a simple spelling mistake. I swung the axe before the victim moved their head when I actually meant to swing it after they moved their head. Burrobert (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Per a suggestion below, I am proposing an alternate version here
- Current: "Assange must have known[according to whom?] 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.[1][6]"
- My version: "Kevin Poulson, writing for The Daily Beast wrote: "Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death."[5] Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead and Assange continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.[1][6] On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sent Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirmed that he received it. WikiLeaks published the file's contents on July 22.[5]"
I would like you to consider the merits of my version and discuss it. The matter of what Rich knew or didn't know is sufficiently complex to not be solvable with a simple sentence, and we are not allowed to SYNTHesize the answer that really covers it, but we are allowed to cite, with attribution, those RS which do that. -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b c Poulsen, Kevin (April 18, 2019). "Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians". The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer "to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing," Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election.
Cite error: The named reference "MuellerReportAssangeSmearedDailyBeast-20190418" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
wapotimeline
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Recent deletion on main page
Quite a number of the edits I have made on the main page over the past few weeks has been almost immediately reverted by SPECIFICO – I’m not convinced these reversions are all warranted - could some other editors at least take a look at the latest deletion and either tell me where I erred or reinstate (ps in deleting my edit SPECIFICO also took out existing material from the article). Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I have said more than once, the article is already too long and we need to remove stuff before we expand stuff. We really need to take out most of the "they said" stuff. In fact it seems to me that half this article could be replaced with "and a number of commentators and celebrities have come out.... of Assange Such as" (either in support or in opposition, and list three or four really notable examples).Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but there are legitimate differences about what should and should not be included - editors should perhaps discuss these things before setting themselves up as judge and jury and blanking another editors work when it is permissible properly sited material. This has been done on several occasions now and I find it extremely unhelpful. Also note, some of the material that SPECIFICO took out at the same time was more than a year old – no extra explanation was offered in the edit summary for that Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. there was some miss-wording in the year+ old material that I was in the process of correcting before it was deleted. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- If content is disputed both wPbrd and WP:ONUS are clear. As any new addition is going to be disputed it might be a good idea to assume it will be and make the case here, first.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I stated in my edit summary, the old content I removed failed verification. My summary said I removed
unsourced content RE: support
. Don't misrepresent other editors' work. It is not constructive and it wastes everyone's time. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)- Neither of you are addressing the issue of SPECIFICO deleting long standing (one year +) material in the same edit as removing my contribution, and doing so without a clear explanation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear the deletion was described under the umbrella: “Undid revision 1045249603 by Prunesqualer (talk)...” no mention was made of removing fairly long standing material at the same time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- You appear not to have read my edit summary nor to have read the reply I gave you immediately above before you repeated your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- IMO Your edit summary beginning ““Undid revision 1045249603 by Prunesqualer (talk)...” was inadequate. I believe you should: reinsert my edit and reinstate the 1+ year old material (that you removed in the same edit), then we can reasonably discuss the issues you have with each. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- You appear not to have read my edit summary nor to have read the reply I gave you immediately above before you repeated your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes but there are legitimate differences about what should and should not be included - editors should perhaps discuss these things before setting themselves up as judge and jury and blanking another editors work when it is permissible properly sited material. This has been done on several occasions now and I find it extremely unhelpful. Also note, some of the material that SPECIFICO took out at the same time was more than a year old – no extra explanation was offered in the edit summary for that Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. there was some miss-wording in the year+ old material that I was in the process of correcting before it was deleted. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the detail of what was deleted I will deal with my own addition and the year old material separately:
- Re, my added material: The article already explained that "...Swiss bank, Julius Baer, failed to block the [Wikileak’s] publication of bank records." I added the following (based on information in the existing sources):
"In an earlier ruling on the issue a U.S. Judge had ordered the permanent deletion of the wikileaks.org site, effectively closing it down. However the decision was reversed two weeks later, by the same Judge, because of concerns about breaching freedom of speech protections embodied in The First Amendment."
- Is anyone seriously suggesting that the near shutting down of Wikileaks by a U.S. court is not worthy of inclusion in the article? UNDUE? Surly not.
- Re. the year old material, not composed by myself but deleted at the same time: it read:
” Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "”operate outside the rule of law,"” and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups”
- I accept the sentence is miss-worded, implying as it does that the banks “received extensive legal support...” however I was in the process of changing the wording to fit the RS when it was deleted. After amending it would have read something like:
“Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "”operate outside the rule of law,"”. During the hearings Wikileaks received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups.”
- This version fits perfectly with the RS and seems worthy of inclusion to me.
Unless anyone has reasonable objections I would like to reinsert the above material (including amendment). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the court detail is UNDUE. The "support" bit is unverified by the source. We already know Assange's supporters claim free speech when it's convenient. No, your edit cannot be reinstated without consensus on talk. Currently, you have no support at all, just a complaint. SPECIFICO talk 09:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- We’ll take this one issue at a time: “The court detail is UNDUE”? Sorry to repeat, but are you “seriously suggesting that the near shutting down of Wikileaks by a U.S. court is not worthy of inclusion in the article”? Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit ". The text "Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "operate outside the rule of law," and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups" is long-standing. If there is disagreement about its removal, it should be replaced while a discussion takes place. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK - my suggested wording is less ambiguous but given the current climate on this page I’ve stuck to the rules and restored the long standing version Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Burrobert: Whilst you are here, I wonder, do you have an opinion on my suggested additional two sentences (in grey above) beginning “"In an earlier ruling on the issue a U.S. Judge ...” ? Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit ". The text "Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "operate outside the rule of law," and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups" is long-standing. If there is disagreement about its removal, it should be replaced while a discussion takes place. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- We’ll take this one issue at a time: “The court detail is UNDUE”? Sorry to repeat, but are you “seriously suggesting that the near shutting down of Wikileaks by a U.S. court is not worthy of inclusion in the article”? Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The information you added is noteworthy so I support it being added to the article. The size of the article is not a reason for excluding content. I think it would be better to present the events in chronological order rather than going back in time and saying "In an earlier ruling ... ". So, first state that Wikileaks published certain documents. Then provide the initial ruling of the US judge. Then give the reversal and reasons. Btw, I agree that the longstanding text which you just restored is ambiguously worded and your version would be clearer. Hopefully after discussion, consensus can be reached to use your version. Burrobert (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer: Please do not assert that there is a "rule" that your preferred text must be restored and that unsourced text should be reinstated after its lack of verificartion has repeatedly been pointed out. I have commented further on your user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Tag it then, and lets delete it after a few months if no sources are provided. Yes (by the way) uncited material can be removed, and this is just a compromise to give them time to cite it.Slatersteven (talk)
- Except that it would be SYNTH and UNDUE even if sourced, because its position in the article is to promote Assange's views and actions. But the relevant factor here is that the court decided in his favor. That's the adjudication of the issue, not whether unnamed and possibly uninformed advocates popped up. As to the first bit of UNDUE text -- this article is Assange's life story. He is not an expert on finance and taxation or international law and his actions speak for themselves. His vague and false statements about banks operating "outside the law" are of no encyclopedic merit -- the opinions of one person who claims no expertise or particular knowledge of the legal and policy issues invovled in international tax matters. It's chaff. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- And as I said this is just a compromise, we do not need to delete it now. Give them a chance, they now know there is an issue that needs fixing. Its long standing text, and so they need to be given time to back it up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you believe either of them has understood or acknowledged the UNDUE and UNVERIFIED nature of Prune's edits? I see him insisting the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- AGF, so yes I assume they understand policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you believe either of them has understood or acknowledged the UNDUE and UNVERIFIED nature of Prune's edits? I see him insisting the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Tag it then, and lets delete it after a few months if no sources are provided. Yes (by the way) uncited material can be removed, and this is just a compromise to give them time to cite it.Slatersteven (talk)
- Prunesqualer: Please do not assert that there is a "rule" that your preferred text must be restored and that unsourced text should be reinstated after its lack of verificartion has repeatedly been pointed out. I have commented further on your user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for interrupting your private chat but ...
The long standing text is "Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "operate outside the rule of law," and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups.". It is sourced to the New York Times article which says "Still, Mr. Assange said in London on Monday, financial institutions usually “operate outside the rule of law” because of their economic power" and The Guardian article which says "Backed up in court by a dozen lawyers from free-speech and civil rights groups, Wikileaks representatives heard Judge White acknowledge that the injunction raised serious First Amendment issues". Burrobert (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am concerned that we are including — one way or another — the legal opinions of Assange who is not a qualified lawyer and (as a current jailbird and a convicted criminal) is not particular successful in his legal arguments. I am all for including the opinions of Assange (if he has any) as previously discussed. But I don't see the benefit of regurgitating the comments of someone, who is not a lawyer and apparently has never studied the law, in regard to legal issues. If he had comments regarding computer programming there would be a point. If his lawyers put forward an argument, there would be a point. But I don't think the fact that Assange has jumped out of bed, combed his hair, and got on the telephone or the Internet to say that cornflakes are "unlawful" or that a fart from his ex-girlfriend is "grievously bodily harm" is particularly notable. It is pretty obvious that he is clueless about what the law is in any jurisdiction. Please don't interpret this as saying I am not compassionate.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I follow your reasoning. However, some may see your utter contempt for Assange and his knowledge of the law as making undue assumptions. After all, a lifetime of risk taking, and pushing against the boundaries of law around the world, is bound to result is some spectacular miscalculations – that IMO doesn’t warrant the contempt you show. Assange certainly had access to thousands of confidential banking documents, and studying them would give even a lay person some insight into the behaviour of banks, and their relationship with various legal entities. Also note his comments are clearly signposted as just his opinion i.e. saying: “Assange commented that” and using quotation marks not editorial voice of authority. With a little more trust and co-operation on the page perhaps we could have found a better wording but as things are “long standing” offers a little protection against giving and inch and a mile being taken. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah, ywah, but I would prefer that his opinions were actually deposited in the "Opinion" section instead of featured in the article as if they are in fact solid legal opinions that would stand up in a court of law somewhere. You seem to assume that someone like me who doesn't genuflect to the Assange cult has "utter contempt" for him. That is wrong and biased. Obviously.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo News investigation
Yahoo! News has just published the results of an investigation into how the US state apparatus worked to neutralise Assange and Wikileaks.[1] The breathless title is a good introduction to the article. There is enough information in the article for a separate Wikipedia page on attempts by the US regime to counteract the threat of Assange and Wikileaks. I will mention a few items here.
- The release of Vault 7 made a big difference to the way the US state apparatus behaved towards Wikileaks and Assange ("After Vault 7, Pompeo and [Deputy CIA Director Gina] Haspel wanted vengeance on Assange"). We only mention Vault 7 once in Assange’s bio.
- One hilarious idea, which indicates the level of Pompeo’s madness, was to “violat[e] the sanctity of the Ecuadorian Embassy before kidnapping the citizen of a critical U.S. partner — Australia — in the capital of the United Kingdom, the United States’ closest ally". Apparently Britain, in a rare show of independence, was not interested. Australia's reaction isn't mentioned but has always been "All the way with whoever is charge over there".
- Trump denied that he ever considered having Assange assassinated and said "I think [Assange]’s been treated very badly". Any of that noteworthy?
- For the Russophobes, a Russian plan to whisk Assange out of the embassy and on to Russia is mentioned. This plan involved Russian spies. Russia.
Burrobert (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well Trump says a lot, so unsure if this is really that significant. At best all of this would need atrbutation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think he actually did consider assassinating Assange? I don't think we can say that without more evidence. The article does say that Pompeo considered assassination. Anyway there is a lot more in the article. I picked out a few dot points and Trump only received passing mention. Burrobert (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have no idea what he might have thought, but given past (public) behavior I think he could have said 15 contradictory things in as many sentences in one conversation (some without thinking at all). As I implied, we need to ber care (if) how we use this. So I would like to see some suggested text here first.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think he actually did consider assassinating Assange? I don't think we can say that without more evidence. The article does say that Pompeo considered assassination. Anyway there is a lot more in the article. I picked out a few dot points and Trump only received passing mention. Burrobert (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't we take care with all changes to the page? The writers consulted over 30 former intelligence functionaries, most of whom are anonymous. There were two named sources, one of whom, William Evanina, was a highly placed official. Usually this type of information is released to shape public opinion toward some end. The information does demonstrate the homicidal nature of the previous regime but it also works against the US prosecution of Assange, so it is hard to know how to interpret it. Burrobert (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think "the homicidal nature of the previous regime " sums up nicely why I would want to see what we say before we add it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Assassination is an example of homicide. The discussion in relation to Assange led nowhere in the end, but the article indicates this was not from lack of will on the part of the Trump regime.
- "Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request “sketches” or “options” for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration".
- "[T]he agency’s WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting".
- "In response, the CIA and the White House began preparing for a number of scenarios to foil Assange’s Russian departure plans, according to three former officials. Those included potential gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London, crashing a car into a Russian diplomatic vehicle transporting Assange and then grabbing him, and shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow".
- " "That the CIA also conspired to seek the rendition and extrajudicial assassination of Julian Assange is a state-sponsored crime against the press,” [Poitras] added".
- "One of those officials said he was briefed on a spring 2017 meeting in which the president asked whether the CIA could assassinate Assange and provide him “options” for how to do so".
- "[A]gency executives requested and received “sketches” of plans for killing Assange and other Europe-based WikiLeaks members who had access to Vault 7 materials".
- "In testimony first reported in the Guardian, another idea also took shape. “Even the possibility of poisoning Mr. Assange was discussed,” the employee said his boss told him". (This story was published in The Guardian last year).
- Burrobert (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- "In response" to WHAT? It was "in response" to the Ecuadorian's plans to allow "Russian intelligence operatives... to sneak Assange out of the United Kingdom and spirit him away to Moscow," where he would work in the Ecuadorian embassy's "Russian mission.... The intrigue over a potential Assange escape set off a wild scramble among rival spy services in London. American, British and Russian agencies, among others, stationed undercover operatives .... to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services — whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards.”
- It's too bad that Assange never ended up in Russia, where he would have felt most comfortable. He was, after all, the next most important Russian asset in the western world, second only to Trump, who is still finishing Putin's assigned task for him, destabilizing American democracy. According to the former GOP Attorney General of Arizona,"Trump 'Succeeded' Where Russia Failed With Attacks on Election Integrity." So yes, that failed Russian/Ecuadorian plot should be mentioned. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
What do editors think of the following text, sourced from the Yahoo article:
"In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the wake of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," journalist Glenn Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists." " Burrobert (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- That paragraph does not belong in this Assange BLP. WikiLeaks and Greenwald each have their own Wikipedia pages, where the content has already been added. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't see it in the Wikileaks article. There was something about Wikileaks associates that referenced the Yahoo story. Btw, Laura Poitras thought Assange was included in this action: "Poitras said reported attempts to classify herself, Greenwald and Assange as “information brokers” rather than journalists are “bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide". "
- We seem to have kept Pompeo's name out of the story.
- "At meetings between senior Trump administration officials after WikiLeaks started publishing the Vault 7 materials, Pompeo began discussing kidnapping Assange, according to four former officials. While the notion of kidnapping Assange preceded Pompeo’s arrival at Langley, the new director championed the proposals, according to former officials".
- "Pompeo and others at the agency proposed abducting Assange from the embassy and surreptitiously bringing him back to the United States via a third country — a process known as rendition".
- Burrobert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, if your position is that material about Wikileaks shouldn't be in Assange's bio, you have a big job ahead of you. Most of the material in the "2016 U.S. presidential election", "Founding WikiLeaks" and "WikiLeaks publishing" sections is about Wikileaks. There are many other sentences that are only about Wikileaks:
- After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.
- 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.
- In April, CIA director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia".
- Interestingly, there is an item in the current article that is very similar to a part of the Yahoo story:
- In the same documents, there was a proposal by the National Security Agency (NSA) to designate WikiLeaks a "malicious foreign actor", thus increasing the surveillance against it.
- Burrobert (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, if your position is that material about Wikileaks shouldn't be in Assange's bio, you have a big job ahead of you. Most of the material in the "2016 U.S. presidential election", "Founding WikiLeaks" and "WikiLeaks publishing" sections is about Wikileaks. There are many other sentences that are only about Wikileaks:
- We seem to have kept Pompeo's name out of the story.
Observation: The Yahoo! News article contains 7,177 words and is rated as a 39-minute read. This talk page section contains more than 1,500 words and is clearly just getting started. I predict that in no time flat this section will dwarf the Yahoo! News article, and probably require more than an hour to read—if anyone can bear to do so. What's most remarkable about this phenomenon is that Talk:Julian Assange is the preserve not of dozens of editors, but a mere handful, who belabor one point after another at endless length without nary a consensus in sight. Is this any way to run a BLP? Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'll condense the points for those with short attention spans:
- Should Laura Poitras' reaction be mentioned?
- Should we mention Pompeo's role?
- Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?
- Someone else said those dastardly Russians need to be mentioned.
- Burrobert (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I did not suggest that we should remove items from the page which are only about WikiLeaks. I said your proposed paragraph headed
What do editors think of the following text, sourced from the Yahoo article
does not belong in this Assange BLP because WikiLeaks and Greenwald each have their own Wikipedia pages. Please don't twist my words in your effort to further elongate an already bloated talk page section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)- Edit summary for removal of text " remove WikiLeaks-related sentence, which is present at WikiLeaks#2017; this BLP should be limited to Assange ".
- Other points?
- Burrobert (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence I removed with that edit summary was
CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.
It did not mention Assange. By "this BLP should be limited to Assange" I meant only that we should restrict ourselves to WikiLeaks-related content that directly involves Assange's role in that organization. WikiLeaks exists apart from Assange, and for us to force-feed extraneous material about WikiLeaks into an already gorged BLP does not well serve this encyclopedia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)- We are back to the original question "Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?" Anyway, other points? Burrobert (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's your question, not mine. Your attempt to pin it on me is repugnant. Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- We are back to the original question "Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?" Anyway, other points? Burrobert (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence I removed with that edit summary was
- For the record, I did not suggest that we should remove items from the page which are only about WikiLeaks. I said your proposed paragraph headed
Early on in the discussion, one of our more cautious editors wanted to see some suggestions. I picked up a number of points that had been raised in the discussion so far. I don't know what "pinning a question onto someone" means. You don't have to participate in the discussion if you don't want to. I'll repost the questions here in case editors have lost the thread of the discussion:
- Should Laura Poitras' reaction be mentioned?
- Should we mention Pompeo's role?
- Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?
- Someone else said those dastardly Russians need to be mentioned.
Burrobert (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- And for editors who have lost the thread of the discussion, please be aware that the bullet point
Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?
was not proposed by me, and I repudiate it as being ludicrous on its face. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)- Basketcase2022 As Bur. Pointed out in your edit summary where you justify removing material, you said: “remove WikiLeaks-related sentence, which is present at WikiLeaks#2017; this BLP should be limited to Assange” This could be interpreted as precedent for removing all information that is not solely about Assange (eg anything about Wikileaks in general) that is already covered in other articles. I think such a precedent would be too constrictive for the good of the article and that such calls should be made on a case by case basis and labelled as such when editing. In this particular case it seems to me that the information that “[The] CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.” Reveals something about the climate surrounding Assange – and is noteworthy enough to include. I hope on reflection you may agree (and hope even more we don’t end up with another blasted RfC dealing with a single sentence). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is becoming tiresome. How many times do I have to say it? I have not proposed removing all information that is not solely about Assange (e.g., anything about WikiLeaks in general) that is already covered in other articles, and I categorically reject Burrobert's bullet point suggesting such a dopey thing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- V. Sorry - I really have no wish to be tiresome (this page turns us all into grumps and pedants at times) but: do you not see how your edit summary may be interpreted as a general judgement on information that is not solely about Assange and that is already covered in other articles? I agree (of course) that relevance to Assange is a valid consideration when we decide what info to include in his BLP, but I think the edit summary should have addressed that in a case specific way eg “Removing sentence as this information is not sufficiently relevant to Assange’s life” Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. Mea máxima culpa. I renounce my edit summary and will strive to the best of my meager abilities to do better. Now, please, I beg you, can we move on to something else? Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not sufficiently relevant to Assange sounds a good summary to me. I think that can be judged by the source, if it only mentions Assange as heading Wikileaks for instance it very probably is not relevant to this article. NadVolum (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The first five paragraphs in the article begin as follows:
- “In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in...”
- ”Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange...”
- ”The conversations were part of an unprecedented CIA campaign directed against WikiLeaks and its founder.”
- ”While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies...”
- ”President Trump’s newly installed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange...”
- Yes Assange does not appear in the title of the piece but if you read through it you will find he is the key figure linking the piece together. More to the point if my colleagues where being manipulated to make them fall out with each other or being bugged partly in an attempt to find out more about myself I would say that would affect my life profoundly and tell me something about my relationship with the power structure around me. People around Assange where targeted/manipulated/spied on at least in part to find out more about Assange and to undermine the organisation that he still played a key role in running. It’s not a particularly long sentence, the information is interesting, the overlap with Assange’s life is significant – I’d say this sentence defiantly earns a place in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The first five paragraphs in the article begin as follows:
- V. Sorry - I really have no wish to be tiresome (this page turns us all into grumps and pedants at times) but: do you not see how your edit summary may be interpreted as a general judgement on information that is not solely about Assange and that is already covered in other articles? I agree (of course) that relevance to Assange is a valid consideration when we decide what info to include in his BLP, but I think the edit summary should have addressed that in a case specific way eg “Removing sentence as this information is not sufficiently relevant to Assange’s life” Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is becoming tiresome. How many times do I have to say it? I have not proposed removing all information that is not solely about Assange (e.g., anything about WikiLeaks in general) that is already covered in other articles, and I categorically reject Burrobert's bullet point suggesting such a dopey thing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 As Bur. Pointed out in your edit summary where you justify removing material, you said: “remove WikiLeaks-related sentence, which is present at WikiLeaks#2017; this BLP should be limited to Assange” This could be interpreted as precedent for removing all information that is not solely about Assange (eg anything about Wikileaks in general) that is already covered in other articles. I think such a precedent would be too constrictive for the good of the article and that such calls should be made on a case by case basis and labelled as such when editing. In this particular case it seems to me that the information that “[The] CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.” Reveals something about the climate surrounding Assange – and is noteworthy enough to include. I hope on reflection you may agree (and hope even more we don’t end up with another blasted RfC dealing with a single sentence). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll remove that point from the list based on the above discussion. There seems to be consensus that items should not be removed from the article on the grounds that they only relate to Wikileaks. Items should be assessed on a case by case basis to determine whether their content is sufficiently significant to Assange to warrant inclusion here. If those items are not suitable for inclusion here, it may be appropriate to send them over to the Wikileaks article.
The Yahoo story should provide us with an interesting social experiment. It has now appeared in a number of sources, including Murdoch's Times, which seems surprising based on what we know about that outlet and its owner.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Interestingly, the story has not made it as far as the The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post or major oz newspapers. Given that Murdoch owns Australia, it is even stranger that The Times would mention it.
The story points that remain are below - feel free to add others:
- Should Laura Poitras' reaction be mentioned?
- Should we mention Pompeo's role?
- What are we going to do with those dastardly Russians?
Burrobert (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Re. Poitras’s reaction: I think attempts by some in the US security services to redefine WikiLeaks and various journalists as “information brokers” “which would have opened up the use of more investigative tools against them...” is certainly interesting, but if the information that “[The] CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.” Is considered insufficiently centred on Assange (a view I differ with) then I’m guessing the “Poitras said reported attempts to classify herself, Greenwald and Assange as “information brokers” rather than journalists are “bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide.”” probably won’t be accepted. Re. Pompeo’ role: we have: “Pompeo began discussing kidnapping Assange, according to four former officials” and “Pompeo is advocating things that are not likely to be legal,” including “rendition-type activity,” said a former national security official.” And : “Pompeo took over, he cut the lawyers out of a lot of things” These clearly deal with Assange, and I would like to see some of this mentioned. Re. the dastardly Russians: Seems to me they are already colonising half of Assange’s page and need no further shout outs – the Russia mentions in the article seem a bit hysterical – the idea that “The Russians” would really launch a major operation to smuggle Assange out of an embassy under the noses of the UK security services/police in the middle of London seems far-fetched – I guess the CIA folks earn their living planning for all sorts of bizarre contingencies – not sure we need to mention this pipe dream. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it would have been outside the capabilities of the Russians to smuggle him out of the embassy. But the idea just doesn't pass the smell test for me. They owe him nothing, and I can't see any way in which saving him would be an advantage to them. In fact I think it is very much to Russia's advantageto let the saga continue. Yes I agree it is very probably the CIA scenario people just doing what they do. NadVolum (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can see the Russians letting the US think they might try to do something like that though! NadVolum (talk)
- NadVolum, you may have missed this from the discussion above:
"In response" to WHAT? It was "in response" to the Ecuadorian's plans to allow "Russian intelligence operatives... to sneak Assange out of the United Kingdom and spirit him away to Moscow," where he would work in the Ecuadorian embassy's "Russian mission.... The intrigue over a potential Assange escape set off a wild scramble among rival spy services in London. American, British and Russian agencies, among others, stationed undercover operatives .... to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services — whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards.”
It's too bad that Assange never ended up in Russia, where he would have felt most comfortable. He was, after all, the next most important Russian asset in the western world, second only to Trump, who is still finishing Putin's assigned task for him, destabilizing American democracy. According to the former GOP Attorney General of Arizona,"Trump 'Succeeded' Where Russia Failed With Attacks on Election Integrity." So yes, that failed Russian/Ecuadorian plot should be mentioned.
- The Russians owe Assange a whole lot. In April 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Pompeo said that the US Intelligence Community had concluded that Russia's "primary propaganda outlet," RT had "actively collaborated" with WikiLeaks.[8] -- Valjean (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Yes the Russians have gained from him. But he is not an operative of Russia and they have no duty to protect him so other operatives feel safe any more than they have a duty to Trump. The whole Trump era cold be wiped away as a bad memory if Trump could be identified as actually working for Russia, so it would not be in Russia's interest to give any credence to such a supposition by spiriting Trump away if he was about to be stuck in jail for treason. The same reasoning applies to Assange and the US is currently digging itself a bigger hole with its actions against him. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum, you make a good point. I think that's one of the differences between an "asset" and an actual "agent". Assange, Wikileaks, and Trump have been, and are, very valuable and willing Russian "assets" (useful idiots) that Russia would abandon in a heartbeat. They are not activated "agents" Russia would want to protect, so the common joke encouraging Trump and his family to seek asylum at the nearest Russian embassy might have a different outcome than some might expect. It's not certain that Putin would want to host Trump. He might be too big a liability. He also serves Putin's purposes better by remaining in America. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just saw in consortiumnews "What the Yahoo! Assange Report Got Wrong"[9] which also debunks the bit about a Russian plot. Though one has to look at all these stories with a jaundiced eye so I read that bit with a definite "why are they saying this" sort of attitude even if they corroborate what I think ;-) It's very hard to come out of any of these things with a well established truth. NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum: Please, what are we to make of this? Consortium News is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yet as your linked story shows, Joe Lauria writes that
The Yahoo! News report that is mistakenly being credited for breaking the story of a CIA plot to assassinate or kidnap WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is filled with crucial errors…
. On its face, that would seem to debunk the source that launched both this talk page section and an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Yet you conclude, "It's very hard to come out of any of these things with a well established truth." Evidently you apprised of this in order to discredit Joe Lauria's piece, but I'm not persuaded that you have done so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)- Needs to stay out of the artilce until and unless valid sourcing develops. This is a BLP violation as it currently stands and must be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- It really, really isn't. But if you genuinely think it is, well, you've been around a few years, you know where to go. I look forward to the (short) conversation there. Cambial foliage❧ 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Basketcase2022: The reporting in consortium news identifies what it says are some errors, but none of them relate to the content that is actually in the article. More importantly, while not listed at perennial sources, it has been discussed on numerous occasions at RSN and the consensus is not a positive one for its reliability. Cambial foliage❧ 21:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused (not for the first time, of course). Joe Lauria writes that
The Yahoo! News report … is filled with crucial errors
. Yet you say the errors identified by Consortium News do not relate to "the content that is actually in the article." Surely if Yahoo! News makes crucial errors in an article, it calls into question the reliability of the entire article, not just certain passages. I don't see how Wikipedia editors can be selective in relying on such a conflicted source. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)- Given that consortium news is not considered a reliable source by consensus, there is no
surely
about real or imagined "crucial errors
" in the article. The discussions on RSN suggest consortium news is considered a fringe organisation, not to be taken seriously. Are the supposed, but quite possibly imaginary, errors described by this fringe organizationcrucial
? They don't relate to the fundamental assertions that have been picked up on and further looked into by other media organizations. They don't relate to the headline. They don't relate to the content that has been used in this WP article. But fundamentally the issue is: there's no reliable source stating that they exist at all. Cambial foliage❧ 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)- Thank you. I believe I understand now. We are meant to completely ignore Joe Lauria's Consortium News article, which seems to have been introduced into this talk page discussion as a red herring. I'm sorry I bit on that. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Given that consortium news is not considered a reliable source by consensus, there is no
- I'm confused (not for the first time, of course). Joe Lauria writes that
- Needs to stay out of the artilce until and unless valid sourcing develops. This is a BLP violation as it currently stands and must be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum: Please, what are we to make of this? Consortium News is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yet as your linked story shows, Joe Lauria writes that
- Just saw in consortiumnews "What the Yahoo! Assange Report Got Wrong"[9] which also debunks the bit about a Russian plot. Though one has to look at all these stories with a jaundiced eye so I read that bit with a definite "why are they saying this" sort of attitude even if they corroborate what I think ;-) It's very hard to come out of any of these things with a well established truth. NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum, you make a good point. I think that's one of the differences between an "asset" and an actual "agent". Assange, Wikileaks, and Trump have been, and are, very valuable and willing Russian "assets" (useful idiots) that Russia would abandon in a heartbeat. They are not activated "agents" Russia would want to protect, so the common joke encouraging Trump and his family to seek asylum at the nearest Russian embassy might have a different outcome than some might expect. It's not certain that Putin would want to host Trump. He might be too big a liability. He also serves Putin's purposes better by remaining in America. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Yes the Russians have gained from him. But he is not an operative of Russia and they have no duty to protect him so other operatives feel safe any more than they have a duty to Trump. The whole Trump era cold be wiped away as a bad memory if Trump could be identified as actually working for Russia, so it would not be in Russia's interest to give any credence to such a supposition by spiriting Trump away if he was about to be stuck in jail for treason. The same reasoning applies to Assange and the US is currently digging itself a bigger hole with its actions against him. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Russians owe Assange a whole lot. In April 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Pompeo said that the US Intelligence Community had concluded that Russia's "primary propaganda outlet," RT had "actively collaborated" with WikiLeaks.[8] -- Valjean (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The great Connor_Behan has stepped in and solved the discussion points related to Poitras and Pompeo. Thanks Connor. Btw, relevant to the Yahoo investigation, Assange wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in 2017 about Pompeo's "war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks".[10] Burrobert (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- A few more articles about the investigation. The story did reach one of Australia's major papers.[11][12][13]Burrobert (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Here are the sentences, with numbers, that have been removed from the article
- 1. According to former intelligence officials, in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA plotted to kidnap Assange from Ecuador's London embassy, and some senior officials discussed his potential assassination.
- 2. These discussions also explored a possible means of prosecuting Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras.
- 3. Yahoo! News found "no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved."
- 4. Some of its sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting.
What do editors think of each of these sentences? Can they be improved? Are any unnecessary? Have we missed something from the various sources? Burrobert (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- A few more sources:
- A brief mention at Politico.[19]
- The Australian state-funded news agency ABC had a radio segment on the story. It discussed the story and provided a profile of one of the authors of the investigation, Michael Isikoff. It included an excerpt of Isikoff speaking to WBIA radio about the story. It raised the question of whether Australia was notified and, if so, what was Australia’s response.[20]
- According to the SMH article, Michael Isikoff was interviewed by MSNBC about the investigation.
- The Democracy Now! article is a transcript of an interview with Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson and Michael Isikoff about the Yahoo investigation.
- Burrobert (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The story is starting to filter into oz based media.[21][22] The Australian published a story but then removed it. Odd.[23]
- The Morning Star Online has done a follow up investigation with UK intelligence services but got nowhere. "BRITISH spooks remained tight-lipped today after questions posed by the Morning Star over an alleged CIA plot to kidnap and assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. MI5 did not respond when asked what it knew about the plans to kill Mr Assange on British soil reportedly discussed by the US spy agency and former US president Donald Trump at the White House in 2017".[24]
- Burrobert (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert, I searched The Australian website and found the missing article here, but it's behind a paywall. -- Valjean (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Valjean. That article is dated 30 September 2020 and is about the evidence that was given at Assange's extradition trial. It begins "Two witnesses who fear for their lives and those of their families have been granted anonymity in the Old Bailey to give testimony about assassination plans made against Julian Assange". It might be worth looking to see if the missing Australian article has been archived somewhere. Burrobert (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Burrobert, I searched The Australian website and found the missing article here, but it's behind a paywall. -- Valjean (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, this is not the first time that the kidnapping/poisoning plan has been mentioned in the media. It was raised at Assange’s extradition trial in October 2020.[25] The information at the trial came from a former employee of UC Global. We have a section in JA's bio about the embassy surveillance of Assange by UC Global. Some points from the trial that relate to the Yahoo News investigation:
- "Plans to poison or kidnap Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy were discussed between sources in US intelligence and a private security firm that spied extensively on the WikiLeaks co-founder, a court has been told".
- "An increasingly sophisticated operation to monitor Assange was launched and would accelerate after Trump assumed office in 2017".
- "On one occasion in 2017, they also recalled Morales saying that his American contacts had suggested that “more extreme measures” should be deployed against visitors to Assange. “There was a suggestion that the door of the embassy would be left open allowing people to enter from the outside and kidnap or poison Assange,” the court was told. The witness alleged Morales said these suggestions were under consideration with his contacts in the US".
- Burrobert (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll keeep using this sub-section to update editors on developments. Pompeo appeared on the Megyn Kelly Show where he was asked about the Yahoo report.[26] Some of Pompeo's responses:
- "[T]hose 30 people who allegedly spoke to one of these [Yahoo News] reporters — they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency".
- He "declined to respond to many of the details in the Yahoo News account and confirmed that “pieces of it are true".
Jack and Steven will be annoyed that the ubiquitous Nils Melzer was mentioned in the Yahoo News story about Pompeo's response. I found this quote interesting:
- "... although former officials said the idea of killing Assange was not taken seriously. But when White House lawyers learned about some of the agency’s plans targeting Assange, particularly Pompeo’s rendition proposals, they raised objections, resulting in one of the most contentious intelligence debates of the Trump presidency".
The assessment of Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was that "Pompeo’s comments effectively “just verified the truth of the [Yahoo News] story. Because the only reason to prosecute someone is that they revealed legitimate classified information". Burrobert (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian has been in contact with Oz parliamentarians about the Yahoo report. Significantly, the Oz Prime Minister at the time that the US government and intelligence agencies were conducting the discussions around rendition/assassination, told The Guardian that "The first I heard about this was in today’s media".[27] Presumably that means the US did not brief the Oz government on what actions it was considering. "Guardian Australia also asked DFAT whether the US had ever briefed or consulted the Australian government on the reported option of the CIA kidnapping or killing Assange, but it did not answer that question". Burrobert (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the sentence “Some of Yahoo! News’s sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was allegedly suggesting.” - Why are we using the word “allegedly” here? The source says: “WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting.” No “allegedly” there. We are dealing with a pretty good source here ie Three journalists have conducted a major investigation into US policy and contingency planning regarding Wikileaks and Julian Assange; they interviewed “more than 30 former U.S. officials”; there work has been reviewed and considered worthy of publication by numerous mainstream news outlets. Our wording already hedges by saying: “Some of Yahoo! News’s sources stated...” We don’t need “allegedly” as well. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it does appear to be double-counting. If we have attributed the claim then allegedly is unnecessary. Burrobert (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- And now for something completely different ... If you search the British state broadcaster's site you won't find an article about the Yahoo investigation. However, someone has pointed out that the BBC did publish an article about the report ... in the Somali language.[28] Burrobert (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Oz state broadcaster has reported that "A group of prominent Australians have written to the Prime Minister, asking what the government knew about an alleged CIA plot to kill or kidnap WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London". The group, all of whom visted Assange in the embassy, includes Julian Burnside, Melbourne lawyer Lizzie O'Shea, Jennifer Robinson, Scott Ludlam, Mary Kostakidis and Kathy Lette. The group has "also demanded the government reveal whether they were caught up in the US plot and if their lives, too, were ever at risk".[29] Burrobert (talk) 08:59, October 1, 2021 (UTC)
- Ryan Grim and Sara Sirota have published an article in The Intercept which connects the Yahoo! News investigation with events within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and other areas of the US legislature. It also mentions an interesting item which was not raised by Yahoo News: "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a “grab team” waiting outside the embassy".[30] Burrobert (talk) 09:19, October 1, 2021 (UTC)
- The Oz state broadcaster has reported that "A group of prominent Australians have written to the Prime Minister, asking what the government knew about an alleged CIA plot to kill or kidnap WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London". The group, all of whom visted Assange in the embassy, includes Julian Burnside, Melbourne lawyer Lizzie O'Shea, Jennifer Robinson, Scott Ludlam, Mary Kostakidis and Kathy Lette. The group has "also demanded the government reveal whether they were caught up in the US plot and if their lives, too, were ever at risk".[29] Burrobert (talk) 08:59, October 1, 2021 (UTC)
While on the subject of Ryan Grim, he and Robby Soave interviewed managing editor of Shadowproof, Kevin Gosztola, about the Yahoo report, on The Hill's programme Rising.[31] The Hill made a brief reference to the Yahoo report in its Morning Report on 27 September[32] and had a more detailed article about the Yahoo report on the same day.[33] Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It appears the English language version of the British state broadcaster has in fact mentioned the plan to kidnap/assassinate our protagonist. The reference is in the 28 September episode of its Newsday radio programme. The introductory text states: "And we hear about an investigation into an alleged plot to kidnap or potentially assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange".[34] Burrobert (talk) 12:06, October 1, 2021 (UTC)
- There has been some concern from editors that the Washington Post was out of the loop on the Yahoo investigation. Joseph Marks wrote an article titled "The Trump administration considered a cyberattack against WikiLeaks after it published CIA hacking tools" under The Cybersecurity 202 newsletter column. Marks' first concern is the cybersecurity elements of the Yahoo report but he also references the kidnapping/assassination plot. The article is hard to find because it is buried under another article about Maricopa County, Arizona. Ironically, the Washington Post 's motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness".[35] Burrobert (talk) 12:35, October 1, 2021 (UTC)
- Patrick Cockburn in The Independent connects the assassination/rendition plot against Julian with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a team of Saudi officials in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. He also sees a similarity between "Pompeo’s determination to conflate journalistic enquiry with espionage" and the proposal by the British home secretary, Priti Patel, to "update the Official Secrets Act so that journalists, whistle-blowers and leakers could face sentences of up to 14 years in prison".[36] Burrobert (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has been some concern from editors that the Washington Post was out of the loop on the Yahoo investigation. Joseph Marks wrote an article titled "The Trump administration considered a cyberattack against WikiLeaks after it published CIA hacking tools" under The Cybersecurity 202 newsletter column. Marks' first concern is the cybersecurity elements of the Yahoo report but he also references the kidnapping/assassination plot. The article is hard to find because it is buried under another article about Maricopa County, Arizona. Ironically, the Washington Post 's motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness".[35] Burrobert (talk) 12:35, October 1, 2021 (UTC)
Today's theme will be organisations which protect Freedom of information. Reporters sans frontières has already been mentioned. Freedom of the Press Foundation issued a statement in response to the Yahoo report.[37] I won't link to the ACLU statement which is on Twitter. Afaict, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has not issued a statement. The issue may be outside their ambit. The following link to a The Listening Post video story about the Yahoo investigation comes from ZScarpia. It asks the question "Why isn’t the CIA’s plan to kidnap Julian Assange making more headlines?" Presumably the programme has an answer.[38] Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- CNN has mentioned the Yahoo report a few times.[39][40] Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jacobin magazine published an article which provides some background for the Yahoo report. It assesses the intentions of Jeff Sessions ("attorney general Jeff Sessions, a longtime surveillance hawk and First Amendment foe who made targeting “leaks” a top prosecutorial priority") and Pompeo ("Pompeo had repeatedly attacked whistleblower Edward Snowden, at one point calling for him to be executed"). It also links the Yahoo story with other items related to Assange, such as the Stundin article and the revelation by "Declassified UK" that the UK Foreign Office ran a programme code-named Operation Pelican to remove Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy.[41] We have discussed Pelican here sometime in the last year and the programme is referenced in In the Thick of It, the diary of UK Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, Alan Duncan ("Duncan went to the House of Commons to meet the new Ecuadorian Ambassador Jaime Marchán-Romero. “His principal mission is to get Assange out of the embassy — it has been six years — and although he had been aiming for tomorrow, as I’d just learnt it’s going to take longer. A tad frustrating, but we’ll get there”, Duncan wrote".)[42]Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- As a follow up to yesterday's episode, here are some reactions from other media organisations: Defending Rights & Dissent,[43] International Federation of Journalists,[44] National Union of Journalists[45] and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.[46] Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Time for some videos. Michael Isikoff has been doing the rounds of the media discussing the story. He has been interviewed by radio host Randy Credico on his show “Live on the fly” on WBAI . Fittingly, Credico’s show uses the theme from The Third Man as its introduction.[47] Ayman Mohyeldin interviewed Isikoff for MSNBC. The interview is on Twitter so I won't provide the link. Isikoff says that requests for sketches of assassination plans came from the CIA Director but didn’t get to the White House as it was quickly realised that it couldn’t be done. However, the kidnapping plans did get to the White House according to Isikoff. Aaron Mate interviewed Isikoff on the "PushBack Show". The interview gets fiery towards the end.[48] Isikoff and his colleague Zach Dorfman discuss their story on the Yahoo News podcast "Skullduggery".[49] Nils Melzer was also interviewed about the Yahoo report by Randy Credico on “Live on the Fly”.[50] Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- As a follow up to yesterday's episode, here are some reactions from other media organisations: Defending Rights & Dissent,[43] International Federation of Journalists,[44] National Union of Journalists[45] and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.[46] Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jacobin magazine published an article which provides some background for the Yahoo report. It assesses the intentions of Jeff Sessions ("attorney general Jeff Sessions, a longtime surveillance hawk and First Amendment foe who made targeting “leaks” a top prosecutorial priority") and Pompeo ("Pompeo had repeatedly attacked whistleblower Edward Snowden, at one point calling for him to be executed"). It also links the Yahoo story with other items related to Assange, such as the Stundin article and the revelation by "Declassified UK" that the UK Foreign Office ran a programme code-named Operation Pelican to remove Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy.[41] We have discussed Pelican here sometime in the last year and the programme is referenced in In the Thick of It, the diary of UK Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, Alan Duncan ("Duncan went to the House of Commons to meet the new Ecuadorian Ambassador Jaime Marchán-Romero. “His principal mission is to get Assange out of the embassy — it has been six years — and although he had been aiming for tomorrow, as I’d just learnt it’s going to take longer. A tad frustrating, but we’ll get there”, Duncan wrote".)[42]Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo published a follow up article by two of the authors of the original report.[51]
- The article provides an answer to one of the questions some editors have asked: what steps, apart from planning, did the CIA actually taken? The article says the assassination plans went nowhere and "the plans to abduct Assange prompted objections from White House lawyers and other national security officials and were never approved". However, it then says, in reference to the UC Global surveillance:
- "But the CIA did institute other aggressive measures to conduct surveillance and disrupt the activities of Assange and his associates. A Spanish security firm that had been hired by the Ecuadorian government was, according to testimony in a Spanish court case, “turned” by the CIA and used to provide live video and audio feeds of Assange from inside its embassy in London. The agency also launched operations to monitor the communications and track the travel of Assange confederates throughout Europe, and engaged in other actions to disrupt WikiLeaks from functioning".
- The article discusses the role of the House and Senate intelligence committees in the "Pompeo-era proposals regarding Assange and WikiLeaks". The following is of interest because it explains the significance of Pompeo's statement about Wikileaks being a "non-state hostile intelligence service". We have included Pompeo's statement in Julian's bio but have not indicated how it connects with the Intelligence Authorization Act and how it affects the actions the CIA is allowed to conduct.
- "After Pompeo gave a speech on WikiLeaks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in April 2017, Congress coalesced around a new definition of the organization. The Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 contained a “sense of Congress” resolution stating that “WikiLeaks and its senior leadership resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors, and should be treated as such". "
Burrobert (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Yahoo investigation is discussed on Graham Cluley's podcast "Smashing Security".[52] Burrobert (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- A blog article by Marcy Wheeler, who was not impressed with the Yahoo report.[53] Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo published another follow up article written by Zach Dorfman.[54] It covered responses by Pompeo and others to the initial Yahoo report.
- It says "Pompeo declined to deny the individual allegations in the story, saying only that Yahoo News’ "sources didn’t know what we were doing" ". The Yahoo team tried for months to ask Pompeo about the allegations but he refused requests for an interview. Separate statements made by Pompeo effectively confirm the accuracy of the Yahoo report. Pompeo told Megyn Kelly "There’s pieces of [the report] that are true" and "Whoever those 30 people who allegedly spoke with one of these reporters, they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency."[55]
- “White House spokesperson Jen Psaki also declined to comment Tuesday on the Trump-era discussions about kidnapping Assange, referring questions to the Justice Department and CIA”.
- Pompeo spoke about the allegations on Glenn Beck’s programme and at Hillsdale College.[56]
Burrobert (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- In this article, Zach Dorfman sees some parallels between the stories of Assange and Joshua Schulte. Schultze is on trial for leaking Vault 7. His first trial resulted in a hung jury but the prosecution hasn't given up. Dorfman provides some further quotes from former CIA officials about the CIA operations against Assange: "It’s not like Assange is an employee of the SVR [Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service] and they tell him what to do and he does it".[57] Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Bernard Keane connects the Yahoo report with surveillance of Assnage by UC Global.[58] "Assange was also the subject of intense surveillance within the Ecuadorian embassy, with even toilets bugged by UC Global, the firm ostensibly charged with providing security for the embassy". Keane provides responses from people who visited Assange in the Embassy and who were therefore targets of surveillance and/or worse. This includes former Greens senator Scott Ludlam, former Greens staffer Felicity Ruby, academic and technology researcher Suelette Dreyfus who said she was "censored from speaking at a conference — here in Australia — by Australian Signals Directorate". Assange's legal adviser Jen Robinson also wants answers from the Australian government. "I have serious questions for the Morrison government: (1) What did you know and when about US plans to abduct and assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen? (2) What action will the Australian government now take in response to these revelations? (3) What more will it take for our government to act to protect this Australian citizen?". Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Colin Murray interviewed Kristinn Hrafnsson on BBC Radio 5 Live about Wikileaks 15th birthday and the Yahoo report. The interview starts around 1:3:40 into the programme.[59] Burrobert (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Bernard Keane connects the Yahoo report with surveillance of Assnage by UC Global.[58] "Assange was also the subject of intense surveillance within the Ecuadorian embassy, with even toilets bugged by UC Global, the firm ostensibly charged with providing security for the embassy". Keane provides responses from people who visited Assange in the Embassy and who were therefore targets of surveillance and/or worse. This includes former Greens senator Scott Ludlam, former Greens staffer Felicity Ruby, academic and technology researcher Suelette Dreyfus who said she was "censored from speaking at a conference — here in Australia — by Australian Signals Directorate". Assange's legal adviser Jen Robinson also wants answers from the Australian government. "I have serious questions for the Morrison government: (1) What did you know and when about US plans to abduct and assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen? (2) What action will the Australian government now take in response to these revelations? (3) What more will it take for our government to act to protect this Australian citizen?". Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Case for inclusion
On 28 September 2021, SPECIFICO removed the Yahoo! News story from the BLP subsection Later years in the embassy with the edit summary NOTNEWS, UNDUE, and weakly sourced BLP content. Be patient, await broad mainstream coverage if this is confirmed/significant
.
Perhaps in anticipation of objections to no broad mainstream coverage, Burrobert has assiduously compiled widespread coverage during the past two days. For convenience, here is the list, with sources linked to each story.
- World Socialist Web Site
- The Independent
- Crikey
- The Times
- Alaska Native News
- Business Insider
- CBS News
- The Sydney Morning Herald
- France24 News English
- The Guardian
- Reporters without borders
- MSN
- Democracy Now!
- Columbia Journalism Review
- Political Wire
These 15 sources include the World Socialist Web Site, which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources designates as "generally unreliable," and Business Insider, of which WP:RSPS cautions, "There is no consensus on reliability." The remainder appear to be WP:RS.
This obviously qualifies as broad mainstream coverage. However, by itself the list fails to satisfy SPECIFICO's point about the story being "confirmed/significant." The problem is that not one of the 15 sources contains original reporting. They merely rehash and rely solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop. As such, SPECIFICO's objections on grounds of NOTNEWS and UNDUE are salient and must be overcome by consensus to include this story, which has caused a two-day media splash but which awaits substantive journalistic follow-up. We are witnessing news organizations playing follow the leader by reporting on a single item by one other news organization. As the editor who first introduced this to the Assange BLP, I concede it is premature and unencyclopedic. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- "point about the story being "confirmed/significant". Confirmed in what sense? Significant in what sense?
- "The problem is that not one of the 15 sources contains original reporting". Why is that a "problem"?
- "a two-day media splash". Don't all major media stories create a "a two-day media splash" - at least for the first two days?
- "awaits substantive journalistic follow-up". What does this mean?
- WP:NOTNEWS: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". How does this policy apply here?
- WP:DUE: "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". How does this policy apply in our particular scenario? For example, what are the other “significant viewpoints”? Has anyone published articles stating assassination/rendition was not discussed within the Trump regime?
- Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- None of SPECIFICO's objections seem to have any merit to me, and it certainly looks to me like it should be in the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- No there really isn't any merit. I've opened comments at NP notices. Cambial foliage❧ 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- As you should be aware, not all RS content goes in our articles. See WP:ONUS. You will also need to demonstrate NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with that as well. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Witnesses to a kidnapping and assassination plot provided their accounts, over a multi-year period, to journalists at a reliable source who are considered reputable enough to quickly elicit a reaction from ~10 other reliable papers. That is somehow not news or undue or not neutral or whatever because there hasn't yet been enough time for another newspaper to track down and re-interview those same witnesses? Connor Behan (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant that these media did not produce original reporting. The fact they they ran these stories referencing Yahoo News investigation means that they consider it notable. As far as I can see they don't raise any reliability concerns making it a clear case of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Obviously we still need to attribute this rather than stating it in wikivoice. I don't understand how WP:DUE is relevant here. If CIA denies this we would also include it in the article. Alaexis¿question? 05:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Witnesses to a kidnapping and assassination plot provided their accounts, over a multi-year period, to journalists at a reliable source who are considered reputable enough to quickly elicit a reaction from ~10 other reliable papers. That is somehow not news or undue or not neutral or whatever because there hasn't yet been enough time for another newspaper to track down and re-interview those same witnesses? Connor Behan (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- As you should be aware, not all RS content goes in our articles. See WP:ONUS. You will also need to demonstrate NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with that as well. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- No there really isn't any merit. I've opened comments at NP notices. Cambial foliage❧ 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- None of SPECIFICO's objections seem to have any merit to me, and it certainly looks to me like it should be in the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
In the previous section, Burrobert presents impressive 2020 court testimony related to this, so together with that court testimony, this seems to be worth including, of course with proper attribution. -- Valjean (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Somehow this content has been reinserted in the article, despite an editor having started discussion with posts at two sitewide noticeboard, including an ongoing RfC and most importanty despite there being no consensus on this talk page as to what if any article text should be included. At some point there will need to be an RfC on this page. I note that while this content may tell us a lot about Pompeo and the CIA, it is not particularly significant as to Assange, who -- as I keep reminding my colleagues here -- is safe and sound. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that high-ranking officials discussing kidnapping or killing Assange is "not particularly significant to Assange". Frankly, anyone who makes such arguments is WP:NOTHERE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It also looks to me like it should be in the article. Specially considering that it is as attributed as can be. - Daveout
(talk) 06:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Case for not mentioning the Yahoo! News investigation
The Yahoo! News investigation has disappeared from JA's bio again. For ease of reading I have created this sub-section so that editors who don't think we should mention the report can provide their reasons. Here is my interpretation of the reasons for exclusions so far provided:
- the report is significant for Pompeo and the CIA but has no significance for Assange.
- "weakly sourced BLP content. Be patient, await broad mainstream coverage if this is confirmed/significant".
- Yahoo! News is the only organisation that has provided original reporting on the allegations.
- It's a "a two-day media splash".
- WP:NOTNEWS
- WP:DUE
Any others?
- WP:NOTHERE per Thucydides, above. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Burrobert (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:Burrobert, I believe the editor you referred to above as "the great Connor_Behan" acted rashly in restoring the disputed content, and that SPECIFICO was correct in removing it. SPECIFICO's edit summary bears repeating here:
Ongoing discussions at talk and RE: NPOV and RS. BRD: Don't declare your preferred wording belongs in the article jumping ahead of the community on difficult content and sourcing issue.
Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)- Let's see. I waited more than 24 hours, checked to see that the RfC is being criticized as the improper place, and checked to see that the !votes here are shaping up in favour of WP:SNOW. You have attempted to make a policy objection but it's a misreading of policy. The sourcing requirement is to have an RS source's story (in this case Yahoo News) with a significant number of other RS sources covering the story. There is no requirement that we have a significant number of RS sources independently rediscovering this story via their own investigative reporters. Connor Behan (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Connor Behan—so "being criticized … votes are shaping up" is your basis for unilaterally restoring disputed content about which consensus has not been declared? That's not your call, sir. You may be a "great" editor but you are not an administrator. Please respect the process. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- It wasn't unilateral, his action reflected the consensus in the above conversation. He was right to ignore specifico's fatuous argument, and several other editors supported his action. Cambial foliage❧ 22:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:Cambial Yellowing: Aren't you the editor who less than 24 hours ago opened an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard? That RfC is still active. Let's wait for consensus and closure before jumping the gun to restore disputed content at Julian Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- We don’t need to wait for consensus; it’s already apparent above. An RFC does not have to have a formal close - in fact most don’t. Where the support and the logical arguments fall on one side that represents a consensus. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments. The reference to SNOW is appropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 22:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Surprisingly (to me at least), while this talk page has averaged more than 250 daily pageviews since the Yahoo! News story broke, and while more than 1,000 editors watch this talk page, only 11 editors commented here during 27 Sep–28 Sep 2021. That seems like a woefully inadequate pool from which to form consensus on such an important issue of disputed content in an article that, during the same period, averaged more than 14,000 daily pageviews. Is a broader RfC in order? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, to sustain due consideration of consensus -- as opposed to involved editors claiming consensus supports them at every turn -- we need to remove the content (again) and launch an RfC. Don't forget Pompeo gets BLP treatment just as does every other living person. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- This situation reminds me of the apocryphal story of Lincoln, who after discussion at a cabinet meeting calls for a vote. Around the table they go, with each secretary voting nay, until it gets back to the president. He votes aye, and declares: "The ayes have it!"
- Here we have an editor who opens an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. After 24 hours, it has attracted only one vote to include the disputed content—his own. Yet here comes that editor declaring, "We don't need to wait for consensus."
- "The ayes have it!" Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- That would be a disruptive comment even if the analogy were apt, and it's not. The RfC has one aye and zero nays because it was not in the proper place. The proper place to discuss policy objections is here and they are lacking. Connor Behan (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alternatively, a proper RfC can be opened (here rather than on the RS noticeboard) to gather wider input. Alaexis¿question? 05:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Please start the RfC and remove it from the article pending resolution. There is no rush. We need to get it right, not quick. SPECIFICO talk 07:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus requirements don't mean that every editor has the veto power over the changes they don't like. On this page the overwhelming majority of the editors support adding this information and provide arguments why it's due. WP:RSN is not a right place for such an RfC so there is no point in waiting for feedback there. Alaexis¿question? 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Please start the RfC and remove it from the article pending resolution. There is no rush. We need to get it right, not quick. SPECIFICO talk 07:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, to sustain due consideration of consensus -- as opposed to involved editors claiming consensus supports them at every turn -- we need to remove the content (again) and launch an RfC. Don't forget Pompeo gets BLP treatment just as does every other living person. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Surprisingly (to me at least), while this talk page has averaged more than 250 daily pageviews since the Yahoo! News story broke, and while more than 1,000 editors watch this talk page, only 11 editors commented here during 27 Sep–28 Sep 2021. That seems like a woefully inadequate pool from which to form consensus on such an important issue of disputed content in an article that, during the same period, averaged more than 14,000 daily pageviews. Is a broader RfC in order? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- We don’t need to wait for consensus; it’s already apparent above. An RFC does not have to have a formal close - in fact most don’t. Where the support and the logical arguments fall on one side that represents a consensus. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments. The reference to SNOW is appropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 22:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:Cambial Yellowing: Aren't you the editor who less than 24 hours ago opened an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard? That RfC is still active. Let's wait for consensus and closure before jumping the gun to restore disputed content at Julian Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- It wasn't unilateral, his action reflected the consensus in the above conversation. He was right to ignore specifico's fatuous argument, and several other editors supported his action. Cambial foliage❧ 22:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Connor Behan—so "being criticized … votes are shaping up" is your basis for unilaterally restoring disputed content about which consensus has not been declared? That's not your call, sir. You may be a "great" editor but you are not an administrator. Please respect the process. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let's see. I waited more than 24 hours, checked to see that the RfC is being criticized as the improper place, and checked to see that the !votes here are shaping up in favour of WP:SNOW. You have attempted to make a policy objection but it's a misreading of policy. The sourcing requirement is to have an RS source's story (in this case Yahoo News) with a significant number of other RS sources covering the story. There is no requirement that we have a significant number of RS sources independently rediscovering this story via their own investigative reporters. Connor Behan (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
My point was that the content that is supported by current consensus should not be removed pending the outcome of this future RfC. Alaexis¿question? 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- You would need an uninvolved close to declare consensus. That is how WP works. Launch the RfC. Lets get this done right and with a firm resolution. Otherwise, per WP:ONUS and BLP, we can't include it. SPECIFICO talk 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, you do not need an uninvolved close to "
declare
" (i.e. observe) consensus. Where it is obviously evident from both edits and discussion, as in this case, a formal close is unnecessary. Many RFCs expire without a formal close. Asserting the absolute necessity of a close in the face of the evidence sure does look like stonewalling though. Cambial foliage❧ 09:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)- And this is not an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- The RfC at WP:RSN has been closed procedurally. So no longer relevant to a consensus here. NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- And saying vrifiability does not guarantee inclusion and pointing to a large policy without making any specific point is something I would not even need an AI to do for an I don't like it objection bot. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the kidnap or assassination chatter was taken seriously within the CIA. Among the tens of thousands of senior government officials, there are all kinds of speculative ideas and brainstorms that are quickly rejected as infesible, illegal, or worse. There's nothing in the sole source or the many repetitions of that source that indicates the kidnapping and assasination chatter was seriously considered. It's trivia. It's UNDUE and it is weakly sourced. For valid BLP content, there will be numerous independent RS verifications. We don't have that here. It's just trivia. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that there are all kinds of contingency plans and most of them aren't notable. However it doesn't follow from it that if the assassination has not been carried out it's not notable. This specific plan is deemed notable by a large number of reliable sources and therefore we should mention it. Btw I don't think it should be in the lede, given what we know about it so far. Alaexis¿question? 05:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- There's no indication that the kidnap or assassination chatter was taken seriously within the CIA. Among the tens of thousands of senior government officials, there are all kinds of speculative ideas and brainstorms that are quickly rejected as infesible, illegal, or worse. There's nothing in the sole source or the many repetitions of that source that indicates the kidnapping and assasination chatter was seriously considered. It's trivia. It's UNDUE and it is weakly sourced. For valid BLP content, there will be numerous independent RS verifications. We don't have that here. It's just trivia. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, you do not need an uninvolved close to "
The Big Dogs That Did Not Bark
I am baffled by the lack of coverage of this 4-day-old story by some of the most prominent news organizations that editors generally recognize as the gold standard for WP:RS. I cannot find a single story from any of these, as shown by links to respective Google searches for the past week:
Bizarrely, the BBC has reported it only on BBC News Somali:
I'm frankly at a loss to discern the implications of this media blackout for our BLP. Please, what does it mean? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- When you say "blackout" it sounds like a conspiracy to suppress news. But it apparently is not significant news. In cases such as this, either the mainstream press has not been able to confirm the story or they have determined -- after examining the context and rejection of these schemes -- that they were the fevered inspirations of the fringe of the intelligence service and were summarily rejected by management. It's trivia. There were scores of hare-brained illegal schemes sprouted and quashed in the Trump Administration. This one didn't even get past the early stages. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- As a US taxpayer, I hope the CIA has plans to kidnap everyone from Julian Assange to Adele. That's the CIA's job, and it's not noteworthy that they made plans to kidnap Assange. The civilians who control the CIA are then charged with not doing all the bad stuff, a job at which they fail way too often. If the civilians put the plans in motion, that's noteworthy. Making plans is not, and the major news outlets seem to agree with me. Rks13 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the reliability or NPOV policies that makes these three source better or more significant that other RS which did mention it (which include The Guardian and The Telegraph [23]). The media outlets which did not report it might have had valid or nefarious reasons for doing so but it's irrelevant for the discussion whether to include it. Alaexis¿question? 05:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The claim that there is
no indication
that the plans were taken seriously is incorrect. There are numerous indications: "sketches" or "plans" were requested, something employees would have to spend time doing, time that senior officers are, one presumes, not in the habit of wasting in the service of a frivolous lark; White House lawyers became concerned about the proposals; and some CIA officials were sufficiently concerned that they notified congressional intelligence committee members. That’s three indications for starters. As a British taxpayer, I am concerned if the CIA has plans to kidnap anyone on the soil of a free country and ostensible long-term ally, and frankly the CIA can suck a bag of dicks. But that’s beside the point. What is noteworthy is established by reliable sources, not by one editor’s authoritarian wet dream. In this case, at least ten mainstream reliable sources, and a few more lesser known ones. In other words it’s clearly noteworthy, whatever language the one journalist at the BBC who managed to slip it past Fran Unsworth happens to speak. Cambial foliage❧ 06:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The claim that there is
- There is nothing in the reliability or NPOV policies that makes these three source better or more significant that other RS which did mention it (which include The Guardian and The Telegraph [23]). The media outlets which did not report it might have had valid or nefarious reasons for doing so but it's irrelevant for the discussion whether to include it. Alaexis¿question? 05:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- As a US taxpayer, I hope the CIA has plans to kidnap everyone from Julian Assange to Adele. That's the CIA's job, and it's not noteworthy that they made plans to kidnap Assange. The civilians who control the CIA are then charged with not doing all the bad stuff, a job at which they fail way too often. If the civilians put the plans in motion, that's noteworthy. Making plans is not, and the major news outlets seem to agree with me. Rks13 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is exactly the same business as with the Stundin revelations. And yes it does look like a deliberate media blackout. As far as I can make out at least forty and probably more like 120 corporate news sources around the world cooperate in these blackouts on various topics like this. It's very interesting. They simply do not mention things but they don't seem to actually put out misinformation or actively try to deflect. I thought it was individual self censorship instead at first but it definitely looks like more than that. It also only affects the mass media, not anything more specialized. There's a lot of other topics where I sometimes think why do they not cover that it's a major story but they can be explained by political leaning or stupidity or laziness. The ones associated with Assange though seem much more blatant and calculated than that. I don't know what can be done about it in Wikipedia though as we're supposed to go by reliable sources and as I said these reliable sources don't peddle misinformation, they just omit what is blacked. NadVolum (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is a perfectly rational and non-nefarious explanation for why large blocks of news sources and websites seem to act "in concert" with their coverage. They subscribe to one of the few news agencies, such as Associated Press (AP), Reuters, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Non-Aligned News Agencies Pool (NANAP). If their news agency loses interest for a story that isn't developing, it gets dropped by all their subscribers, but if there is follow up or great interest, the story will get picked up again. Just wait and see. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think we can lay off the OR conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven is right. There is no conspiracy. Besides which, it's nothing like
the same business
. In the case of Thordarson's fabricated testimony, it was reported widely in Iceland and a couple of countries on the continent, more spottily in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium etc. The lack of reporting was particular to US-UK (and near absolute). In this case several major anglophone newspapers in US, UK, Aus reported on the official's claims. The differing factor is of course the Trump administration. Cambial foliage❧ 13:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)- FAIR have made a similar point regarding the Stundin story. Alaexis¿question? 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think looking at this again it does not seem to be deliberately blocked because many of the usual suspects have actually reported on it. So sorry for extending my conspiracy theory to this. That it is missing in many others is more probably Media bias in the United States, and organizations like Reuters have a very strong influence on what is reported. By the way Stundin is releasing audios with bits of the inverviews with Thordarson. Are you saying that dirty tricks by the CIA or FBI with real effects are not newsworthy but Trump involvement where the plans are not acted on is newsworthy? NadVolum (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- FAIR have made a similar point regarding the Stundin story. Alaexis¿question? 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"BLP Violation, UNDUE, ill-sourced, disputed on talk". Discuss. Burrobert (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The reasons have been given on this talk page. Insinuating Pompeo supported any of this would require extraordinary sources. There is a single weak source to date. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Let's take it step by step:
- "BLP Violation": where?
- "Undue": why?
- "ill-sourced": why?
- Burrobert (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, you are wrong that there is a single weak source. We are counting the sources which reported on this, not only those who did the initial investigation. You haven't provided any evidence of Yahoo being weak. The fact that undeniably RS like The Guardian and The Telegraph reported on this proves the opposite, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Alaexis¿question? 08:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Let's take it step by step:
Lede
The news story about the CIA planning to kidnap or assassinate Assange is obviously one of the most significant elements of his biography, so it belongs in the lede. I don't know why there's any discussion whatsoever about this possibly being a minor, undue story. Such claims are obviously absurd, and the fact that they're being made points to behavioral problems that will have to be addressed at some point. Blockading the article by raising spurious (and often nonsensical) objections and demanding RfCs for every bit of content is just disruptive behavior.
In any case, the CIA story should be restored to the lede, and the disruptive blockading behavior must stop. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thucydides411: if this 5-day-old story is, as you contend, "one of the most significant elements of his biography," that is all the more reason for us to seek consensus for inclusion in the lede. It should not be inserted by a single editor on the grounds that its significance is "obvious." It's not obvious to me, and I reject your accusations that anyone has been "blockading the article by raising spurious (and often nonsensical) objections." If you cannot assume good faith, you should report this to WP:ANI and let an administrator apply the appropriate remedies. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Above, there are editors arguing that the CIA and top US government officials planning to kidnap or assassinate someone is so insignificant that it's not even worthy of a mention in that person's biography. That's a manifestly absurd position to take. It may very well be that these behavioral problems will ultimately have to be addressed at WP:ANI, but in the meantime, the absurd blockades have to stop. This is unacceptable behavior, particularly at a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're repeating yourself. Either seek remedial action or give it a rest. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is worth mentioning - just not in the summary at the beginning. NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Above, there are editors arguing that the CIA and top US government officials planning to kidnap or assassinate someone is so insignificant that it's not even worthy of a mention in that person's biography. That's a manifestly absurd position to take. It may very well be that these behavioral problems will ultimately have to be addressed at WP:ANI, but in the meantime, the absurd blockades have to stop. This is unacceptable behavior, particularly at a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The subject of our page was the target of plans to potentially kidnap or even murder him. Those plans originated within organs of government serving the very country which has for years been seeking his extradition and arrest. That’s says a lot about the hostile world Assange has long been subject to – that in short is big news and belongs in the lede. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think it’s notable enough and DUE to be mentioned in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- It never got anyhere and it didn't affect Assange. Yes it is a notable in itself, but there's just too many other things which were done by or affected Assange which are important to include. It probably could make it into the summary of someone who was directly involved in the matter. Here it would just be just clutter in the summary. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Gunpowder plot was never carried out and therefore, in that sence, "didn't affect" Britain - none the less it’s considered an important part of UK history – The U.S. government has set itself in opposition to Assange and, as such, is just as much a part of Assange’s story as Napoleon was to Wellington (I’m not talking goodies and baddies here, just opposing forces) - a plot within parts of the U.S. establishment tells us something about what Assange was up against, and the ruthless and determined attitudes which put him where he is today. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- It never got anyhere and it didn't affect Assange. Yes it is a notable in itself, but there's just too many other things which were done by or affected Assange which are important to include. It probably could make it into the summary of someone who was directly involved in the matter. Here it would just be just clutter in the summary. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was summoned to the related RfC. I concur with NadVolum, that the story is (just about) worth mentioning in the body but no more. Unnamed intelligence sources say that there was discussion about the possibility of kidnapping/assassinating Assange. That is a million miles away from "planning" these acts and anyhow exploring the unthinkable is what intelligence agencies do. What reason do we have to believe that any of these discussions were remotely serious, rather than of the "can't we just shoot the fucker" variety? None AFAI can see. I am pretty cynical about the amorality of applications of US power in recent years, but a child could see that violating an Embassy's territory on UK soil would not even be a credible plan. A large number of news sources have ignored this story, some have reported it. All attribute it I believe. Pincrete (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless we learn that these plans were put into action I don't think it belongs to the lede. It should be mentioned in the body of course. Alaexis¿question? 05:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was summoned to the related RfC. I concur with NadVolum, that the story is (just about) worth mentioning in the body but no more. Unnamed intelligence sources say that there was discussion about the possibility of kidnapping/assassinating Assange. That is a million miles away from "planning" these acts and anyhow exploring the unthinkable is what intelligence agencies do. What reason do we have to believe that any of these discussions were remotely serious, rather than of the "can't we just shoot the fucker" variety? None AFAI can see. I am pretty cynical about the amorality of applications of US power in recent years, but a child could see that violating an Embassy's territory on UK soil would not even be a credible plan. A large number of news sources have ignored this story, some have reported it. All attribute it I believe. Pincrete (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
State of play
The Yahoo story has been popping in and out of the article with reckless abandon. Here is a count of the number for and against inclusion:
Editors who are support inclusion:
Burrobert
Valjean
Prunesqualor
NadVolum
Cambial foliage (what happened to the yellow?)
The very good Connor_Behan
Alaexis
Thucydides411
Daveout
Pincrete
Onetwothreeip (e.g. edit [24])
Mr Ernie
Editors who oppose inclusion:
Slatersteven
Basketcase
SPECIFICO
Rks13
Burrobert (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- LIke I said I think we need a formal RFC. I think there may be issue for some over specific wording (for example). There is also lede Vs body.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- "there may be issue for some over specific wording": Has anyone said the problem is in the wording? Afaict, the four editors have objected to any mention of the Yahoo investigation. If the problem is with the way the item is worded, then propose an alternative wording. As we recently discovered, an RfC won't solve a dispute over wording.
- lede Vs body. Forget about the lede. The count above relates to mention of the Yahoo report in the body.
- Burrobert (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well it will because We will know who supports what.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- There are a countably infinite number of ways of wording the item. We could cover all possible wordings in a finite time if we let the first RfC run for a month, the second for half a month, the third for quarter of a month etc. However, the number of words an editor can type in a fixed time is limited by physical constraints, which would make the task impractical. Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is an argument to never have any FRC's ever. Sorry but the other RFC cleary has come down in favour of an option, and this one would as well.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's an argument against having RfC's when there are a large number of choices. RfC's can only cover one choice at a time so work best when there are only two choices. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The lets go for that, should this or shus this not be included only in the body, its not hard. If you have the consensus you think you have you will get your way. There is nothing to lose from an RFC other than to stop those who oppose inclusion from having an argument of "no consensus for inclusion". It will just make the consensus formal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's an argument against having RfC's when there are a large number of choices. RfC's can only cover one choice at a time so work best when there are only two choices. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is an argument to never have any FRC's ever. Sorry but the other RFC cleary has come down in favour of an option, and this one would as well.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- There are a countably infinite number of ways of wording the item. We could cover all possible wordings in a finite time if we let the first RfC run for a month, the second for half a month, the third for quarter of a month etc. However, the number of words an editor can type in a fixed time is limited by physical constraints, which would make the task impractical. Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well it will because We will know who supports what.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Add me to support. There’s no need for a formal RFC - local consensus here is entirely clear. Continued removals are disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
An aside
I will describe this as an aside as no doubt editors will say that what happens on other pages is of no relevance to what happens here. So the following is not an argument for inclusion of the Yahoo report in Julian's bio. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the Yahoo report has been mentioned in the Wikipedia news sections at Current events for 26 September 2021 and Current events for September 2021. It has also been referenced in the following pages (wording included):
Wikileaks In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2017 in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices. "[T]op intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. Laura Poitras described attempts to classify herself and Assange as "information brokers" rather than journalists as "bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide".[265] Pompeo later stated that the US officials who had spoken to Yahoo should be prosecuted for exposing CIA activities.
Laura Poitras In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the aftermath of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Poitras as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against her, "potentially paving the way" for her prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. Poitras told Yahoo! News that such attempts were "bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide”,
Glenn Greenwald In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the aftermath of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Glenn Greenwald as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against him, "potentially paving the way" for his prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists.”
Vault 7 In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2017 in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA planned to assassinate Assange, spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.
Mike Pompeo In March 2017, WikiLeaks began publishing a series of documents known as Vault 7, detailing the CIA's electronic surveillance and cyber warfare activities and capabilities. At meetings with senior Trump administration officials, Pompeo discussed kidnapping the organization's founder, Julian Assange, from Ecuador's London embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum.
Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
References
References
- ^ Dorfman, Zach; Naylor, Sean D.; Isikoff, Michael (26 September 2021). "Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 26 September 2021.
- ^ "US government, CIA plotted to kidnap or assassinate Assange in London". World Socialist Web Site. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
- ^ "Trump denies report he considered assassinating Julian Assange". The Independent. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
- ^ Keane, Bernard (27 September 2021). "CIA's Assange abduction plan raises questions for Australian government". Crikey. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
- ^ White, Debbie (27 September 2021). "CIA 'discussed kidnapping or assassinating Wikileaks founder Julian Assange'". The Times. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
- ^ "Trump's CIA Considered Kidnapping or Assassinating Assange: Report". Alaska Native News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
- ^ Porter, Tom (27 September 2021). "The CIA pitched Trump officials plans to assassinate Julian Assange while he was hiding in a London embassy in 2017, report says". Business Insider. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
- ^ Kathryn Watson (13 April 2017). "CIA director calls WikiLeaks Russia-aided "non-state hostile intelligence service"". CBS News.
- ^ Lauria, Joe (2 October 2021). "What the Yahoo! Assange Report Got Wrong". Consortiumnews.
- ^ Assange, Julian (25 April 2017). "Opinion | Julian Assange: The CIA director is waging war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks". Washington Post. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ Bourke, Latika (27 September 2021). "Trump administration floated kidnapping, killing Julian Assange: report". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ Erb, Aleen O. (28 September 2021). "CIA officials under Trump discussed assassination of Julian Assange – report". France24 News English. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ Bourke, Latika (27 September 2021). "CIA officials under Trump discussed assassinating Julian Assange – report". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ "Alarming reported CIA plot against Julian Assange exposed | Reporters without borders". RSF. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ "CIA developed plans to kidnap Julian Assange, per report". www.msn.com. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ "The Plot to Kill Julian Assange: Report Reveals CIA's Plan to Kidnap, Assassinate WikiLeaks Founder". Democracy Now!. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ "A scary reminder of the press-freedom stakes in the Assange case". Columbia Journalism Review. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ "CIA Plotted Assassination of Julian Assange". Political Wire. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ Palmeri, Tara (26 September 2021). "POLITICO Playbook: Damned BIF you do, damned BIF you don't". POLITICO. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ "Report suggests the CIA considered kidnapping Julian Assange in 2017 - The Backstory with Matt Bevan". ABC Radio National. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2021.
- ^ Bourke, Latika (27 September 2021). "Trump administration floated kidnapping, killing Julian Assange: report". The Age. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
- ^ Brown, Natalie (28 September 2021). "Bombshell claim CIA 'plotted to kill Assange'". Herald Sun. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
- ^ "Reports CIA explored assassinating Julian Assange". The Australian. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
- ^ Sweeney, Steve (27 September 2021). "British spooks remain tight-lipped over alleged CIA plot to assassinate Assange in London". Morning Star. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
- ^ Quinn, Ben (30 September 2020). "US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told". the Guardian. Retrieved 29 September 2021.
- ^ Isikoff, Michael; Dorfman, Zach. "Pompeo: Sources for Yahoo News WikiLeaks report 'should all be prosecuted'". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
- ^ Hurst, Daniel (29 September 2021). "Australia reveals it raised case of Julian Assange with US, amid 'kidnap plot' claim". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
- ^ "Nin ay Mareykanka aad u raadinayeen oo ay 'CIA damacday inay London ka qafaalato'". BBC News Somali (in Somali). 27 September 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
- ^ Welch, Dylan (1 October 2021). "Julian Assange supporters write to Scott Morrison over reported CIA plot to kidnap or kill WikiLeaks founder". ABC News. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ Grim, Ryan; Sirota, Sara (29 September 2021). "Julian Assange Kidnapping Plot Casts New Light on 2018 Senate Intelligence Maneuver". The Intercept. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ "BREAKING: Shock Report REVEALS CIA planned to KIDNAP and ASSASSINATE Julian Assange". The Hill. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ "The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Alibaba - Democrats stare down 'hell' week". The Hill. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ Choi, Joseph. "Trump administration mulled kidnapping, assassinating Julian Assange: report". The Hill. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ "Newsday:US singer R. Kelly convicted of sex abuse". BBC. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ Marks, Joseph (27 September 2021). "Democrats are racing to discredit Maricopa-style election audits". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
- ^ Cockburn, Patrick (1 October 2021). "CIA plot to kidnap Assange in London is being mistakenly ignored | Patrick Cockburn". The Independent. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
- ^ "After shocking story about CIA illegal acts, Biden admin must drop Assange charges immediately". Freedom of the Press.
- ^ "Kidnap or Kill: The CIA's plot against WikiLeaks' Julian Assange". www.aljazeera.com. 2 October 2021. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
- ^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". transcripts.cnn.com. CNN. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
- ^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". transcripts.cnn.com. CNN. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
- ^ Gibbons, Chip (30 September 2021). "The US Considered Kidnapping and Even Assassinating Julian Assange". jacobinmag.com. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
- ^ Kennard, Matt (28 April 2021). "DECLASSIFIED UK: Revealed: The UK government campaign to force Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
- ^ "DRAD Condemns Outrageous CIA Attacks on Assange and Press Freedom". Defending Rights & Dissent. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "US: CIA reportedly plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian Assange / IFJ". www.ifj.org. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "CIA reportedly plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian Assange". www.nuj.org.uk. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "PACE General Rapporteur expresses serious concern at reports that US officials discussed assassinating Julian Assange". PACE. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "Michael Isikoff: The CIA plan to kidnap and assassinate Assange". Youtube. Live on the Fly with Randy Credico. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "Inside the CIA plot to kidnap, kill Julian Assange". Youtube. 1 October 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks (with Zach Dorfman)". 28 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ "Nils Melzer: Analysis of the Yahoo News Report on Assange". Youtube. Live on the Fly with Randy Credico. 28 September 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
- ^ Dorfman, Zach; Isikoff, Michael (28 September 2021). "5 big takeaways from an investigation into the CIA's war on WikiLeaks". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 6 October 2021.
- ^ "Smashing Security podcast #245: The Julian Assange assassination plot, and IoT toilets". Graham Cluley. 29 September 2021. Retrieved 6 October 2021.
- ^ Wheeler, Marcy (26 September 2021). "The Yahoo Story about All the Things CIA Wasn't Allowed to Do Against WikiLeaks". Emptywheel. Retrieved 6 October 2021.
- ^ Dorfman, Zach (29 September 2021). "'I make no apologies': Pompeo says Trump administration was protecting sensitive information". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
- ^ Luciano, Michael (29 September 2021). "Mike Pompeo Denies Plan To Kidnap or Assassinate Julian Assange". Mediaite. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
- ^ Strack, Haley (28 September 2021). "Pompeo On Assange Allegation: Don't Believe Yahoo News". The Federalist. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
- ^ Dorfman, Zach (7 October 2021). "U.S. prosecution of alleged WikiLeaks 'Vault 7' source hits multiple roadblocks". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 8 October 2021.
- ^ Bernard, Keane (28 September 2021). "What it's like to be targeted by the CIA and its mates". Crikey. Retrieved 8 October 2021.
- ^ "Colin Murray - 05/10/2021 - BBC Sounds". www.bbc.co.uk. 5 October 2021. Retrieved 9 October 2021.
- ^ Ball, James (3 October 2021). "Julian Assange, Donald Trump, the CIA and a crazy plot for revenge". The Times. Retrieved 9 October 2021.
- ^ Ball, James (3 October 2021). "The Times and The Sunday Times e-paper". epaper.thetimes.co.uk. Retrieved 9 October 2021.
- ^ "Trump admin mulled kidnapping, assassinating Julian Assange: report". Tehran Times. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 9 October 2021.
- ^ "Trump admin mulled kidnapping, assassinating Julian Assange: report". The Arab Times. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 9 October 2021.
Reverted yet again without good reason
I recently removed this edit by Valjean which was placed in the midst of our RFC debate and was clearly in breach of WP:OWN. SPECIFICO reverted my deletion here, Ironically giving the explanation “WP:OWN”. In other words SPECIFICO reverted an edit which fixed a “WP:OWN” issue - reinstated an edit which was in breach of “WP:OWN” and gave as his/her reason “WP:OWN”. Reversion of my edits without good reason by SPECIFICO, have become practically routine. I wish to know why other editors are tolerating this outrageous behaviour. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think this may be an issue a lot of users have. But material under discussion should not be reverted whilst an RFC is ongoing. Note that if it is long standing content it should not be removed or altred.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently I havn’t explain myself clearly. It was Valjean who replaced “long standing content” with his own edit. I merely deleted his/her replacement text. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- NO you explained yourself, they altred and you just deleted. Thus you were both in the wrong, it should have been restored.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think I have reset the page to the last version before this latest round of add and delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you – that’s appreciated. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- PS - Just for the record I was unable to simply “restore” due to intervening edits which compounded the WP:OWN. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- If anyone owns the page I do because I've been editing the page longer than anyone else, I come from Down Under, and I know what a bullroarer is.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- NO user owns this page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Based on my (limited) understanding of Australian law, it is radically impossible to have any property that is not owned by anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- We are not governed by Austraian law, and even if it was, Jimmy wales would own it, not you, so stop this tack and instead read wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Based on my (limited) understanding of Australian law, it is radically impossible to have any property that is not owned by anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- NO user owns this page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently I havn’t explain myself clearly. It was Valjean who replaced “long standing content” with his own edit. I merely deleted his/her replacement text. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Privatemusings, who is still alive and kicking, got here before you Jack. Rather than having an outright owner, we should allocate shares in the page based on the percentage of text each editor has contributed. Burrobert (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Prunesqualer, you should be more careful about throwing around accusations of “WP:OWN” for content you have been fighting over. (Notice that I haven't even !voted at all.) I was just creating a whole new and far more complete version (below). Maybe that was out of process, but it was the type of edit an editor who happened on the page and saw [according to whom?] would make in an attempt to improve the content. I resolved that issue. My version is certainly better than the current version. You deleted far more than what has been under discussion, and the current version is recognized as deficient.
Current: "Assange must have known[according to whom?] 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.[1][2]"
My version: "Kevin Poulson, writing for The Daily Beast wrote: "Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death."[3] Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead and Assange continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.[1][2] On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sent Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirmed that he received it. WikiLeaks published the file's contents on July 22.[3]"
So what's so wrong with my version that it deserves deletion, other than just an "out of process" argument? -- Valjean (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Valjean – your error here was that you replaced material which was concurrently under discussion in a RFC (on this talk page) – you where, at the time of making you edit, actively involved in the RFC (resolution process), but where possibly unaware that it is not considered acceptable to unilaterally change the material that is actively under discussion. I accept I also messed up: I tried straightforwardly reverting you edit but was unable to do so because of intervening edits to the same section by yourself and Basketcase2022 - so I simply deleted the paragraph you had put in – but I neglected to manually reinsert the sentence your edit had replaced, for which I apologise. The correct action for the editor who reverted me would have been to insert the original text themselves (and maybe drop me a line pointing out my omission). I won’t go into details of you edit here as the RFC above is the place to resolve that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- THis, we are discussing this, and until the RFC is closed it should be left alone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer and Slatersteven, you are both right, which is just one reason why I'm not edit warring over this. That path is never good, so let's continue working toward a resolution. I really appreciate the collegial atmosphere in this discussion. We know that isn't always the case. I apologize for causing this hiccup. I shouldn't have been so bold.
- I would like you to consider the merits of my version and discuss it. The matter of what Rich knew or didn't know is sufficiently complex to not be solvable with a simple sentence, and we are not allowed to SYNTHesize the answer that really covers it, but we are allowed to cite, with attribution, those RS which do that. -- Valjean (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- By all means, suggest it as an alternative in the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
NYT Seth Rich
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
wapotimeline
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Poulsen, Kevin (April 18, 2019). "Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians". The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death. At the same time he was publicly working to shift blame onto the slain staffer "to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing," Special Counsel Robert Mueller asserts in his final report on Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election.
Blind reversions must stop
It took me an hour to restore my contributions that were recklessly reverted. Please, I urge editors to exercise care in restoring what they deem to be the "last consensus version." Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 I might not always see eye to eye with you on matters Assange, but your conscientious maintenance work on the page is really appreciated – I am certain the collateral damage in the reversion, that trashed some of you work, was inadvertent – but I for one will take extra care when making reversions not to cause collateral damage - I’m sure the other editors here will do the same. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe you should have dealt with the issue that was in violation of the RFC. It only had to be done this way as it was hard to see who had changed what and when. So it seemed to me best just to reset it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's an obnoxious approach. If you cannot see who had changed what and when, then resetting it is the worst thing to do, not the best. It's lazy and irresponsible. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- No it's not, it's what we should do. It is down to us to police this page, if you are not doing it it's down to others to do it. You could have reverted those changes before you decided to make a mass of tiny reverts, you did not. So others had to do it, and that meant reverting you as well. So maybe (from now on) before making 20 small edits makes sure there is not something else you need to do first, and do that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I am getting a little tired of behaviour, surrounding this page, that borders on trolling - I would suggest you cool off a little, consider how we can all make the atmosphere surrounding this page less dysfunctional (I realise that’s not easy with opposing strongly held opinions but we should all at least make some effort to be civil and reasonable). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe users should not use language like "recklessly" or "obnoxious", this only occurred because a user allowed an edit to stand that they should not have done, and thus made it harder for other editors to revert it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Victim blaming. Yeah, that's the ticket. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven You made an inadvertant slip, we all do sometimes, If you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that, then at least just drop it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 Just for the record, I strongly approve of your editing approach – making small discreet edits is generally good practice - as each edit can be properly labelled and understood, good for transparency and trust. Editors who heap several significant changes into one single edit with one edit summary should take note (if I had my way editors who do that would be warned and if persisting, sanctioned). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven You made an inadvertant slip, we all do sometimes, If you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that, then at least just drop it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Victim blaming. Yeah, that's the ticket. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe users should not use language like "recklessly" or "obnoxious", this only occurred because a user allowed an edit to stand that they should not have done, and thus made it harder for other editors to revert it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I am getting a little tired of behaviour, surrounding this page, that borders on trolling - I would suggest you cool off a little, consider how we can all make the atmosphere surrounding this page less dysfunctional (I realise that’s not easy with opposing strongly held opinions but we should all at least make some effort to be civil and reasonable). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- No it's not, it's what we should do. It is down to us to police this page, if you are not doing it it's down to others to do it. You could have reverted those changes before you decided to make a mass of tiny reverts, you did not. So others had to do it, and that meant reverting you as well. So maybe (from now on) before making 20 small edits makes sure there is not something else you need to do first, and do that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's an obnoxious approach. If you cannot see who had changed what and when, then resetting it is the worst thing to do, not the best. It's lazy and irresponsible. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Nils Melzer
There seems to be some disagreement about including Nils Melzer's views in TGM's bio. Are there any arguments for excluding his views? To what extent should we cover Melzer's various reports and findings? Burrobert (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- His views are mentioned his name occurs 3 times. He is one man, so he gets about as much coverage already here as he should.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your argument is that three mentions is enough? What about if we swap one of the existing mentions out to include the text that was removed? Burrobert (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Why? also (and again) we should, be reducing content, not adding it. This is just more wordage covering the views of someone whose views we already cover.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Your argument is that three mentions is enough? What about if we swap one of the existing mentions out to include the text that was removed? Burrobert (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- What does TGM stand for? Not following that one. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- TGM is just a nickname for Assange. We aren't adding any additional content. The text that was removed was long-standing content. Policy is that the size of an article should not be used as a reason for excluding or removing content. However, if we are using three mentions as the benchmark, then we should include the three most noteworthy of Melzer's findings. Here are the three mentions that are currently in the bio:
- After examining Assange on 9 May 2019, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Nils Melzer, concluded that "in addition to physical ailments, Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma." The British government said it disagreed with some of his observations.
- On 1 November 2019, Melzer said that Assange's health had continued to deteriorate and his life had become at risk. He said that the UK government had not acted on the issue.
- On 30 December 2019, Melzer accused the UK government of torturing Julian Assange. He said Assange's "continued exposure to severe mental and emotional suffering ... clearly amounts to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
- Here is the text that was recently removed:
- In a later interview, Melzer criticised the "secretive grand jury indictment in the United States", the "abusive manner in which Swedish prosecutors disseminated, re-cycled and perpetuated their 'preliminary investigation' into alleged sexual offences", the "termination by Ecuador of Mr Assange's asylum status and citizenship without any form of due process", and the "overt bias against Mr Assange being shown by British judges since his arrest". He said the United States, UK, Sweden and Ecuador were trying to make an example of Assange. He also accused journalists of "spreading abusive and deliberately distorted narratives". Shortly after Melzer's visit, Assange was transferred to the prison's health care unit.
- Which of these three mentions best describe Melzer's findings? Burrobert (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- What we have now summarises it just fine. As to the size issue, it is about making sure the reader can get a good idea of the topic without having to wade through walls of text, we are an encyclopedia, not a textbook.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- You believe then that the current three mentions give a more complete picture of Melzer's findings? I thought the text that was removed was more comprehensive. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Burro, I am asking you what the 3 letters T-G-M stand for. Please just answer. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hearken ye, Burro and Citizen S, Melzie is righteous and full of PS. The dictator on the blower is starting to scream and the mower in the distance is playing old cream. Suffice it to say TGM (TM) is making all the yards in the factory slegm. Grand juries grand mals and open furies are part of Babylon just the same as Yuris. Christ took a whip and took down the bulls, the Pope did the same but we're not fools. Hat me if you can, but smell the ginger. Tin hares show the way, but do not l...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- but also ( ̄▽ ̄人) Burrobert (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I too am curious what the 3 letters T-G-M stand for? -- Valjean (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO and Valjean: TGM stands for The Grand Master. This purported "nickname for Assange"—which you won't find with any Google search—is consistent with Burrobert's repeated allusions on this talk page to Assange as "our hero." When I politely asked whether that was meant to be sarcastic or if he truly regards Assange as a hero, Burrobert dodged my question. So don't fell slighted if he refuses to respond directly in this instance. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hearken ye, Burro and Citizen S, Melzie is righteous and full of PS. The dictator on the blower is starting to scream and the mower in the distance is playing old cream. Suffice it to say TGM (TM) is making all the yards in the factory slegm. Grand juries grand mals and open furies are part of Babylon just the same as Yuris. Christ took a whip and took down the bulls, the Pope did the same but we're not fools. Hat me if you can, but smell the ginger. Tin hares show the way, but do not l...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Burro, I am asking you what the 3 letters T-G-M stand for. Please just answer. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- You believe then that the current three mentions give a more complete picture of Melzer's findings? I thought the text that was removed was more comprehensive. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- What we have now summarises it just fine. As to the size issue, it is about making sure the reader can get a good idea of the topic without having to wade through walls of text, we are an encyclopedia, not a textbook.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- TGM is just a nickname for Assange. We aren't adding any additional content. The text that was removed was long-standing content. Policy is that the size of an article should not be used as a reason for excluding or removing content. However, if we are using three mentions as the benchmark, then we should include the three most noteworthy of Melzer's findings. Here are the three mentions that are currently in the bio:
If not in the hatted section below perhaps | This might be a better place for your current debate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Unconstructive dispute that distracts from our purpose |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You can waterboard me all you want, but I'm not telling. Burrobert (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Thordarson’s Stundin revelations (again)
A paragraph dealing with Thordarson’ Stundin revelations, was recently deleted as a result of a RFC ruling. I then placed a new slimmed down wording about Thordarson’s revelations into the article (which was almost immediately removed | Here ) I justify my inclusion because at the time of the RFC it was expressly noted that: “This RfC is about the specific text ... not about deleting reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale.” – Also please note my newer edit addressed issues pointed to in the RFC – for these reasons I don’t believe my wording should be omitted - Would some kind editor be good enough to review my edit and if approving, to reinstate it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, it is all very undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The talk page is at your disposal. If there's consensus or a new RfC endorses your version, it will be reinstated. There's no rush. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: In your 23 September 2021 RfC closure you wrote:
... editors discussed whether/how to include reporting that an individual had recanted their testimony ... Editors achieved no consensus regarding the inclusion of the proposed text. Since this content was introduced in its first form to the article within days of its being challenged and removed, the content should not be included in the absence of a consensus as to whether or not the content should be included. ... While consensus can change in the future, particularly if substantial new coverage from reliable sources should emerge, the content should be omitted from the article in the absence of an affirmative consensus to include it.
Now, just eight days later and without consensus, an editor has attempted to place what he calls "new slimmed down wording" into the BLP, insisting that "at the time of the RfC it was expressly noted that: 'This RfC is about the specific text ... not about deleting reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale.'" That assertion is misleading because it was not part of Slatersteven's original entry creating the RfC. Rather, it is an unattributed quotation from a subsequent comment by Cambial Yellowing.
Mikehawk10, please clarify this for us. When you wrote that "the content should not be included in the absence of a consensus," did you mean only the RfC's specific proposed text or, more broadly, any reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is not for Mikehawk10 to redefine the question that was asked in the RFC. The question was about the specific text. That's how the opener chose to word it, and the comments were made in response to that question. That said, the reasons given for not introducing the content should be taken into account, and the repeated theme was insufficient reliable and/or mainstream sourcing. Specifico is right that this should be discussed on talk first, and the content needs to be sufficiently different to justify a different approach. In particular, there are a large number of European news sources which reported on this, yet the same sources appear to have been used in the edit. More and/or better sourcing is needed, as well as a different wording. Cambial foliage❧ 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just put some proposed text to include here and we can discuss any problems and see if some text with a consensus can be found. It was put in the article, it was removed, the proper thing to do now is discuss here. For starters the second reference didn't mention Thordarson and had no direct relevance that I could see. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- BTW I don't think Mikehawk10: has any further relevance unless they want to get involved in disussions here. NadVolum (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- My suggested revised wording was: “In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the FBI’s witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson admitted fabricating allegations used in the US indictment against Assange.” Please also take into account newly introduced RS here [1] Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nope. Cambial foliage❧ 21:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is reliable for what it says, but it just isn't relevant to the sentence before it. For starters one was the FBI and the other was the CIA - and didn't mention Thordarson. NadVolum (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum If you look at the second paragraph in the final section (The CIA’s crimes) you’ll find: “However, the FBI’s hands are far from clean. In June, Icelandic newspaper Stundin revealed that an FBI informant (who had himself been convicted of sex crimes) admitted that allegations in the US indictment against Assange were fabricated.” I sited this article not to increase the veracity of the claims but to counter the “not noteworthy” claims which say the story has not been widely enough covered. But since “Jacobin” is seemingly not considered an acceptable RS even for that, even with two other RSs, this is all moot - The US’s key witness against Assange claims in a newspaper interview that he was incentivised by the FBI and lied about several of his claims to them – and we can't even mention this in our article – seems beyond a joke. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if these two RSs would help[2][3] (the second is Stundin again but gives more specific detail and includes audio recordings of the original interview) Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum If you look at the second paragraph in the final section (The CIA’s crimes) you’ll find: “However, the FBI’s hands are far from clean. In June, Icelandic newspaper Stundin revealed that an FBI informant (who had himself been convicted of sex crimes) admitted that allegations in the US indictment against Assange were fabricated.” I sited this article not to increase the veracity of the claims but to counter the “not noteworthy” claims which say the story has not been widely enough covered. But since “Jacobin” is seemingly not considered an acceptable RS even for that, even with two other RSs, this is all moot - The US’s key witness against Assange claims in a newspaper interview that he was incentivised by the FBI and lied about several of his claims to them – and we can't even mention this in our article – seems beyond a joke. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- My suggested revised wording was: “In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the FBI’s witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson admitted fabricating allegations used in the US indictment against Assange.” Please also take into account newly introduced RS here [1] Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
List of sources
- Prunesqualer, maybe we can collect the links here and when we get a critical mass open a new RfC - either here or at WP:NPOV/N since it's a DUE issue and the local consensus cannot override a general policy.
- Washington Post (generally reliable) [25]
- Der Spiegel (generally reliable) [26]
- Mail & Guardian (generally reliable) [27]
- Deutsche Welle (not rated) [28]
- Berliner Zeitung (not rated) [29]
- Stundin itself (not rated) [30]
- Tribune (magazine) (not rated) [31]
- The Wire (India) (not rated) [32]
- While a lot of these sources aren't on RSP (perhaps due to being not in the US/UK), most of them are respectable mainstream outlets. Alaexis¿question? 11:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned in the RfC, the recanting was also mentioned in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Lens, Private Eye, The Hill and some Icelandic sources. Burrobert (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- In addition to those mentioned by @Alaexis::
[4] Business AM (Belgium)
[5]*[6] Deutsche Welle (in English as well as German); DW is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia generally, as well as on the few occasions it is mentioned in passing at WP:RS/N.
[7] Cumhuriyet (long-established Turkish newspaper)
[8] The Hill (considered reliable)
[9] The Intercept (considered reliable)
[10] NTV (Turkish TV channel) National TV News in Turkey
- *I requested a translation of the original reporting of Thordarson's fabricated testimony from Deutsche Welle (available in Bosnian, Spanish, Croatian, Romanian, Albanian, and Serbian, but not English) from some of the native German speakers listed at Translators available. De728631 was good enough to translate the relevant paragraphs, available here.
- The proposed new text should be discussed before any RFC is launched. Cambial foliage❧ 12:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
We are already getting some duplication in our article/website suggestions. Would it be possible for editors to add their RSs to the list begun by Alaexis, and in the same format, ie name of site: wiki reliability: Site web address? (might keep things tidy and usable).ok probably not a good idea. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Scoop (website) (not rated) [11]
- The Shift (not rated) [12]
- The Reykjavík Grapevine (not rated) [13] Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Marianne Williamson, the Intercept, and the like are not going to esablish DUE WEIGHT in mainstream discourse. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The multiple sources above, including those you mention, already do constitute due weight. Cambial foliage❧ 14:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NPOV. You will need to demonstrate what you assert. Spiegel, which would be a good source if it covered the substance of your narrative, only says that Assange's advocate brought this up -- not that it has any significance or merit. There does not appear to be sufficient sourcing for the content you are suggesting. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why would I read npov? I read it years ago, and it doesn't support your contention. I'm not going to waste my own time; please don't suggest that I do. Why don't you read it, as you're evidently unfamiliar with its content. Cambial foliage❧ 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is the page that explains our policy on DUE WEIGHT, which is the factor you need to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. And? Cambial foliage❧ 14:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also specifico, your claim about der spiegel is utterly false. Refrain from making things up. Cambial foliage❧ 15:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- A Google translate of the section from Der Spiegel "The Icelandic newspaper » Stundin « recently reported that one of the chief witnesses for the US Department of Justice had confessed to having made up central allegations against Assange. Sigurdur Ingi Thordason had incorrectly presented himself to the US authorities as a close confidante of Assange and had stated that Assange had commissioned him with hacker attacks on Icelandic politicians." Seems pretty direct to me, have to agree with Cambial Yellowing, it does cover the substance and I see nothing supporting "only says Assange's advocate brought this up". Though I'm not sure why that would be relevant anyway even if it was true - woud he bring up something which would be easy to show was false if it was? NadVolum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is the page that explains our policy on DUE WEIGHT, which is the factor you need to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why would I read npov? I read it years ago, and it doesn't support your contention. I'm not going to waste my own time; please don't suggest that I do. Why don't you read it, as you're evidently unfamiliar with its content. Cambial foliage❧ 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
As I seem to recall that one of the points made here (more than once) is "ahh look at how the mainstream media are ignoring this, nudge nudge" I think wp:undue is has relevancy here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE: "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". If there are differing views in reliable sources about an event, then we need to balance the article according to the coverage of each view in reliable sources. If there were sources which stated Thordarson did not recant his testimony then we would need to balance that view against the coverage provided by Stundin etc. However, afaict there are no sources claiming Thordarson did not recant. In summary, what alternative view from reliable sources outweighs the reporting from Stundin, Private Eye, The Hill, Der Spiegel ... Burrobert (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Answer: none whatsoever. Cambial foliage❧ 15:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically on the subject of the “WP:UNDUE” I would ask disinterested editors to bear in mind the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other mentions this story has had in smaller outlets or those considered not “reliable” by Wikipedia in its (biased) list of reliable sources. Organisations with audiences rated in the tens of thousands should not simply be ignored when it comes to the noteworthiness of what they choose to cover. PLEASE NOTE: I am not arguing these outlets are to be relied on as “reliable” sources of information – merely that they represent significant strands of opinion/interests in our world and, as such, their views/interests should be recognised, and should at least be given some small weight in considering matters of “notability” or “WP:UNDUE”. There are currently 120 news outlets rated “green” (“generally reliable” or better) by Wikipedia. The list is dominated by US organisations (with a few dozen based in countries closely allied to the US). Perhaps the agenda should not be totally dominated by outlets based in countries whose governments have a dog in the fight. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". So if non RS care, we do not. We care about what RS care about., it's called policy. Any argument based upon "let's ignores policy" or "we are biased" is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Right, and RS do care. so...? Cambial foliage❧ 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Then any text must be based upon what the RS say. So if the RS say "He recanted his testimony, but it was not a key part of the case" that is what we say. What we should not do is give equal weight to non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Right, and RS do care. so...? Cambial foliage❧ 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". So if non RS care, we do not. We care about what RS care about., it's called policy. Any argument based upon "let's ignores policy" or "we are biased" is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Specifically on the subject of the “WP:UNDUE” I would ask disinterested editors to bear in mind the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other mentions this story has had in smaller outlets or those considered not “reliable” by Wikipedia in its (biased) list of reliable sources. Organisations with audiences rated in the tens of thousands should not simply be ignored when it comes to the noteworthiness of what they choose to cover. PLEASE NOTE: I am not arguing these outlets are to be relied on as “reliable” sources of information – merely that they represent significant strands of opinion/interests in our world and, as such, their views/interests should be recognised, and should at least be given some small weight in considering matters of “notability” or “WP:UNDUE”. There are currently 120 news outlets rated “green” (“generally reliable” or better) by Wikipedia. The list is dominated by US organisations (with a few dozen based in countries closely allied to the US). Perhaps the agenda should not be totally dominated by outlets based in countries whose governments have a dog in the fight. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Here's an important primary source rather than a secondary source which I think might be useful once some form of words is actually in.[14] NadVolum (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Plus here's the original Stundin news article ratherthan the supporting excerpts from interviews.[15] NadVolum (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- The main details of Thordarson's story has been known for a while though only now has he retracted his claim that Assange asked him to do the hacking.[16]
- And I'd like to just list the FAIR article pointing out the lack of coverage by corporate media.[17] Seemingly I'll be reported to ANI for peddling conspiracy theories for pointing out anything like this but we'll see if that happens. ;-) NadVolum (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- No I said I would report you if you (YOU As in YOU) tried to use conspiracy theory arguments to justify edits or as some kind of appeal to reason. Nor am I sure that article is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Beyond belief: Not a single mention of “Thordarson”, “Teenager”, “Stundin” or even “Iceland” in the article. This suppression of information on the Assange page has got completely out of control. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well then ask his defense team why they are not making a bniose about this, if they did it would get the coverage we need to include it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please look at the 17 references below – that is more than enough coverage for inclusion. The material is not included because of cynical filibustering. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is how, in a way that does not give undue weight to any claims. and lay of the stuff about user conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Those who are following the Thordarson saga may be interested to know he has been arrested in Iceland.[18][19][20] The initial report came from Stundin which described him as "a key witness for the United States Justice Department according to documents presented to a UK court in an effort to secure the extradition of Julian Assange. He was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In a recent interview with Stundin he admitted to fabricating statements to implicate Assange and contradicted what he was quoted as saying in US court documents". Consortium News says "It is not clear if Thordarson recanting his testimony is related to his recent arrest. In his September interview Thordarson said the FBI promised not to reveal to Icelandic authorities any crimes he committed in Iceland in exchange for his cooperation". Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is how, in a way that does not give undue weight to any claims. and lay of the stuff about user conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Assange's defence did bring up a number of points about Thordarson in the case before Judge Baraister. It is however the corporate media that decides what makes a big noise, and they seemingly think his marriage is important but anything like that is not. And you can report me again to ANI if you want and see where that gets you. NadVolum (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- But they have not brought up the fact he has recanted, and this may be why the media are really not giving it much attention, it's not part or having any impact, on the trial (And thus, not important to the trial). And yes of course details about his life are important.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is not currently in court, the lawyers are there for when it goes to court again. Anyway there's quite enough other people who have talked about it just they haven't been mentioned in corporate media sources. Or are you saying you are a better judge of the situation than media critique sources? And where in Wikipedia does it say the only acceptable reliable sources are corporate media or that they are necessary for an article like this? NadVolum (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't the Stundin story plus the interview "Assange on the Brink" number 14 below not give you the slighest cause for worry about what is happening and why it isn't being reported in your favorite newspaper? And do you really think people were more interested in his wedding than they would be in something like that? NadVolum (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Read wp:soap, I am worried about what we write, not anything else, and that is all this talk page is for. And again, we go with what the bulk of RS say, so (again) propose a wording that confirms to what the bulk of RS say. And wp:undue is clear, we go with what the bulk say (or do not say) and if the bulk ignore it so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- "if the bulk ignore it so do we". Is that a new policy? Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- "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.", so yes if the bulk of RS has nothing to say about something we cannot give it more than a line (and arguably nothing as the bulk of RS do not care), and that line must be in keeping with what the few RS that do cover it say about it. No its not a new policy, it is wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- "if the bulk ignore it so do we". Is that a new policy? Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Read wp:soap, I am worried about what we write, not anything else, and that is all this talk page is for. And again, we go with what the bulk of RS say, so (again) propose a wording that confirms to what the bulk of RS say. And wp:undue is clear, we go with what the bulk say (or do not say) and if the bulk ignore it so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- But they have not brought up the fact he has recanted, and this may be why the media are really not giving it much attention, it's not part or having any impact, on the trial (And thus, not important to the trial). And yes of course details about his life are important.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please look at the 17 references below – that is more than enough coverage for inclusion. The material is not included because of cynical filibustering. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting the policy. Saying nothing is not a "significant viewpoint published by reliable sources". Burrobert (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- The policy says weight is according to its prominence in RS publications. It has not been widely covered. It is not prominent. It is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersetven has accurately quoted npov. Your personal interpretation of it is not commensurate with the text you quote or any part of the policy.
if the bulk ignore it so do we
is not part of WP policy. The absence of reporting is not a source at all, and your inference from that absence that it means other sources believe the report not to be accurate is (very poor) original research. We have multiple mainstream European news organisations that have reported on it. There is currently one mainstream news organisation that disputes the widely used characterisation of the witness as "key" "chief" or "lead". What's required now is a different wording, and a clear consensus to include it. Two editors objections, largely based on writing the word "undue" in block capitals with little in the way of logical argument, are not a barrier to inclusion where there is a much larger consensus to include. Cambial foliage❧ 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC) - That would be my take, its purpose is to keep out flash in the pan "exclusives" that better sources ignore. If this is as important as the claim, the defense will use it to totally undermine the US case. Until they do it is being ignored by the almost all decent RS. So we can wait, wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are not the arbiter of what is a
decent RS
. Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, Berliner Zeitung, NTV, The Hill, Mail & Guardian, and The Intercept are all reliable and mainstream sources. The Washington Post is also reliable and mainstream. I suggest we begin collectively drafting a replacement text about Thordarson's fabricated testimony. Opponents of including the content can continue to post blue links to the undue shortcut if they so wish. Cambial foliage❧ 14:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)- No I am not, and neither are you. I have said (more than once) suggest a text here for us to discuss. But I object to anything more than about a line, and object to anything that says this has anything to do with the court case, as no RS has said it does, all they say is the investigation, not the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your objection is noted. It would be taken more seriously if it wasn't totally false. Of the various reliable sources mentioned in the preceding comment, at least six describe Thordarson as a key or main witness in the court case. Cambial foliage❧ 15:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- spiegel.de "The Icelandic newspaper » Stundin « had recently reported that one of the chief witnesses for the US Department of Justice ", note it attributes the claim and does not say of the
- Your objection is noted. It would be taken more seriously if it wasn't totally false. Of the various reliable sources mentioned in the preceding comment, at least six describe Thordarson as a key or main witness in the court case. Cambial foliage❧ 15:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- No I am not, and neither are you. I have said (more than once) suggest a text here for us to discuss. But I object to anything more than about a line, and object to anything that says this has anything to do with the court case, as no RS has said it does, all they say is the investigation, not the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- You are not the arbiter of what is a
- Slatersetven has accurately quoted npov. Your personal interpretation of it is not commensurate with the text you quote or any part of the policy.
case.mg.co.za ". In June, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin reported that a key prosecution witness against Assange has admitted" it attributes the claim, it does not say it is a fact. tribunemag.co.uk does say it, but unsure its a great source (and if the case is collapsing then why not wait until it does?). So which one were you thinking of that say he was a key part of the case?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your contention was that no source says it
has anything to do with the case
. Der Spiegel (the source you picked out), from the byline: Now it comes to the appeal proceedings - and the prosecution will probably have to forego an important witness in the future." Deutsche Welle: Key witness admits to lying The irony is that the High Court judges granted the US appeal just days after it had come to light that the key witness, Icelandic national Sigurd Ingi Thordarson, had admitted to fabricating incriminating testimony against Assange in return for immunity from prosecution and a financial reward. The Hill: Williamson spoke to Hill.TV shortly after Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness against Assange, admitted to falsifying claims against Assange to gain American immunity. I'll not go through the whole list. That some mention the publication in which the admission of fabricated testimony was first published is not pertinent. Cambial foliage❧ 15:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)- It translates as important, not key, and they are not the same. And it does not make any mention of him being key the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your contention was that no source says it
It is now time to see some suggest text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
What? In the first instance I used the word "important". The second sentence was not in translation, it's from the article in English. The Hill only publishes in English. As to the translation from the Deutsche Welle article in German, at least two uninvolved fluent German-English speakers on Wikipedia, found using WP:TRLA, confirm the translation as "key": here and here. I'm going to rely on the translation from uninvolved native speakers over your own. Cambial foliage❧ 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" is just those viewpoints that have been actually published in reliable sources and there is no assumption of some silent majority saying it is undue for inclusion in Wikipedia. The 'silent majority' idea would wipe out nearly every single article in Wikipedia! Anyway I agree that now is the time to start framing something. I'll start by saying I think the Stundin article and Der Spiegel and the Intercept citations are needed for the story itself. Something about the Icelandic Minister and throwing out the FBI is needed for background,perhaps the Slate for that. And a media critique source probably FAIR should round out why foreign sources are needed and that's an imporant story in itself. And maybe the HIll and Washinton Post for something, response? Consortiumnews could possibly be used as a primary source for anything relevant said the interviews but probably would fail being stuck in direct as it is not a secondary source. NadVolum (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- The aspect about FAIR and media critique is certainly important, but I don't think it's of much relevance to Assange's biography so shouldn't be included here. Cambial foliage❧ 17:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- It definitely seems relevant to Assange's biography to me. Do you think it has little effect or what's your reasoning? There's been a number of allegations of strategic omissions from the media but I think this one is probably the most egregious and is reliably sourced. NadVolum (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I guess my reasoning is that this apparent "blackout" most likely arose because of structural factors to do with the ownership of the media in the US & UK, rather than any (c)overt strategy. Those factors have been discussed at length elsewhere.
- The lack of attention in the anglophone media likely impacted the degree to which some demographics of the general public in US & UK are informed about Assange. But in my view the anglophone "blackout" is not about his personal biography or about the court case he's currently caught up in. Cambial foliage❧ 20:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to speculate too much about the reason for the blackout but as far as effects are concerned it does mean that politicians mostly only hear the prosecutions case and I'm pretty certain that does him harm even in court. NadVolum (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding a proposed wording I put this on the page a few days ago (It was reverted 12 minutes later - reason: “no consensus"):
- It definitely seems relevant to Assange's biography to me. Do you think it has little effect or what's your reasoning? There's been a number of allegations of strategic omissions from the media but I think this one is probably the most egregious and is reliably sourced. NadVolum (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the FBI’s witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson admitted fabricating allegations used in the US indictment against Assange.
- I chose what I thought a pretty tame/non-controversial wording (omitting phrase “key witness”, leaving out Snowden’s comments saying revelations “undermined the criminal case against Assange” any reference to the “media blackout”). Short and I can’t see much to object to in it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I support that wording. Burrobert (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I support it also - looks good. DUE, notable, and relevant to the biography. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I support it too though I'd think of it is a start and later additions can be added about key or not key or the background or how much of the case is affected or media blackout or anything else. Best to add a bit at at a time and check it as it goes in rather than one big thing that gets stuck in some silly RfC. NadVolum (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK I’ve gone ahead with inserting that basic version – I hope others can add more citations and then later (pending further talks) maybe get reference to “key witness” (reading the U.S. indictment, and other sources, there is no real doubt “Teenager” Thordarson was a key witness). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I chose what I thought a pretty tame/non-controversial wording (omitting phrase “key witness”, leaving out Snowden’s comments saying revelations “undermined the criminal case against Assange” any reference to the “media blackout”). Short and I can’t see much to object to in it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- He did not admit it, he claimed it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Could somebody explain, succincty, why this re-insertion does not violate the consensus in the recent RfC. If not, it needs to be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The RfC was for a particular wording. Burrobert (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use "claimed" as it is a word to watch. If "admitted" is too pointy, then "said" is a neutral alternative. Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, I would rather we had discussed any wording before it was added.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see no substantive difference in the content, and given the outcome of the RfC, such similar content mustn't be reintroduced before discussion and consensus. The arguments against the initial content that was rejected at the RfC are just as applicable to the newly inserted language. It should be reverted and consensus should be pursued on talk. To reintroduce such similar text soon on the heels of the RfC is at best gaming the process. There's no rush. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Noting the close of the RfC refers to omitting the content and not the text or wording, thank you Slatersteven for restoring the state as of and reflectong the RfC close. Regarding the poll below, I think it would require a new RfC, not just an informal poll among current talk page requlars, with all previous participants and other relevant groups notified in order to reverse a thoughtfully-closed recent RfC. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use "claimed" as it is a word to watch. If "admitted" is too pointy, then "said" is a neutral alternative. Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The RfC was for a particular wording. Burrobert (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Closing editors do not get to redefine the question asked in an RFC. The question: "should the below text be included?" was answered and the text is not included. If a closing editor were to create an additional outcome that was not asked that would constitute a WP:SUPERVOTE and the RFC would need to be unclosed and requested for an admin closure. There is a clear consensus to include the current text. If you wish to gather wider community input about the content in general feel free to open yet another RFC with that question. In the meantime the consensus is clearly to include. Cambial foliage❧ 14:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- It has been objected to, and thus needs consensus to add, and not edit warred back in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- The correct remedy would be for you to request a review of the close, not to override it on your personal say-so. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and the consensus is very readily apparent.
- The close has not been overridden. The closer indicated, correctly, that there was no consensus for a positive answer to the question asked by Slatersteven. No-one has sought to include that text, and the current text is entirely different, in spirit and word. Cambial foliage❧ 15:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I note with interest that you already understand this. Cambial foliage❧ 15:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
From the above comments, here is a breakdown of editors' positions on the question before us:
In favour:
Prunesqualor billets_doux
Cambial
Nad
Alaexis ?
Mr Ernie
Burrobert
Against:
Steven
SPEC
Burrobert (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please remove "Basket?" from the above list. I made one entry at this talk page section, in which I pinged User:Mikehawk10 seeking clarification of his 23 September 2021 RfC closure. He did not reply. Absent such clarification, I have no opinion on this matter. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Text
In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the U.S. Justice Department's witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson stated he had fabricated allegations used in the U.S. indictment.
Support
Aye Burrobert (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The original RfC asked for substantive extra coverage so I've put in more references. In particular Der Spiegel is the match for Washington Post any day and it says a chief witness. I think I should go and add back the Washington Post too since it did actually cover it. NadVolum (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes - Support Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, plenty of RS across the world found it notable (Spiegel, Deutche Welle, The Hill etc etc). At one sentence it's not UNDUE, considering that Assange's indictment and extradition proceedings are covered in minute detail. Burrobert, do you want to make it an official RfC? Alaexis¿question? 17:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oh is that really needed? Can't we just wait a day or so and see if it sticks intead of forming trenches like World War I? NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I suspect it will reverted at the first opportunity, yes I think this is needed. It will show if there is a clear consensus any reasonable person would not argue with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Look, I'm tired of this too and the consensus was obvious a long time ago. Still, it's not a big extra effort and so I think it's worth it. Alaexis¿question? 17:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're right, paricularly here where there is a previous RfC. I think though a better scheme in future might be to assume good faith - and then if there is stonewalling report the disruption and have anyone concerned blocked. After all the article is supposed to be under active arbitration remedies. That way I think a more general range of editors might be willing to participate rather than having a cold war in effect. I believe having new editors has been raised as desirable. NadVolum (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oh is that really needed? Can't we just wait a day or so and see if it sticks intead of forming trenches like World War I? NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes as due and notable per the sourcing. A new RFC is not needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. Multiple RS characterise the fabricated testimony as coming from a key or chief witness for the USJD indictment that is the basis for the extradition case. Cambial foliage❧ 09:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
- Needs RfC to override previous recent closure Due process sometimes requires patience. "I'm right" is not a substantive argument to rebut UNDUE irrelevant article content. At most it belongs in the bio of this witness. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you think this needs an RFC launch one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- What Slatersteven said. Just remember to keep any RFC question neutral, like the two recently initiated by Slatersteven, otherwise it’s likely to be reverted so the wording of the question can be discussed. Cambial foliage❧ 09:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- What would it take to convince you that your interpretation of UNDUE is completely wrong? NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Stevenslater, I said that it requires an RfC to override the previous closure. I do not seek to override the recent closure. I think that would be a waste of time. Why revisit a very recent decision? Any new RfC would be launched by the editor seeking to revise the consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody is objecting to you raising an RfC in this instance - but I would appreciate you saying in whch policy or guideline you saw support for "it requires an RfC to override the previous closure". It is disruptive to bring up the same issue repeatedly but in this case more reliable sources were found and that was the main objection last time a consensus was agreed. If there is a specific rule about needing an RfC to override anoter RfC I would appreciate knowing where it is otherwise I will treat your statement as unreliable like your statement about UNDUE. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not wish to start another RfC. We need to abide by the recent close, which I believe was a fair and thoughtful evaluation of the RfC. @El C: has placed this page under the "consensus required" page restriction. The RfC closure is our current consensus. There is no acknowledged, agreed new subsequent consensus -- only various objections by editors who (if I understand correctly) did not agree with the closure of the RfC. As I said above, you are free to request a closure review. Additional sources, even if they were valid, would not justify adding UNDUE content to the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody is objecting to you raising an RfC in this instance - but I would appreciate you saying in whch policy or guideline you saw support for "it requires an RfC to override the previous closure". It is disruptive to bring up the same issue repeatedly but in this case more reliable sources were found and that was the main objection last time a consensus was agreed. If there is a specific rule about needing an RfC to override anoter RfC I would appreciate knowing where it is otherwise I will treat your statement as unreliable like your statement about UNDUE. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Mikehawk10, can you clarify, the RFC was about the inclusion of specific text, and not the wider issue of inclusion in general. Thus does the RFC close prevent altered text from being used?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- It’s not clear why you’re pinging and questioning Mikehawk10 as though they are an authority here. That is not how WP operates. They are simply another editor like you and I. Cambial foliage❧ 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged, a couple of things. 1. My understanding is that the aforementioned Stundin RfC concerned the inclusion of a specific proposed text about it. Which is to say, the question wasn't 'should the Stundin content be included,' per se. Until an RfC concludes in a way that excludes it outright, alternate proposals are fine (i.e. a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE isn't required).
- 2. This proposal isn't an RfC (not listed as such), yet it is structured as if it is one, which probably undermines rather than aids its utility. FWIW. El_C 03:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- In the close, @Mikehawk10: repeatedly refers to "content" rather than "text". I do not think that contentious material that's been contested as UNDUE among other flaws can be cured simply by minor tweaks to wording or googling additional mentions in the press. I think a new explicit consensus is needed to reinsert that content and I have reverted to the status as of the RfC by removing the new text that does not have demonstrated consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Prunesqualor: I see that you have reverted the removal of this content, thus violating the Consensus Required page restriction. Please self revert. It's clear that there are several editors with policy-based objections -- for some of the same reasons the RfC did not find consensus for including this content. You may continue to pursue consensus on talk, but an involved editor should not simply declare that their view is correct, or has consensus, without being able to demonstrate such. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment on Yahoo report
Should we include
"According to former intelligence officials, in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA plotted to kidnap Assange from Ecuador's London embassy, and some senior officials discussed his potential assassination. Yahoo! News found "no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved." Some of its sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting."
In the body?Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes
- Yes. And I consider having RfC's on every issue as disruptive behavious. NadVolum (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- We are not, there are plenty of issues we have not had RFC's on, but this issue has involved some degree of edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And it could take some more without being disruptive. If you are worried about it so much then complain at ANI about perpetrators instead of stopping discussion by putting one particular wording to an RfC and so stopping a possible better wording being got. And for instance I just showed a consortium news article which even if it isn't a strong RS does cast a different light on parts of this affair. You did the same to the Stundin article, stopping it mid discussion and going for an RfC and making it hard now to get anything though more sources are now available. People can live with a bit of uncertainty and argument for a little while. You are stopping the encyclopaedia being discussed and built. NadVolum (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- An RFC does not stop discussion. What do you think we are doing here? Moreover (I would argue) the above discussion is just going round in circles with the same editors repeating the same arguments. Now what we need is just who supports what clearly and concisely. That is done best (to my mind) in an RFC where people can just say Yay or Nay without closers having to wade through tons of arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- You stopped a discussion about what words to include in the article and now we hav an RfC about some particular wording you happened upon at one time. For instance as shown below there is a willingness to remove Pompeo in a first text in the article but there will be all sorts of objections about changed wording for the RfC and leaving things fixed in stone till the RfC ends. NadVolum (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- An RFC does not stop discussion. What do you think we are doing here? Moreover (I would argue) the above discussion is just going round in circles with the same editors repeating the same arguments. Now what we need is just who supports what clearly and concisely. That is done best (to my mind) in an RFC where people can just say Yay or Nay without closers having to wade through tons of arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And it could take some more without being disruptive. If you are worried about it so much then complain at ANI about perpetrators instead of stopping discussion by putting one particular wording to an RfC and so stopping a possible better wording being got. And for instance I just showed a consortium news article which even if it isn't a strong RS does cast a different light on parts of this affair. You did the same to the Stundin article, stopping it mid discussion and going for an RfC and making it hard now to get anything though more sources are now available. People can live with a bit of uncertainty and argument for a little while. You are stopping the encyclopaedia being discussed and built. NadVolum (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes as DUE, notable, and well sourced text. Just a procedural note - this currently has overwhelming consensus for inclusion and should not be removed while the RFC runs. The onus is now on the small handful of editors who are continually reverting this information to gain consensus for removal. The removal of this text over the last few days has been disruptive and a huge time sink. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Yahoo news investigation generated lots of coverage in many RS, including The Guardian [33] and The Telegraph [34]. These RS have not questioned Yahoo news reliability. At only two sentences it cannot be considered to have undue weight (compare to the extradition hearings which are described in 11 paragraphs). BLP is irrelevant as no individuals are mentioned in the proposed text. Alaexis¿question? 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: "Pompeo" was the US Director of the CIA. He is a natural person. That is the BLP violation, implicating him in an alleged scheme to murder a civilian. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, I missed it. So, if it was reworded to avoid mentioning his name, would you drop your objections? Note that the essence of BLP is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In this case, as demonstrated by the multitude of RS reporting on it, the statements are well-sourced. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It needs to be removed from the article -- as several editors have tried to do -- pending any outcome of this RfC that might validate some of it or some other related article text. There is only a single source. No other publication has been able to verifiy Yahoo's claims. Yahoo is an aggregator of established news agencies and has a miniscule and very spotty portion of its own reporting. When investigative journalists break major stories, other publications publish their own investigations that independently corroborate the first revelatoin. That has not happened in this case. It is not adequately sourced for these claims. There are thousaneds of officials in the CIA who moot bad or illegal ideas, only to have them scrutinized and rejected by higher-ups. At most that is what may have happened here. At least, the whole bit may be fabricated by ex-Trump-era parties trying to rehabilitate their reputations. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)tt
- Well, you are entitled to your own opinion about the reliability of Yahoo news, inner workings of the CIA and ex-Trump-era parties, but as long as no RS make these points they remain your opinions and aren't relevant for this discussion. Come on, Pompeo himself did not deny this [35]. Alaexis¿question? 17:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It needs to be removed from the article -- as several editors have tried to do -- pending any outcome of this RfC that might validate some of it or some other related article text. There is only a single source. No other publication has been able to verifiy Yahoo's claims. Yahoo is an aggregator of established news agencies and has a miniscule and very spotty portion of its own reporting. When investigative journalists break major stories, other publications publish their own investigations that independently corroborate the first revelatoin. That has not happened in this case. It is not adequately sourced for these claims. There are thousaneds of officials in the CIA who moot bad or illegal ideas, only to have them scrutinized and rejected by higher-ups. At most that is what may have happened here. At least, the whole bit may be fabricated by ex-Trump-era parties trying to rehabilitate their reputations. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)tt
- Ah, okay, I missed it. So, if it was reworded to avoid mentioning his name, would you drop your objections? Note that the essence of BLP is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In this case, as demonstrated by the multitude of RS reporting on it, the statements are well-sourced. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Yes. I would prefer to attribute the whole thing to Yahoo! News since we don't have a second independent source. But we definitely should mention it. Loki (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes in whatever wording is needed. This is obviously DUE. Snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes Seems to me yet again we have a flawed framing of an RFC which asks us to vote on a specific wording rather than (in this instance) asking “should the article include material from the Yahoo report?” and then if agreed debating the actual wording. I’ll vote for this wording on the understanding it’s about the Yahoo material being included in some form, and this version being acceptable for now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes Are we really still having this discussion? The two editors in opposition are still repeating the factually inaccurate implication that WP:SIGCOV means significant re-investigation. Connor Behan (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes The content is well sourced and certainly due, and I don't see anything wrong with the wording, though it's fine to further edit the wording after the RfC closes. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - I was among those who voted No the first time around. I said then that I was willing to change my vote if the story receives greater traction in the mainstream media, which is exactly what happened in the intervening month and a half. The issue is now widely discussed in the media and is definitely WP:DUE. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @PraiseVivec:. The question you !voted on previously was about the fabricated testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson. This RFC is about plans drawn up by the CIA to kidnap, or poison or otherwise assassinate Assange. The confusion is entirely understandable! The information about the CIA kidnap plans has indeed been reported far more widely in the anglophone press (Guardian, Times, Telegraph, BBC etc) than Thordarson's fabrication of testimony. But I thought you should be clear about what you are voting on. 🙂 Thanks! Cambial foliage❧ 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cambial , thanks for this. Should have reread the previous RfC more carefully, I kept reading about the CIA plan these last few days and somehow became convinced that's what the Icelandic newspapers were alleging. Regardless of my failing memory, my Yes vote for this RfC remains unchanged. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Icelandic one is an FBI plot which they actually carried out, this Yahoo story is a CIA plot, we don't know how far they actually went but it does not seem to have had any actual effect except to get the justice department to act faster making up charges - which seem largely based on what the FBI did. All allegedly of course but with reliable sources, probably years before anything like the full story comes out I guess. NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for calling the witness' actions related to "an FBI plot which they actually carried out" and for the US Justice Dept. "making up charges". I have seen no RS making that claim and without links to supporting citations, it does not advance the conversation here. It sounds close to a conspiracy theory of events. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- No it doesn’t. And Wp:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Cambial foliage❧ 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Original Research or personal conspiracy theories are not furthering article improvement, so that kind of thing is not helpful on an article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NOR, first paragraph: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. You are not the arbiter of what furthers article improvement. You're the only person who's mentioned
conspiracy theories
in this section. Why are you ignoring your own admonishment against them? Cambial foliage❧ 19:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)- I merely asked NadVolum for a source supporting his statements. Just their source. I'm not going to have anything further to say on the tangent you're raising. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which tangent is that? The
conspiracy theory
that is not present in @NadVolum:'s comment? Forgive me, I think that was raised by you. If you have nothing more to say about it all the better. Cambial foliage❧ 20:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Which tangent is that? The
- I merely asked NadVolum for a source supporting his statements. Just their source. I'm not going to have anything further to say on the tangent you're raising. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NOR, first paragraph: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. You are not the arbiter of what furthers article improvement. You're the only person who's mentioned
- Original Research or personal conspiracy theories are not furthering article improvement, so that kind of thing is not helpful on an article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Don't know where your "witness's actions" come from - would you care to explain? The FBI plot related to Thordarson and is substantiated by the former Icelandic Minister of the Interior Ögmundur Jónasson who asked the FBI to leave Iceland. The bit about the Justice department comes freom the Yahoo story "Concerned the CIA’s plans would derail a potential criminal case, the Justice Department expedited the drafting of charges against Assange to ensure that they were in place if he were brought to the United States." The superseding indiictment they have is the one that is based mainly on tryng to prove Assange conspired and helped to hack computers and depends in most of its sections on evidence by 'teenager' i.e Thordarson. NadVolum (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- And I agree it does sound like a conspiracy theory like you say. Or perhaps more like a badly written spy book, NadVolum (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- No it doesn’t. And Wp:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Cambial foliage❧ 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please provide sources for calling the witness' actions related to "an FBI plot which they actually carried out" and for the US Justice Dept. "making up charges". I have seen no RS making that claim and without links to supporting citations, it does not advance the conversation here. It sounds close to a conspiracy theory of events. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Icelandic one is an FBI plot which they actually carried out, this Yahoo story is a CIA plot, we don't know how far they actually went but it does not seem to have had any actual effect except to get the justice department to act faster making up charges - which seem largely based on what the FBI did. All allegedly of course but with reliable sources, probably years before anything like the full story comes out I guess. NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cambial , thanks for this. Should have reread the previous RfC more carefully, I kept reading about the CIA plan these last few days and somehow became convinced that's what the Icelandic newspapers were alleging. Regardless of my failing memory, my Yes vote for this RfC remains unchanged. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @PraiseVivec:. The question you !voted on previously was about the fabricated testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson. This RFC is about plans drawn up by the CIA to kidnap, or poison or otherwise assassinate Assange. The confusion is entirely understandable! The information about the CIA kidnap plans has indeed been reported far more widely in the anglophone press (Guardian, Times, Telegraph, BBC etc) than Thordarson's fabrication of testimony. But I thought you should be clear about what you are voting on. 🙂 Thanks! Cambial foliage❧ 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
No
- No. I've been on both sides of this issue. I was the first to add the content, sourced singly to Yahoo! News and without naming anyone other than Assange. Two days later, SPECIFICO removed it with the edit summary
NOTNEWS, UNDUE, and weakly sourced BLP content. Be patient, await broad mainstream coverage if this is confirmed/significant.
At that point I changed my mind. While acknowledging that there had by then been broad mainstream coverage, I felt that by itself did not establish the story as being confirmed/significant, since those follow-on articles contained no original reporting; they simply rehashed and relied solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop. SPECIFICO was right to object on grounds of WP:UNDUE. Mere replication by other reliable sources ≠ corroboration. Moreover, since then—as I noted in a comment headed The Big Dogs That Did Not Bark— some of the most prominent news organizations that editors generally recognize as the gold standard for WP:RS have pointedly ignored this story, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, and Reuters. I am also deeply troubled by the subsequent naming of an individual in revised wording to the disputed content, as shown in the newly opened RfC, alleging criminal activity by someone who was then serving as a top official of the U.S. government. WP:BLPPUBLIC advises that in the case of public figures,If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
To reiterate, we have at this point only one source alleging criminal activity by this individual, and no sources independently documenting it. Its inclusion in Wikipedia is a clear BLP violation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, WaPo has at least since mentioned it. Plus so have several other sources we recognize as reliable, like the Intercept and the Guardian. I'm also concerned that none of these articles actually independently verify the story but I still personally think this is enough to mention it. Loki (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your link shows that The Washington Post mentioned the Yahoo! News story in passing within a newsletter briefing on cybersecurity news and policy by its anchor, Joseph Marks, whose piece is labeled Analysis and like all the rest simply rehashes Yahoo! News. I'm glad you introduced it here with "FWIW" because, frankly, it ain't worth much. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The basic facts without Pompeo were disclosed in the court case to extradite Assange over a year ago.[21] NadVolum (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Grayzone is described thus at the explanatory supplement to Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline:
- FWIW, WaPo has at least since mentioned it. Plus so have several other sources we recognize as reliable, like the Intercept and the Guardian. I'm also concerned that none of these articles actually independently verify the story but I still personally think this is enough to mention it. Loki (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think that naming Pompeo doesn't add much value. Slatersteven, do you want to edit the proposed wording to remove it? Having yet another RfC would probably be a bit silly. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was just pointing to the court case, they weren't going to fabricate that. Just it was about the the first place to cover the story. If you actually want a cite from a reliable source how about this from four months later.[22]. NadVolum (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- As usual, I'm missing your point. How does this year-old source relate to including the week-old Yahoo! News story? Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have said. It was in response to your " I felt that by itself did not establish the story as being confirmed/significant, since those follow-on articles contained no original reporting; they simply rehashed and relied solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop." I was showing the main stuff as it relates to Assange had already come out in his extradition court case. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And if, as you say, the main stuff had already come out, how does it relate to the RfC that we are putatively discussing in this talk page section? Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 The Yahoo piece was researched and written by three journalists all working for a mainstream news outlet – they state that in researching the article they interviewed “more than 30 former U.S. officials” – These journalists are laying their professional reputations on the line here – I ask you to reflect on the what it means to “not establish the story as being confirmed” (ie the alternative is they fabricated the story). As to the significance of the story - the fact that hundreds of articles and blogs across the net, printed newspapers, and television have referenced the story settles that. Regarding why some major news outlets have chosen to ignore the story (as they did with much of Assange’s first appeal hearing and the Thordarson recanting) perhaps that deserves analysis and mention in its own right (downright bizarre, if not sinister some might say). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd question whether Yahoo is a mainstream news source at this time. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Prunesqualer: Referencing the story without corroborating it does not settle its significance. That merely confirms its appeal to sensationalism, to which Wikipedia should not contribute. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 The concept of corroboration when talking about three professional journalists all putting their reputations on the line by saying they were given information by (between them) “more than 30 former U.S. officials” and handing their work over to the scrutiny of editorial staff at a mainstream news source sits a little uneasily. But as stated by others quite a lot of RS have accepted the credibility of the story, Even
Rumsfeld(Oops I meant) Pompeo hasn’t denied it – Characteristically he merely wanted to punish the officials who blew the whistle (so much for open democracy and the fourth estate). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)- Rumsfeld! Please try to remember whom we are discussing here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a totally different source from a totally different place saying the same basic thing as far as this article is concerned does not corroborate what is wanting to be put into this article? What exactly would you count as corroboration? NadVolum (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian story, dated 30 Sep 2020, reports accusations by an anonymous former employee of Spanish security company Undercover Global S.L. (UC Global), which spied on Assange for the CIA during his time in the embassy. In testimony read aloud by one of Assange's lawyers during an extradition hearing, the ex-UC Global employee alleged that plans to poison or kidnap Assange were discussed between unnamed "sources" in U.S. intelligence and UC Global. Four days after its publication, The Guardian story was added to Wikipedia's Julian Assange by the great Connor Behan. A year later, in the story under discussion in this talk page section, Yahoo! News likewise cited The Guardian′s 2020 article. Yet I remain mystified by where you are going with this. Are you insinuating that since the story has been included in Wikipedia for a full year, there is no need to add the redundant 2021 Yahoo! News report? Or do you mean that we should re-cite The Guardian story in order to retroactively corroborate Yahoo! News? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- 'insinuating'? How about just saying? I didn't think it was actually needed but if a cite to the Guardian article ssatisfies you the basic facts have a strong basis then fine, re-cite it. NadVolum (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum: Thank you for bearing with me. I apologize for being dense, but I wanted to be sure I understood what you are proposing. I will not cite it myself because I find the concept of retroactive corroboration confusing, but I will support your inserting an additional citation to The Guardian′s 2020 story. However, placement is crucial. The Guardian citation should not immediately follow content attributed inline to the 2021 Yahoo! News story, and it especially should not be appended to the existing four cites naming Pompeo, which The Guardian does not do. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- 'insinuating'? How about just saying? I didn't think it was actually needed but if a cite to the Guardian article ssatisfies you the basic facts have a strong basis then fine, re-cite it. NadVolum (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian story, dated 30 Sep 2020, reports accusations by an anonymous former employee of Spanish security company Undercover Global S.L. (UC Global), which spied on Assange for the CIA during his time in the embassy. In testimony read aloud by one of Assange's lawyers during an extradition hearing, the ex-UC Global employee alleged that plans to poison or kidnap Assange were discussed between unnamed "sources" in U.S. intelligence and UC Global. Four days after its publication, The Guardian story was added to Wikipedia's Julian Assange by the great Connor Behan. A year later, in the story under discussion in this talk page section, Yahoo! News likewise cited The Guardian′s 2020 article. Yet I remain mystified by where you are going with this. Are you insinuating that since the story has been included in Wikipedia for a full year, there is no need to add the redundant 2021 Yahoo! News report? Or do you mean that we should re-cite The Guardian story in order to retroactively corroborate Yahoo! News? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a totally different source from a totally different place saying the same basic thing as far as this article is concerned does not corroborate what is wanting to be put into this article? What exactly would you count as corroboration? NadVolum (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rumsfeld! Please try to remember whom we are discussing here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 The concept of corroboration when talking about three professional journalists all putting their reputations on the line by saying they were given information by (between them) “more than 30 former U.S. officials” and handing their work over to the scrutiny of editorial staff at a mainstream news source sits a little uneasily. But as stated by others quite a lot of RS have accepted the credibility of the story, Even
- Basketcase2022 The Yahoo piece was researched and written by three journalists all working for a mainstream news outlet – they state that in researching the article they interviewed “more than 30 former U.S. officials” – These journalists are laying their professional reputations on the line here – I ask you to reflect on the what it means to “not establish the story as being confirmed” (ie the alternative is they fabricated the story). As to the significance of the story - the fact that hundreds of articles and blogs across the net, printed newspapers, and television have referenced the story settles that. Regarding why some major news outlets have chosen to ignore the story (as they did with much of Assange’s first appeal hearing and the Thordarson recanting) perhaps that deserves analysis and mention in its own right (downright bizarre, if not sinister some might say). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And if, as you say, the main stuff had already come out, how does it relate to the RfC that we are putatively discussing in this talk page section? Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have said. It was in response to your " I felt that by itself did not establish the story as being confirmed/significant, since those follow-on articles contained no original reporting; they simply rehashed and relied solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop." I was showing the main stuff as it relates to Assange had already come out in his extradition court case. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- As usual, I'm missing your point. How does this year-old source relate to including the week-old Yahoo! News story? Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- No Yahoo is the walking zombie of the internet. Isakoff has done fine reporting and investigation in the past, but this article is sketchy and doesn't give any indication that these plans were taken seriously at the CIA. Far from it -- Pompeo specifically responded that while some details in the Yahoo piece are accurate, he denied the substance of what's being proposed for this Assange BLP. There are 1000 crazy ideas a day in any large organization, and in the CIA they often turn grizzly. That doesn't mean that such brainstorms are endorsed by the top leadership, or even that they are legal and feasible. Yahoo News content is 90% aggregation from RS news sites, with a very small inclusion of Yahoo-originated content. We do not see other more respected news organizations independently verifying or corroborating that any illegal threat to Assange was real. This content is UNDUE, it's a BLP violation implicating Pompeo, it is SYNTHy promotion of Assange's legal position in the US, and like a lot of other salacious and scandalous recent reporting about the Trump Administration, it may have been planted by sources with an axe to grind and career credibility to salvage. If RS media independently verify this with better context and detail, we should by all means reconsider. But it's currently insupportable. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you're not saying we should not be concerned about evidence of America's security services talking about doing a Skripal. NadVolum (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your description of the article is egregiously inaccurate and without any merit whatsoever.
walking zombie
might just about pass as poor sixth-form poetry but tells us nothing about the quality of the outlet's - largely excellent - reporting. The suggestion that there is noindication that these plans were taken seriously
suggests that you either haven't read or failed to understand the article or the follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations. There are numerous indications, laid out in extensive detail. Pompeo denied it - well, he would, wouldn't he? We can hold an RFC about whether to include his denial if you like, though that seems more appropriate to his article. Not only have other RS sought to corroborate the story, some, including The Guardian, have already independently reported on credible threats to Assange before the Yahoo story was published. Your last comment refers to shortcuts like SYNTH that are so completely irrelevant to this case that I'll not bother to respond, out of politeness. Cambial foliage❧ 23:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)- Cambial Yellowing: Oh, goody! I've been eagerly awaiting those "follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations." Please, I beg you, will you share links to those? Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: It's been two days and I'm still waiting on those links to "follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations." Please provide at your earliest convenience. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Links are already above, The Intercept etc. I have neither the time nor inclination to dig them up for you. And I'm not interested in a turgid debate about the semantics of the word "investigatory", nor the definition you've chosen for the term in the context of this talk page. WP:USEBYOTHERS is what matters here, and at this point, WP:SNOW. Cambial foliage❧ 17:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- The Intercept begins by saying, "According to an explosive investigation published Sunday by Yahoo News…" and after rehashing old developments concludes, "A spokesperson for the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a question about whether the revelation of the kidnapping and assassination plans has any effect on the decision of whether to continue the extradition attempt." That is not investigative journalism. It's lazy copycat piling on. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- See previous comment. I'm not interested in debating the specious definition you've invented for the purpose of engaging in very boring extended sophistry. Read the whole Intercept article. Or don't. Cambial foliage❧
- One phone call to the Department of Justice that produced no response. That's the extent of The Intercept′s vaunted "fearless, adversarial" (remember that promissory motto from their founding days?) investigative journalism. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't
the extent
. They investigated and reported on much detail of the senatorial select committee approval of Pompeo's legalistic phrase. "But that's not investigation, you have to phone somebody and do interviews." I think your definition is dumb, and I don't believe your choice of it is uninfluenced by your position on the content in question. Have a great day though. Cambial foliage❧ 18:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)- Your allusion to Pompeo's 2017 phrase "non-state hostile intelligence service" is misplaced. That is not part of the content under discussion in this RfC on the 2021 Yahoo! News report. Please try to stay focused. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Om. I'm focused now.... this whole conversation is irrelevant and the RFC is a foregone conclusion. Bye. Cambial foliage❧ 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Since the outcome "is a foregone conclusion," can we expect you to quickly close this RfC? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, whether the further investigation carried out by the Intercept or another media organisation is
part of the content under discussion
is not relevant to the point you tried to make. What you've implicitly accepted is that yes, there were follow-up investigatory articles by other media organisations. They investigated other aspects, and that investigation was instigated on the basis of Yahoo's reporting. That's what you tried to dispute, and you were clearly wrong on this point. Please try to be logical. Cambial foliage❧ 01:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)- Don't tell me what I've "implicitly accepted." I EXPRESSLY REJECT your unsubstantiated claim that either The Intercept or any other media organization produced follow-up investigatory articles. They produced nothing but copycat recaps of what Yahoo! News reported. There was not a shred of independent investigation in any of those articles. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- You can
reject
all you like, in block capitals or no. It remains a fact, and The Intercept investigation of the congressional approval of Pompeo's phrase is a prime example of that. Cambial foliage❧ 01:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)- And that investigation was not a follow-up to the 2021 Yahoo! News story. It dates from 2017. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a different, older article, which is referred to in the recent article explicitly instigated from the Yahoo report. The recent article contains information neither in that report nor in the Yahoo article, about the senate committee and about a video of a likely U.S. operation outside the embassy. Cambial foliage❧ 02:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Near the very bottom of its 28 September 2021 article (placement indicating the relative value of this nugget), The Intercept recalls that "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a 'grab team' waiting outside the embassy." Beneath that The Intercept reproduces a 23 May 2018 WikiLeaks tweet embedding said video. That is not investigative journalism following up on the 26 September 2021 Yahoo! News story. The Intercept is merely padding its 28 September 2021 non-story with a nearly 3½-year-old speculative tweet from Assange's own organization. As for the what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did in 2017, The Intercept′s 28 September 2021 rehash adds nothing of value to its 25 August 2017 story by Sam Biddle. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's a different, older article, which is referred to in the recent article explicitly instigated from the Yahoo report. The recent article contains information neither in that report nor in the Yahoo article, about the senate committee and about a video of a likely U.S. operation outside the embassy. Cambial foliage❧ 02:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- And that investigation was not a follow-up to the 2021 Yahoo! News story. It dates from 2017. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- You can
- Don't tell me what I've "implicitly accepted." I EXPRESSLY REJECT your unsubstantiated claim that either The Intercept or any other media organization produced follow-up investigatory articles. They produced nothing but copycat recaps of what Yahoo! News reported. There was not a shred of independent investigation in any of those articles. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, whether the further investigation carried out by the Intercept or another media organisation is
- Since the outcome "is a foregone conclusion," can we expect you to quickly close this RfC? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Om. I'm focused now.... this whole conversation is irrelevant and the RFC is a foregone conclusion. Bye. Cambial foliage❧ 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your allusion to Pompeo's 2017 phrase "non-state hostile intelligence service" is misplaced. That is not part of the content under discussion in this RfC on the 2021 Yahoo! News report. Please try to stay focused. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't
- One phone call to the Department of Justice that produced no response. That's the extent of The Intercept′s vaunted "fearless, adversarial" (remember that promissory motto from their founding days?) investigative journalism. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- See previous comment. I'm not interested in debating the specious definition you've invented for the purpose of engaging in very boring extended sophistry. Read the whole Intercept article. Or don't. Cambial foliage❧
- The Intercept begins by saying, "According to an explosive investigation published Sunday by Yahoo News…" and after rehashing old developments concludes, "A spokesperson for the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a question about whether the revelation of the kidnapping and assassination plans has any effect on the decision of whether to continue the extradition attempt." That is not investigative journalism. It's lazy copycat piling on. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Links are already above, The Intercept etc. I have neither the time nor inclination to dig them up for you. And I'm not interested in a turgid debate about the semantics of the word "investigatory", nor the definition you've chosen for the term in the context of this talk page. WP:USEBYOTHERS is what matters here, and at this point, WP:SNOW. Cambial foliage❧ 17:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Cambial Yellowing: It's been two days and I'm still waiting on those links to "follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations." Please provide at your earliest convenience. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cambial Yellowing: Oh, goody! I've been eagerly awaiting those "follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations." Please, I beg you, will you share links to those? Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I refer you to this comment, in which I already indicated that I have no interest in your personal opinion about a special definition of the word "investigatory" that you invented in order to try to instigate and win an argument that will have no influence on the outcome of this RFC. Cambial foliage❧ 16:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Where did you see that Pompeo denied it? I thought he said "I make no apologies for the fact that we and the administration were working diligently to ..." and didn't deny any individual allegation. And said the people who leaked the classified information to Yahoo should be prosecuted. Not that he's needed here anyway. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- This news has received widespread coverage on social media. indepdent, aljazeera, the verge, abc. I am confused about your position that this story is limited to yahoo. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion Yahoo
Is there a need for an RfC at this stage? There seems to be a large preponderance of editors who want to include this text and discussion is ongoing. Burrobert (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- There can be an RFC but current consensus is to include it. That’s the current status quo and the text should remain in while the RFC runs. At this point the “remove” voters would need to obtain the consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Its not long-standing content, So I am not sure that applies. In fact this has been in dispute since it was added, and pretty much constantly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would have said yes, and I have explained why.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- In the last couple of days, articles about the CIA looking at the possibility of a kidnap have appeared in The Independent (Patrick Cockburn in the Voices section) and Al Jazeera[36]. And there was an article about it in The Sunday Times on 27 September. My feeling is that more articles will appear, increasing the amount of article space justified by the story. Are there editors resisting inclusion? It looks to me that there's sufficient coverage for an RfC not to be needed, if that's what the issue is. ← ZScarpia 14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's a long story ZScarpia. The discussion is at Yahoo_News_investigation. The count of editors for and against is at State of play. We have compiled a list of sources which have referenced the Yahoo report. It is available at References.Burrobert (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. Thanks. ← ZScarpia 16:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's a long story ZScarpia. The discussion is at Yahoo_News_investigation. The count of editors for and against is at State of play. We have compiled a list of sources which have referenced the Yahoo report. It is available at References.Burrobert (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a secondary evaluation of the murder/rendition chatter from New York Magazine
Killing Assange was discussed — but was never a serious option, Yahoo reports, “Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request ‘sketches’ or ‘options’ for how to assassinate him.” Trump reportedly raised the idea in a 2017 meeting. But if kidnapping Assange was a legally shaky proposition (at best), assassinating him was truly a bridge too far for a preponderance of decision-makers — even for the Trump administration.
“That kind of lethal action would be way outside of a legitimate intelligence or counterintelligence activity,” a former senior intelligence community lawyer told Yahoo. The plan went nowhere.
- So, we have "never a serious option" and "went nowhere" -- both of which are an independent evaluation that confirms that the proposed article content is not a significant factor in Assange's biography SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO: You and I are on the same side, but I disagree that the New York magazine article to which you linked in any way represents an independent evaluation. In particular, the phrases you quote are derivative. "Never a serious option" simply paraphrases Yahoo! News:
The idea of killing Assange 'didn't get serious traction,' said a former senior CIA official. "It was, this is a crazy thing that wastes our time."
And "went nowhere" is a direct quotation from Yahoo! News:In the end, the assassination discussions went nowhere, said former officials.
Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)- I should have stated it better. NY is demonstrating that, for this article, the Yahoo content is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO The material we are discussing already acknowledges “Yahoo News found no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved.” Despite that fact, news sources around the world (some of them major) have still gone with the story. Seems that, when the intelligence agency of the world’s most powerful nation contemplates murdering a publisher, people want to read about it – perhaps they are seeing a significance that you are missing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO: You and I are on the same side, but I disagree that the New York magazine article to which you linked in any way represents an independent evaluation. In particular, the phrases you quote are derivative. "Never a serious option" simply paraphrases Yahoo! News:
SPECIFICO, when you request feedback elsewhere, it's a common courtesy to notify other editors here. Alaexis¿question? 06:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Note this is about the specific wording (that keeps on being readded without discussion as if this wording has consensus), not inclusion itself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
In the interest of fairness, I'm pinging User:JBchrch, User:M.Bitton and User:PaleoNeonate as all 3 participated in the closed discussion at RSN. I think it's best even if for the first two basically just to say it was the wrong place to discuss it, and they were not pinged by User:SPECIFICO at RSN about the new discussion here. AFAICT, this completes pings for editors who participated in the RSN discussion who haven't already made it here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Its not quite a snow, but there does now seem to be a clear consensus for inclusion, but I think an uninvolved editor should close it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Off topic (I know), but @ZScarpia: would you please remove that arrow from your signature? It's distracting. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Does anybody else find the arrow objectionable? It has been part of my signature going right back, pretty much, to registration as an editor coming up to 16 years ago. GoodDay is the first person to remark upon it, but perhaps everybody else was being too polite? ← ZScarpia 13:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- ZScarpia Honestly, I find the font size/font itself more distracting than the arrow, since the font is different than the rest of the message. Other peoples' mileage might vary though, of course. (Also pinging GoodDay). I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Curious, because my signature hasn't ever looked abnormal on any of my various PCs and laptops, which have run different operating systems with many versions of different web browsers and different sets of fonts installed. Right back at the beginning, I suppose I looked at the code behind a selection of signatures I liked and copied it. ← ZScarpia 01:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "The US Considered Kidnapping and Even Assassinating Julian Assange". Jacobin.
- ^ William Booth; Rachel Weiner (2021-07-08). "U.S. offers that Assange could serve sentence in Australia in extradition appeal". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-08-19.
- ^ Jónsson, Gunnar Hrafn (7 September 2021). "In his own words: Assange witness explains fabrications". Stundin.
- ^ Bouckaert, Laurens (28 June 2021). "Hoofdgetuige in zaak rond klokkenluider Julian Assange geeft toe gelogen te hebben in aanklacht" [Key witness in Julian Assange case admits lying in charges]. Business AM (in Flemish). Medianation.
- ^ Fürstenau, Marcel (2 July 2021). "Hoffnungsschimmer für Julian Assange" [Glimmer of Hope for Julian Assange]. Deutsche Welle (in German).
- ^ von Hein, Matthias (11 Aug 2021). "Julian Assange: US still pushing for extradition". Deutsche Welle.
- ^ "FBI ajanı Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, Julian Assange hakkındaki iddialar için itirafta bulundu" [FBI Agent Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson confesses to allegations against Julian Assange]. Cumhuriyet (in Turkish). Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Foundation. 28 June 2021.
- ^ Homan, Timothy R. (3 July 2021). "Marianne Williamson calls on Biden to drop efforts to extradite Assange". The Hill.
- ^ Hussain, Murtaza (17 July 2021). "The Controversial Prosecutor at the Heart of the Julian Assange Case". The Intercept.
- ^ Haberler, İlişkili (28 June 2021). "Julian Assange'ı suçlayan FBI ajanı: Tüm suçlamaları uydurdum" [FBI agent accusing Julian Assange: I made up all the charges]. NTV (in Turkish). Istanbul: Doğuş Media Group. Archived from the original on 3 July 2021.
- ^ "Assange Prosecution Relied On False Testimony From A Diagnosed Sociopath And Convicted Pedophile". Scoop.
- ^ "United States' lead witness against Julian Assange admits to lying in testimony – report". The Shift.
- ^ "Siggi The Hacker, Wikileaks And The Lost American". The Reykjavík Grapevine.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Gallagher, Ryan (9 August 2013). "The Crazy Story of an Icelandic WikiLeaks Volunteer Turned FBI Informant". Slate Magazine.
- ^ MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR.
- ^ Quinn, Allison (7 October 2021). "FBI's Julian Assange Witness Arrested After 'Crime Spree'". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
- ^ Lauria, Joe (7 October 2021). "Key US Witness Against Assange Arrested in Iceland". Consortiumnews. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
- ^ "Key witness in Assange case jailed in Iceland after admitting to lies and ongoing crime spree". Stundin. 6 October 2021. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
- ^ Blumenthal, Max (15 May 2020). "'The American friends': New court files expose Sheldon Adelson's security team in US spy operation against Julian Assange". The Grayzone.
- ^ Quiinn, Ben (30 September 2020). "US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told". the Guardian.
Notification: Discussion at BLP noticeboard; NPOV noticeboard; RS noticeboard
An editor has opened a new section regarding this page at the BLP noticeboard, at the NPOV noticeboard, and the Reliable sources noticeboard about a subject raised on this talk page. Cambial foliage❧ 09:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- They also make some disparaging remarks about the editors here, although they do not refer to any specific individual. Cambial foliage❧ 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- We do not ned to have this discussion of 4 separate forums. As for the rest, take it to their talk page or wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're wrong. It's generally accepted, as already noted on this talk page, that editors should notify the talk page of an article when it is raised at a site-wide noticeboard. The editor who did so failed to notify this page: this section serves to rectify that. Cambial foliage❧ 10:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Need and can are not synonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rel? Cambial foliage❧ 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rel? what the hell is a rel ?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Sorry but SPECIFICO has a long track record of aggressive and disruptive editing – he/she frequently attacks others for bias, but has an editing record that shows as much bias as anyone on the page (if not more) – now he/she is spreading our debate onto four separate pages simply because he/she is unable to get their way on this page. Quite impossible. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- That does not really explain what rel is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The notices at NPOVN and BLPN are not inviting discussion there in separate threads. They are soliciting new editors to come here and notifying them of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Sorry but SPECIFICO has a long track record of aggressive and disruptive editing – he/she frequently attacks others for bias, but has an editing record that shows as much bias as anyone on the page (if not more) – now he/she is spreading our debate onto four separate pages simply because he/she is unable to get their way on this page. Quite impossible. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rel? what the hell is a rel ?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rel? Cambial foliage❧ 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Need and can are not synonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're wrong. It's generally accepted, as already noted on this talk page, that editors should notify the talk page of an article when it is raised at a site-wide noticeboard. The editor who did so failed to notify this page: this section serves to rectify that. Cambial foliage❧ 10:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- We do not ned to have this discussion of 4 separate forums. As for the rest, take it to their talk page or wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This has now been raised at ANI, take it there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Contested removal of content based on WP:BLPPUBLIC
On 5 October 2021, I deleted "that Pompeo was suggesting" with the edit summary remove name of individual alleged by a single, uncorroborated source to have planned criminal activity while serving as a top official of the U.S. government. WP:BLPPUBLIC advises that in the case of public figures, if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
The next day, my edit was reverted.
Wikipedia's BLP policy directs that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." All references supporting the accusation of criminal activity that, by name, "Pompeo was suggesting" rely on a single uncorroborated source, Yahoo! News. Since that source is the subject of an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia's Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I request that my edit be immediately restored until the RfC is closed. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- It isn't a single source. There is no BLP violation. There are three reliable sources cited immediately after the sentence in question that directly support it (and the statement is attributed). There is also a very clear consensus in the RfC preceding this section that the content is appropriate. You and one other individual stated your belief that the text that includes what you removed should not be included. At least 10 editors believe otherwise, and they give their reasons with reference to the relevant policy. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion at the RfC shows considerable support for removing Pompeo's name from the proposed Yahoo content, even among those who favor the Yahoo content in the article. The reinserted text reads as if Pompeo instigated a plot to kill Assange. That is not in the sources and it's a straight BLP violation that should be removed both for that violation and for the as yet unresolved RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think this could be dealt with sufficiently by adding his title before the name, and then it is clear that Pompeo proposed the hostile action while in his capacity of leading a terrorist organization. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf: Thank you for succinctly confirming the editorial bias at play here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I’m not seeing enthusiasm for removing mention of Pompeo (in this matter) from a majority of the include camp. Let’s get this RFC wrapped up and then perhaps discuss some limited rewording – but I have to say Pompeo is clearly a key figure in the assassination/abduction story and I cannot see how we can with any integrity keep him out of this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is no source that says Pompeo was the one who launched the idea of killing assange. If you disagree, cite such a source and quote the words that say killing Assange was Pompeo's idea. It should be easy if any such source exists. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- When this RFC is over and done and we have acceptance that the Assassination/abduction story belongs in the article I will then happily discuss a rewording. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no source that says Pompeo was the one who launched the idea of killing assange.
- Nowhere in the current article text does it say this, and nowhere on the talk page has anyone suggested it say this.
- Article text: Yahoo! News found "no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved." Some of its sources stated that they had alerted the House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting.
- Yahoo News report: There is no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved, in part because of objections from White House lawyers, but the agency’s WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting.
- The Intercept report: As we now know, Pompeo responded to this challenge by ordering the CIA to draw up plans to kidnap Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he was receiving diplomatic protection..
- Is there any serious cause for this section, or is it only yet more obfuscation and timewasting? Cambial foliage❧ 22:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The current text, as you have most recently amended it, refers to a murder plot that no RS has attributed to Pompeo. You then say refer in the next sentence <the plans that Pompeo was suggesting>. The clear implication of that juxtaposition is that it was Pompeo pushing the murder plot. That needs to be removed from the article now. We don't leave BLP problems in the article pending discussion. The default is to remove such text, and several editors have stated their discomfort with it. I suggest you reverse your recent addition. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- It would be absurd synth to assume that Pompeo was acting on his own as a private individual and not in his official capacity. 'Pompeo, head of the CIA, proposed to kidnap and murder assange' would be sufficient. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- The current text, as you have most recently amended it, refers to a murder plot that no RS has attributed to Pompeo. You then say refer in the next sentence <the plans that Pompeo was suggesting>. The clear implication of that juxtaposition is that it was Pompeo pushing the murder plot. That needs to be removed from the article now. We don't leave BLP problems in the article pending discussion. The default is to remove such text, and several editors have stated their discomfort with it. I suggest you reverse your recent addition. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf: Thank you for succinctly confirming the editorial bias at play here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at the RfC shows
No it doesn't. Please don't misrepresent discussions to attempt to add more weight to your side. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)considerateconsiderable support for removing Pompeo's name from the proposed Yahoo content
- I think this could be dealt with sufficiently by adding his title before the name, and then it is clear that Pompeo proposed the hostile action while in his capacity of leading a terrorist organization. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion at the RfC shows considerable support for removing Pompeo's name from the proposed Yahoo content, even among those who favor the Yahoo content in the article. The reinserted text reads as if Pompeo instigated a plot to kill Assange. That is not in the sources and it's a straight BLP violation that should be removed both for that violation and for the as yet unresolved RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
It was clear he mmeant considerable and it was a typo.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be very happy to see Pompeo removed. His name juices up the story but the business looks like it was started up before he came along. It really was the CIA and Assange. Pompeo could be quoted for any relevant public statements he made though. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, considerable. A typo indeed. Corrected above. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Three disputed references
In the BLP section headed Later years in the embassy, the final sentence is followed by four references. I am tagging the second, third, and fourth as disputed.
- Yahoo! News is contested elsewhere at both this talk page and in an ongoing RfC at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Accordingly, I will not tag it, since I believe editors are by now well aware of the unresolved challenges to this source.
- The second reference is to The Sydney Morning Herald, which incorrectly claims Yahoo News! "argued that the pursuit of Assange was driven by former CIA director Mike Pompeo when he was installed as Donald Trump's secretary of state." In fact, Yahoo! News contends "these plans for an all-out war against [Assange] were sparked by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication" of Vault 7 that began more than a year before Pompeo became secretary of state. This citation, being manifestly false, should be removed.
- The third reference is to The Intercept, which does nothing more than recap the Yahoo! News story without a shred of corroboration. Near the bottom of its article, The Intercept recalls that "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a 'grab team' waiting outside the embassy." To illustrate, The Intercept reproduces a 23 May 2018 WikiLeaks tweet embedding said video. That is not independent investigative journalism following up on the Yahoo! News story; it is The Intercept padding its copycat story with a nearly 3½-year-old speculative tweet from Assange's own organization. As for the what the Senate Select Committee did in 2017, The Intercept′s 28 September 2021 rehash adds nothing of value to its 25 August 2017 story by Sam Biddle. This reference is useless, redundant, and should be removed.
- The fourth reference, to The Times, immediately follows the paragraph's final sentence: "Some of its sources stated that they had alerted the House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting." Yet The Times does not report that anyone alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans Pompeo was suggesting. Since it fails to support the sentence that precedes it, this reference should either be removed or repositioned to whatever text it does support, if any. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The disputed tag you used is for information that is verifiably wrong. It is used for disputing statements in article text, not for disputing sources. What is the statement in the article text that is verifiably wrong?
- If you used the tag because you wanted to argue about the reliability of the sources, you need to remove the tag you used and/or replace it with an appropriate one. If you want to dispute the reliability of those sources, you will need to overcome the site-wide community consensus of reliability indicated at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Times, and The Intercept.
- What you write about the Syndey Morning Herald is simply, flatly completely wrong. Yahoo: "It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo". SMH: "[Yahoo] argued that the pursuit of Assange was driven by former CIA director Mike Pompeo". It seems that it is you writing things that are
manifestly false
. Cambial foliage❧ 22:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)- Basketcase2022 According to Wikipedia: Wikileaks began publishing Vault 7 material on 7 March 2017. Trump nominated Pompeo to be the director of the CIA on November 18, 2016 – he took the job on January 23, 2017. i.e. your dates appear to be wrong (acording to Wiki). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote: The Sydney Morning Herald incorrectly claims Yahoo News! "argued that the pursuit of Assange was driven by former CIA director Mike Pompeo when he was installed as Donald Trump's secretary of state." In fact, Yahoo! News contends "these plans for an all-out war against [Assange] were sparked by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication" of Vault 7 that began more than a year before Pompeo became secretary of state. As you yourself point out, Pompeo was not, as The Sydney Morning Herald falsely asserts that Yahoo News! argued, then secretary of state. Which makes The Sydney Morning Herald doubly wrong, since it attributes something to Yahoo! News that's not there, and since Pompeo was then CIA director. If The Sydney Morning Herald had simply consulted Wikipedia, they might have gotten the facts straight instead of mangling the timeline. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Basketcase2022 According to Wikipedia: Wikileaks began publishing Vault 7 material on 7 March 2017. Trump nominated Pompeo to be the director of the CIA on November 18, 2016 – he took the job on January 23, 2017. i.e. your dates appear to be wrong (acording to Wiki). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your personal reconception of what renders journalistic research
investigative
, invented to try to win a point that has zero impact on the acceptability of the source, remains uninteresting and is not relevant to making decisions about what content belongs on the page and what sources can be used to support it. Cambial foliage❧ 22:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing or anything - I was just wondering if anyone had analyzed the video of the 'grab team' to see what was on the page they showed. I know it can't be read from the video but I have a feeling that between the multiple frames of the video there is just enough information for a program to make it readable or to make a good reconstruction of the contents. It might show they were a grab team which would definitely corroborate the story - or it might show they were waiting for some equipment to do some road maintenance for instance. NadVolum (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Consensus required restored
So please take it slow, folks. If a dispute becomes acute, wait for an RfC to close and then follow its dictates. If there is urgency that is of a BLP nature, use WP:BLPN to expedite. Use WP:AE to report CR violations, but please give ample allowances for self-reverts by explaining the violation in a clear and precise way. This sanction isn't that intuitive, so goodwill will go a long way. G'luck! El_C 23:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
“2016 U.S. presidential election” subsection too long
I think it’s time we got a little perspective regarding Julian Assange’s part in the 2016 U.S. election. Wikileaks published some information - which other outlets also published – Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time – big deal. Does this really warrant one of the longest sections in his entire biography? I’m not sure it even warrants it’s own sub-section or mention in the intro. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree its too long, but I think it is part and parcel of much of the criticism of him, so yes I should have its own section and be in the lede. So do you have any suggestions as to how to trim it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- The 2016 election involvement may be “part and parcel of much of the criticism of [Assange]” but that doesn’t mean his role was that important. Everything to do with U.S. elections gets used as a political football – in this instance Clinton, her team and most of the Democrats in America where casting about looking for whatever they could to blame for her unexpected defeat – Assange just happened to be one of the easier targets, we should not be playing that game – as I said “Wikileaks published some information which other outlets also published – Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time” - that’s what it really boils down to. Regarding suggestions I would lose the following:
- Paragraph 4: “On 7 October, the Washington Post published...”.
- Paragraph 5: ”In mid-October, the Ecuadorian...”.
- The final sentence in paragraph 7: “Political scientists Matthew Baum and...”.
- Paragraph 8: “A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said...”.
- The final three paragraphs dealing with Seth Rich should be revisited, as what we have is badly written, over long, and repetitive. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Paragraph 4 has Podesta saying that " One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence.", that is I think relevant.
- Paragraph 5, yep that can go.
- paragraph 7 I think helps to argue that Assange was not that influential.
- Paragraph 8 Again I think this is needed for balance.
- I disagree we need to revisit the last three paragraphs, we have only just had a discussion on this material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- paragraph 4: Clinton’s campaign chairman complaining about the timing of Wikileaks releases five years on is not very news worthy – it has already been explained in the article that Assange strongly disliked Hillary Clinton and took some action to harm her election chances – fact is, other people were also putting out the leaked material and Assange’s influence was not that great (even if it suited his ego and the Clinton team to believe otherwise.
- paragraph 7: Please note I only asked for the removal of the final sentence which, when you read the source, is just a bit on inconsequential 5 year old punditry/fluff.
- paragraph 8: A magazine writes an article saying that Wikileaks declined to publish material about Trump – Assange points out the information was already in the public domain, and that they don’t publish stuff that’s already out – 5 years on that seems a bit inconsequential but if others really want to keep it I won’t argue (at least it’s short).
- As for the Seth Rich material: The RFC is still unresolved (plenty of filibustering going on there, seems to me) but you should be aware there is virtually no support for the poorly written and repetitive version currently in the article, so yes almost certainly there will be a rewrite (eventually). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- As we are not a new paper something being not news worthy is irrelevant, we are dealing with history.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase that “newsworthy”: WP:DUE issues are what we are dealing with here - when we give over an entire large subsection to mostly trivial details. In this instance I’m not taking sides with Assange, as I think even his bitterest critics must have to suppress a loud yawn when reading over-long 2016 U.S. election section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is not trivial, as coverage at the time suggests. Nor do I object to reducing it, I just object to blanket removal of sections, rather than reducing those sections.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- We are talking paragraphs not "sections". That asside perhaps you could make some suggestions for reducing this vastly overblown subsection? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is not trivial, as coverage at the time suggests. Nor do I object to reducing it, I just object to blanket removal of sections, rather than reducing those sections.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase that “newsworthy”: WP:DUE issues are what we are dealing with here - when we give over an entire large subsection to mostly trivial details. In this instance I’m not taking sides with Assange, as I think even his bitterest critics must have to suppress a loud yawn when reading over-long 2016 U.S. election section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- As we are not a new paper something being not news worthy is irrelevant, we are dealing with history.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- The 2016 election involvement may be “part and parcel of much of the criticism of [Assange]” but that doesn’t mean his role was that important. Everything to do with U.S. elections gets used as a political football – in this instance Clinton, her team and most of the Democrats in America where casting about looking for whatever they could to blame for her unexpected defeat – Assange just happened to be one of the easier targets, we should not be playing that game – as I said “Wikileaks published some information which other outlets also published – Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time” - that’s what it really boils down to. Regarding suggestions I would lose the following:
This talk page section is framed too broadly. Yesterday an administrator imposed the consensus required provision (CRP) on Julian Assange. We must now adhere to its procedure for removing content as described in the relevant explanatory supplement.
Editor1 removes a portion of article content;
Editor2 reverts, re-adding some or all of the content;
Prior to consensus on the article talk page, no editor may re-remove any of the re-added content.
If the BLP's 2016 U.S. presidential election subsection is too long, there are two solutions.
- Editor1 may remove the entire subsection.
- Editor1 may remove selected content from that subsection.
After the exercise of Option1 or any exercise of Option2, another editor may revert (subject of course to the preexisting WP:1RR restriction), after which any editor may create a talk page section to seek consensus on that edit. As I read the explanatory supplement, prior consensus for each such initial edit is not required. Accordingly, instead of discussing various potential edits in advance, editors ought to implement the CRP procedure outlined above. At this point, we don't need brainstorming; we need focus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I gave a pretty detailed description of what I think should happen to the “2016 U.S. presidential election” – that’s about as much “focus” as anyone could wish for. We get repeated grumbling from some editors for inserting or removing content without consultation on this page (I for one am sick of being reverted after making perfectly reasonable edits) – and heavens above, what fresh hell is this - now it’s complaints for consulting too much. OK I’ll do the edits and wait for the reverts (and complaints) and see if that gets us anywhere. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- As what you have suggested above has already been objected to making that change would violate brd, as you already know it is going to be reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree it is too long and support big time trimming. This section also mixes Assange and Wikileaks. Wikileaks has its own article and there is no reason this content should be duplicated here on a BLP. Assange is quote notable on a personal level and this article should focus on his personal life. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- NOw that is a better argument. Yes we can trim the stuff directly relating to wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I chopped most of it out just now. Feel free to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am less sure about removing the Podesta stuff, as he was a target. So I feel his opinions are valid. As I had objected to its removal it should not have been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me for saying so Slatersteven but I’m not sure you have yet been granted supreme veto power over the entire Assange article – You are of course free to revert material but not to assert that I cannot edit material when you h°ave made some sort of objection to the change. Moving the Seth Rich material is a nifty way of reducing the section size (if not the article size) BTW Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Consensus required restored", the point is edits should not be made Without consensus. And no I am not free to revert, the page is under 1RR, I have reverted once today.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: If you provide diffs showing which Podesta stuff you previously objected to removing and today's edit(s) that most clearly removed it, I will revert that and create a new talk page section to focus on it with the object of achieving consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Update: I took care of this. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: If you provide diffs showing which Podesta stuff you previously objected to removing and today's edit(s) that most clearly removed it, I will revert that and create a new talk page section to focus on it with the object of achieving consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Consensus required restored", the point is edits should not be made Without consensus. And no I am not free to revert, the page is under 1RR, I have reverted once today.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me for saying so Slatersteven but I’m not sure you have yet been granted supreme veto power over the entire Assange article – You are of course free to revert material but not to assert that I cannot edit material when you h°ave made some sort of objection to the change. Moving the Seth Rich material is a nifty way of reducing the section size (if not the article size) BTW Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am less sure about removing the Podesta stuff, as he was a target. So I feel his opinions are valid. As I had objected to its removal it should not have been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I chopped most of it out just now. Feel free to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- NOw that is a better argument. Yes we can trim the stuff directly relating to wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose any reduction in this material, as it was widely covered by reliable sources at the time. It's one of the most notable things Assange has ever done. Also, how much separation is there between Assange and Wikileaks? Is there any evidence that Assange doesn't have complete editorial control over WL? If not, then I don't think WL content should be removed from this article. Geogene (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- The infobox at Wikipedia's WikiLeaks page lists as "key people" Julian Assange (director) and Kristinn Hrafnsson (editor-in-chief). The latter's BLP states:
It was announced on 26 September 2018 that Kristinn Hrafnsson had been appointed editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks by Julian Assange following an extended period in which Assange lost access to the internet earlier in the year. WikiLeaks said Assange would remain as publisher.
Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)- 2 years after the election.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- So Assange has control and the site is administered by an employee? Geogene (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- The infobox at Wikipedia's WikiLeaks page lists as "key people" Julian Assange (director) and Kristinn Hrafnsson (editor-in-chief). The latter's BLP states:
- I support the changes to the section. There is a full article about the business. This article should just show a summary with enough to outline the topic and the bits whaich are particularly relevant to Assange. Ediors may think Wikileaks is the same sort of thing as Assange but if Assange only comes in as the head of Wikileaks that is not enough for inclusion. I think what has been left satisfies the requirements of WP:SPLIT well. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Donald Trump's Twitter feed has its own article, that doesn't mean that his most controversial tweets are only covered there. Geogene (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see the equivalent of 'Wikileaks' in what you said which might make it relevant. NadVolum (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see why you think the fact that "Wikileaks" did something controversial can possibly have no bearing on Assange, who owns it. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- It might have some bearing - but we've got to wait for reliable sources to point it out. Plus we're taking about a summary here - no need to duplicate articles inside other articles. A bit about Wikileaks might be needed for background context in a section but we defnitely can't just stick chunks of Wikileaks in here. NadVolum (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see why you think the fact that "Wikileaks" did something controversial can possibly have no bearing on Assange, who owns it. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see the equivalent of 'Wikileaks' in what you said which might make it relevant. NadVolum (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Donald Trump's Twitter feed has its own article, that doesn't mean that his most controversial tweets are only covered there. Geogene (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
There's clearly no consensus for these BOLD cuts. The section should be restored to the status quo ante and a detailed dscussion begun. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: If you disapprove of today's WP:BOLD cuts, which thanks to users Slatersteven, Jtbobwaysf, and Prunesqualer have reduced overall article size from 244,115 to 236,506 bytes, please revert accordingly and create a new talk page section to seek consensus on that particular issue. This present talk page section is cluttered with too many digressions onto side issues such as Assange's role in WikiLeaks, each of which requires a separate talk page section in order to focus on their specific merits. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I will revert, but remember the onus is on those who wish to change longstanding article content. So it's not up to those who object to the cuts. I think we need a structured discussion, starting with the top-level issue as to whether Wikileaks content belongs in this bio article and then getting into the significance of each part of the section that are proposed to be removed. I'd also note that it's not necessary to remove longstanding content in order to seek new consensus. As Slatersteven has noted, that gets tricky with the 1RR still in effect. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think this trimmed too much. The 2016 election is a major part of his biography and had a significant impact on how he is perceived, and the vital points related to him need to be covered. I particularly object to the removal of the paragraph stating that he got the leaks from the Russian government; again, this is a turning point in his biography (it became a major focus of coverage of him afterwards) - and it makes no sense to remove that paragraph but leave the one after it where he denies that connection. If people think the paragraph doesn't discuss Assange directly enough, reword it or tweak it, but it's easy enough to find sources supporting that sort of rewording, and the focus of it is important enough to his biography, that simply deleting the paragraph wholesale seems like a nonstarter. --Aquillion (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the connection to the Access Hollywood tapes, there is no need for us to rely so heavily on Podesta; there's extensive sourcing that Roger Stone had Assange and wikileaks contacted directly after the tapes and told him to release the Podesta emails, all of which (as far as I can tell) treats it as fact and makes the connection overtly, with many sources specifying that Stone sought to contact or put pressure on Assange specifically. We can just say so in the article voice with appropriate sourcing. This avoids rambling digressions and back-and-fourth and just states the key point in a relatively concise manner. If people are fine with my additions in that regard, I'm fine with removing the Podesta quote - it's unnecessary to quote Podesta's speculation at the time when we have later sources overtly stating what happened as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
-
- I am fine with leaving out those specific sentences (which was why I ended up self-reverting my restoration of them when I took a stab at rewriting the section) as long as we state the more general point that there's a broad agreement among cybersecurity experts and intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the leak - does drilling down into stuff like that actually tell the reader more than basically saying "experts agree it was Russia?" We don't really need to get into the nitty-gritty of how many people Mueller charged - it's the connection between Assange and Russia established in coverage of this incident that is important to his biography. However, we do have to clearly state that cybersecurity experts and multiple intelligence agencies agree that it was Russia, and avoid wording things in a way that implies that there's any serious dispute over that point - I would focus on that top-level summary instead. (Assange's denials notwithstanding; they are near-universally dismissed in coverage, so I would briefly mention them for a few words in the body but avoid giving them any further focus per WP:MANDY. There's enough coverage to note his denials, but given the tone of that coverage, not enough to give it any weight beyond that.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it seems pretty definite the leaks came from Russia, but it is certainly not clear that Assange knew that or should have believed the American intelligence services saying they thought that without producing any evidence. After all he'd have had a pretty jaundiced view of them by then! I'm not sure he'd have cared if he did know but that's another matter. So we've got to be a bit careful and not say things that imply he knew like saying Wikileaks talked to the Russians instead of saying they talked to Guccifer2. NadVolum (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the idea of this was to cut down the text and just keep the main Assange bits and refer off to the main article about the business. However there has been a lot of POV editing since I agreed with the chopped down version. We now have Stone Asking Assange to put out the emails - but we don't have that Costa said he did not contact Assange even when offered a plea bargain to say that he did. We have Assange talking to the Russians rather han Guccifer2 even though that is the benefit of hindsight. The POV pushing should stop and the edits conform to what was there before in tone. A separate section of the talk page can be set up when this bit of editing ends for people who want to disagree with what was there before. That is not just chopping down a section that is too long. NadVolum (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I accept that the DNC leaks issue changed perceptions of Assange in the U.S. - the question for the historian (and encyclopaedia writer) is "why" and "where the new perceptions fair/accurate"? Undoubtedly powerful political interest groups spun Assange’s role for their own ends – we need to keep coming back to what Assange actually did (not the story that vested interests have spun). Wikileaks – at a time when Assange was at (or near) the top of the organisation – published leaked e-mails (which were also published elsewhere). Assange said some ill judged things on the subject and foolishly dipped his toe in U.S. domestic politics. In a time when the democrats where desperately casting about for figures to blame for a humiliating loss Assange was a perfect target, and is still being vilified to this day as a result. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've restored the original Podesta paragraph though it had very little to do with Assange personally and so could possibly be removed as part of this shortening exercise. I've left the bit about talking to Russians as it was there originally, it is an extension to the previous sentence about what the Mueller report said, probably should be attached better. Mueller report view is definitely hindsight. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum, you removed numerous sources. What, specifically, is your objection to these sources and the connection they make between the Access Hollywood tapes and Assange's decision to drop the Podesta emails later that day?
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.
[1]The Senate Intelligence Committee notes that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone called up author Jerome Corsi the day that the Trump Access Hollywood tape was released and may have encouraged him to put pressure on Julian Assange to release stolen emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in direct response.
[2]When Trump’s campaign learned about devastating recordings of the candidate boasting about sexual assault in October, Stone told his contact, Jerome Corsi, to get Julian Assange to “drop the Podesta emails immediately.” (WikiLeaks did so.)
[3]
- You stated in your edit summary that
new one implied Assange was contacted by Stone whereas evidence is he wasn't
, but the text made it clear (as the sources do) that Stone had Jerome Corsi contact Assange. This is, as far as I am aware, well-cited and undisputed fact, and central to Assange's biography due to the large number of high-quality sources that treat it as vital context to the Podesta email drop - if you believe that evidence says otherwise, you need to produce sources directly contradicting these. We can talk about how cautiously to word it, but right now it seems as though you removed well-sourced text and the source citing it without a valid rationale. --Aquillion (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)- See for instance [37] "First, Corsi says he continued to insist to Mueller’s team that despite what his emails might suggest, he actually never did get any inside information from WikiLeaks or any intermediary.", "Second, on the Access Hollywood tape day, Corsi says he never did successfully get in touch with Assange." Stone telling Corsi to do something is one thing. It happening is quite another. Stone likes to talk himself up and has tried to butter up Assange but it looks like Assange did not think much of him "Stone is a bullshitter,” Assange posted. “Trying to a) imply that he knows anything b) that he contributed to our hard work.” NadVolum (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum, you removed numerous sources. What, specifically, is your objection to these sources and the connection they make between the Access Hollywood tapes and Assange's decision to drop the Podesta emails later that day?
References
- ^ Lutz, Eric (18 August 2020). "'Drop the Podesta Emails': Senate Report Sure Seems Like Another Trump-Russia Smoking Gun". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
- ^ Stahl, Jeremy (19 August 2020). "The Top Five "Revelations" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia Report". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
- ^ Chait, Jonathan (18 August 2020). "Bipartisan Senate Report Shows How Trump Colluded With Russia in 2016". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
Violation of discretionary sanction (18:46, 9 October 2021)
On 8 October 2021, an administrator imposed the consensus required provision on Julian Assange. Its procedure for removing content is described in the relevant explanatory supplement:
- Editor1 removes a portion of article content;
- Editor2 reverts, re-adding some or all of the content;
- Prior to consensus on the article talk page, no editor may re-remove any of the re-added content.
On 9 October 2021, citing WP: DUE, Prunesqualer removed a portion of article content.
One minute later, Slatersteven undid Prunesqualer's revision with the edit summary, "I disagree, as you are well aware."
Seven minutes afterward, Jtbobwaysf manually reverted Slatersteven's edit, thereby re-removing re-added content prior to consensus on the talk page.
This violates the discretionary sanction in the page notice that directs, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is one of the worst sanctions admins can apply, and I hope El C removes it. This sanction actively impedes editing progress. At one of the last AE reports where this sanction was violated the reviewing admins were almost unanimously opposed to it. Why bring it back? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, from an outside perspective, it looks like recently nearly every substantive change just gets undone (edit warring that obviously destabilizes the page). CR is the final page-level restriction in the DS arsenal. Nobody likes it. I don't like it. I've removed it more times than I've added it. But I do think that in this instance it's better than doing nothing. Because even with 1RR, there are enough participants for frequent/immediate reversions.
- Now, if you wish to see CR repealed outright, you should request it at WP:ARCA (i.e. to modify Arbitration policy thusly), all the more if you can show that it doesn't really get enforced at AE. If ArbCom's view is that, in general, the enhanced +1RR sanctions (CR and EBRD) should be done with, then that would be that.
- I realize that at RfPP you wanted to do nothing. But my view was that it was either this or a lengthy full protection. Better impeded editing than no editing at all was my thinking. Certainly, I'm open to proposals, including ones that are outside the box (DS allowances do go far). But my experience has been that usually the more novel the sanction, the less effective it proves. And CR itself is already rather novel. Needless to say, once the influx of late dies down, the CR can retire once more. El_C 05:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Does it, we had made some progress until people started to ignore the sanction. Hell I removed some of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- In fact (it seems to me) stuff I removed is now back in because people could not obey the DS. We were arriving at a compromise, and now we are not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I am unhappy about the consensus required sanction. I think the article suffers fom WP:STONEWALLING and it just seemes to be a way of increasing that. Yes there were people who felt their edit really had to be in but I think they seemed to be amenable to reason and they did not disrupt things too much for progress. It is the continual calls for consensus and restoring the status quo without any relevant discussion that get me. NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum, I'd take a dim view of editors who outright WP:STONEWALL or otherwise WP:GAME the sanction. But your 'request' that I somehow extrapolate instances of that out of a ~600K talk page (which I mostly haven't read) — that is an unrealistic expectation, especially considering that en's scarce admin resources are chronically stretched thin.
- I'll make it clear, though, that if it becomes obvious that someone is invoking the CR with flimsy reasoning (i.e. their objection lacking substance, etc.), then that could be addressed accordingly. But, again, the alternative of either doing nothing or a lengthy full protection, did not strike me as the optimal path toward mitigating some of the challenges brought by this latest influx. Hope that makes sense. El_C 14:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I am unhappy about the consensus required sanction. I think the article suffers fom WP:STONEWALLING and it just seemes to be a way of increasing that. Yes there were people who felt their edit really had to be in but I think they seemed to be amenable to reason and they did not disrupt things too much for progress. It is the continual calls for consensus and restoring the status quo without any relevant discussion that get me. NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
What seems to have happened is that several editors have made BOLD edits for which they could have anticipated objections. Then others have quickly reverted, sometimes with difficulty due to intervening tweaks that prevented "undo". I hope that for edits likely to be controversial, editors will propose on the talk page first. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is what I assumed the intent was, and to add. If it is objected to don't the talk page do not make it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Goodbye to progress, I guess the arguments now will be over what is the version to start from. Unlesss there is a very good reason otherwise I would suppose it is the version when the sanction was applied as per m:The Wrong Version. NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can figure out that is this version [38]. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- There's also WP:Stable version. I wouldn't fancy tying to do that! NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
RFC to summarize AP2 section
Propose to summarize Julian Assange#2016 U.S. presidential election section that is subject of extended WP:TE
Option A. Proposed text: "During the U.S. 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted a searchable database of emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016 and were widely cited in press during the election. Assange spoke negatively of both candidates stating "The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers." On 7 October, Assange posted a press release on WikiLeaks exposing the second batch of emails, these from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Oct 7 email leak was attributed to the Russian government but Assange stated the Russian government was not the source of the DNC and Podesta emails, and accused the Clinton campaign of "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russian involvement."
Option B. Summarize to any other one-paragraph summary of similar size to Option A that contains no quotations of anyone except the article subject. (There is no need to add additional proposed paragraphs to this RFC, that can be done is a subsequent RFC if necessary.)
Option C. Leave it as is or expand it.
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Option D Last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021).Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Given that the last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021) is identical to the present version, Option C should be revised to say only "Expand it." As they are now worded, options C and D are not mutually exclusive because Option C says "Leave it as is or expand it." Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Survey
- Option A noting Option B is an acceptable second choice as I am largely indifferent to the text, other than stating that it should not have any quotes by anyone who is not the article subject and should be a summary of the main article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Option Clast stable version As only giving Assanges POV is a violation of wp:NPOV and (I would argue) wp:BLP. Note as a result of all the tooing and throwing there is not "Leave it as is" as such I have to say the version of 6th October, and start again. [[Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is kind of my point, but I said "the version of 6th October", in other words before this round of edit and counter edit. But in terms of this content (and this content alone) this version of the text [[39]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: There must be some mistake. The talk page section on which we are commenting is an RfC proposing to summarize subsection 4.6 2016 U.S. presidential election. The diff to which you have linked shows an edit to subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments. Please explain. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, there is no mistake, the last consensus version was the version that is in the article at that point. I have no idea when that version was added, which is why I gave a date, and no a diff.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Of course I could just post the text of the last consensus version, the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: Please forgive my newcomer's confusion. I had expected the diff to display the corresponding text in 2-column format, and failed to scroll down to the formatted article content. However, when I did so, I discovered that for the first two paragraphs of subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments, which are the subject of this RfC, what you are calling the last stable version is identical to the present version. In other words, you are voting for both Option C (Leave it as is or expand it) and Option D (Last stable version). Is that correct? Thank you for bearing with me. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- No I am not as I have struck my vote for C, and have explained why, it is meaningless as there is not one version it can refer to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven: Please forgive my newcomer's confusion. I had expected the diff to display the corresponding text in 2-column format, and failed to scroll down to the formatted article content. However, when I did so, I discovered that for the first two paragraphs of subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments, which are the subject of this RfC, what you are calling the last stable version is identical to the present version. In other words, you are voting for both Option C (Leave it as is or expand it) and Option D (Last stable version). Is that correct? Thank you for bearing with me. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: There must be some mistake. The talk page section on which we are commenting is an RfC proposing to summarize subsection 4.6 2016 U.S. presidential election. The diff to which you have linked shows an edit to subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments. Please explain. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is kind of my point, but I said "the version of 6th October", in other words before this round of edit and counter edit. But in terms of this content (and this content alone) this version of the text [[39]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Option A or B The 2016 U.S. election section is greatly overblown – The issues dealt with already have their own Wiki article and are covered in numerous other articles - As I said earlier: “regarding Julian Assange’s part in the 2016 U.S. election. Wikileaks published some information, which other outlets also published, and Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time”. Hardly earth shattering. Whenever party politics rears its ugly head then issues get exploited and “spun” out of recognition. Hillary’s 2016 loss, and the alleged causes, are a classic example. Option A restores the coverage in Assange’s article to something like its proper size/importance – and we leave the link to the Main article: “2016 Democratic National Committee email leak” for readers who wish to learn more. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Option C / last stable version as a starting point. Strenuous opposition to both A and B, or to any proposal to reduce it to a single paragraph, and to the RFC as a whole; A and B go drastically beyond anything that was remotely discussed in the section above or any versions that have been seriously proposed, which fails both WP:RFCBEFORE and common sense - it makes no sense to leap straight from a dispute over a much more modest reduction to the section to such a drastic one. Numerous severe omissions here, most particularly "attributed to the Russian government", which drastically understates the sources and which is unacceptably vague about who is doing the attribution and the omission of any mention whatsoever of the Access Hollywood tape; numerous sources indicate that Assange was pushed by Stone to release the Podesta emails in response to it:
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.
[1]The Senate Intelligence Committee notes that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone called up author Jerome Corsi the day that the Trump Access Hollywood tape was released and may have encouraged him to put pressure on Julian Assange to release stolen emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in direct response.
[2]When Trump’s campaign learned about devastating recordings of the candidate boasting about sexual assault in October, Stone told his contact, Jerome Corsi, to get Julian Assange to “drop the Podesta emails immediately.” (WikiLeaks did so.)
[3]
- The exact wording can be workshopped but none of the proposed versions remotely reflect this central background. More generally, this is a core event in Assange's biography and reputation; trying to condense it to a single paragraph is completely unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- C And then chop it down to the bits that refer to Assange personally. Or B and add a bit to give context or avoid POV. But A is just unreadable. I had a look at Podesta emails and it doesn't mention Stone or Corsi. If they're so important they should be put in that article first, but do mention the business about Corsi denying contacting Assange even when offered a plea bargain. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- A - Indeed, it's accurate & correctly elaborate. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lutz, Eric (18 August 2020). "'Drop the Podesta Emails': Senate Report Sure Seems Like Another Trump-Russia Smoking Gun". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
- ^ Stahl, Jeremy (19 August 2020). "The Top Five "Revelations" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia Report". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
- ^ Chait, Jonathan (18 August 2020). "Bipartisan Senate Report Shows How Trump Colluded With Russia in 2016". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
Discussion (III)
- Comment I have proposed this RFC due to the above ad nauseam arguments and TE that goes on relating to this problematic section. Other editors have imposed various types of DS on this article, and my suggestion is that limiting the scope of the section to simply a summary will have sufficient power to stop the AP2 arguing on this article. We have an existing policy in place that a section who subject has a main article, the section should simply be a summary. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- The 1st half of the current 3rd paragraph is the only part of the current text I see as problematic, as it isn't about Assange's role with the Podesta emails, but instead tried to associate Assange with Trump and the Access Hollywood tape in a way that the sources don't. Iffy★Chat -- 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- The sources absolutely do; see the sources I cited above. Numerous sources state that Stone instructed Jerome Corsi to contact or put pressure on Assange directly, and no sources (that I am aware of) contest it. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Mentioning that isn't appropriate on this article as none of the sources directly link Corsi (and therefore Stone and Trump) to Assange. That's where the chain is broken. Iffy★Chat -- 11:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes the best the Mueller report has is something about Roger Stone contacting Jerome Corsi contacting Ted Malloch who might have contacted Nigel Farage who might have contacted someone else to contact Julian Assange. Which is at six degrees of separation :-) Oops only five! Gosh! NadVolum (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - FWIW, Clinton wasn't the Secretary of State during the 2016 campaign. She resigned that post on February 1, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- The phrasing used in both the existing text (twice) and in the proposed replacement Option A is
emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.
Nowhere is candidate Clinton misidentified as the serving Secretary of State. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- The phrasing used in both the existing text (twice) and in the proposed replacement Option A is
I think this RfC is highly premature. We have not even discussed and identified possible problems and solutions with respect to the current text. An RfC should be the last step in deciding on an improvement, not a very general first step before the structure and detail of the issue has been identified. This RfC really should be withdrawn for now and, if necessary, a more constructive one launched after the issues and alternatives are clear. @Jtbobwaysf: SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC) By the way, there has been no "extended TE" on this section. Attention turned to it roughly 24 hours ago, and if not for a series of ill-advised removals that should have been anticipated would be challenged, there would have been nothing but (one hopes) a talk page proposal or two. Things don't happen quickly in difficult articles, but they can often happen right if everyone is patient. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the text of the long standing version.
"2016 U.S. presidential election Main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak During the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted a searchable database of emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016.[260][261] The emails were a major point of discussion during the presidential election and prompted an FBI investigation of Clinton for using a private email server for classified documents while she was US Secretary of State.[262]
In February 2016, Assange wrote: "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States."[263] On 25 July, following the Republican National Convention, Assange said that choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea. "Personally, I would prefer neither."[264][265][266] In an Election Day statement, Assange criticised both Clinton and Trump, saying that "The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers."[267]
Image of Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaking at Democratic national Convention Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman following WikiLeaks releases suggesting bias against Bernie Sanders. On 22 July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in which the DNC seemingly presented ways of undercutting Clinton's competitor Bernie Sanders and showed apparent favouritism towards Clinton. The release led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and an apology to Sanders from the DNC.[268][269] The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention because he believed Clinton had pushed for his indictment and he regarded her as a "liberal war hawk".[270]
On 7 October, the Washington Post published a story on the Access Hollywood tape, a recording of a Trump interview conducted by television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump described his habit of sexually assaulting women.[271] Also on 7 October, shortly after the Post article was released, Assange posted a press release on WikiLeaks exposing a second batch of emails with over 2,000 mails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.[272] Podesta, in an interview with CNN, stated "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence."[273]
In mid-October, the Ecuadorian government severed Assange's Internet connection because of the leaks.[274] In December, Assange said the connection had been restored.[275]
Cybersecurity experts attributed the attack to the Russian government.[276] The Central Intelligence Agency, together with several other agencies, concluded that Russian intelligence agencies hacked the DNC servers, as well as Podesta's email account, and provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.[277] As a result of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, 12 Russian GRU military intelligence agents were indicted on 13 July 2018 for the attack on the DNC mail-server. According to the Mueller report, this group shared these mails using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0 with WikiLeaks and other entities.[278] The investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.[272]
In interviews, Assange repeatedly said that the Russian government was not the source of the DNC and Podesta emails,[279][280][281] and accused the Clinton campaign of "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russian involvement.[282] On the eve of the election, Assange addressed the criticism he had received for publishing Clinton material, saying that WikiLeaks publishes "material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere," that it had never received any information on Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson's campaign.[283][284] Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[285]
A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said that WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government, focusing instead on hacks relating to the US presidential election.[286] WikiLeaks said that, as far as it could recall, the material was already public.[286]
In April 2018, the DNC sued WikiLeaks for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and US federal statutes. It accused WikiLeaks and Russia of a "brazen attack on American democracy".[287] The Committee to Protect Journalists said that the lawsuit raised several important press freedom questions.[288] The suit was dismissed with prejudice in July 2019. Judge John Koeltl said that WikiLeaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and were therefore within the law in publishing the information.[289]
In a July 2016 interview on Dutch television, Assange hinted that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. Seeking clarification, the interviewer asked Assange whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder," to which Assange answered, "No. There's no finding. So, I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."[290] WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder and wrote,[291]
We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications.
Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[292][291][293] and set off a spike in attention to the murder. Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet.[294] According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.[295][296][297] Assange must have known[according to whom?] 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.[295][272]"
This is what we should be resetting to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I have now reset the text back to the long-term stable version that has been in the article for months.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's the right thing to do, and I again request that this RfC -- which will resolve nothing be withdrawn so that we can discuss big-picture and detailed choices before reducing the most important ones to a poll (if needed). SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree this should be closed, option C is far too vague (which is the version it refers to?). Also there should have been an option to return (as I have now added) to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I think the base version before te sanction came into effect is the last edit before it was applied which is [40] and there seems to be a standard m:The Wrong Version about that. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Removal of DNC leak material
I recently inserted the following into the article: “The leaked e-mails revealed an acrimonious split within the Democratic party, with senior D.N.C. staff sharing stinging denunciations of Clinton’s rival leadership contender Bernie Sanders”. The edit was almost immediately reverted by SPECIFICO with the excuse “UNDUE opinion” – This really has to be some sort of (not very funny) joke. I don’t believe SPECIFICO even had time to read the Guardian article from which the information was sourced. I would like to request someone reinstates my edit and also sanctions SPECIFICO for his (yet again) disruptive behaviour. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to confirm SPECIFICO reverted my edit only three minutes after it was made – that was not sufficient time to access, read and digest the cited Guardian article – which leads to the inevitable conclusion that SPECIFICO simply dismissed the edit without any due diligence or consideration – It’s no better than vandalism. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- It maybe they felt it was undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- That text introduced a partisan opinion that I think is UNDUE for Assange's bio and a bit of a SYNTH justification for Wikileaks' publication of the DNC emails. Let's see what other editors think. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Where is there a strong link with Assange or is it required to provide some context? Basically why is the fact that there was a split in in a biography of Julian Assange? Isn't that in the linked article? NadVolum NadVolum (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO You have to be joking – the news that the DNC favoured Clinton over Sanders was a major international scandal – you are simply riding roughshod over the whole article and other people’s work. You should be topic banned and the sooner the better. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- BUt what has this to do with Assange, this article is not about the DNC, Clinton, or Sanders. What does it tell us about Assange?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also if you want users topic banned, take it to ANI not here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Actually it would be Arbcom Enforcement rather than ANI. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- NadVolum As things stand the article contains only limited information about what the DNC leaks contained –. Yet material is being added into the article (including today) giving details about Trump’s crass actions at the time (the details of which are only very tangentially connected to the leaks). How can we justify the omission of key information about what the DNC leaks contained – but justify the inclusion of barely relevant details about Trump - It’s just absurd. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Becasue RS made the connection between Russia Wikilealks and Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1. You've been saying this article is about Assange, not WikiLeaks, so by your own reasoning, any connections between WikiLeaks, Russia and Trump would be irrelevant at this article
- 2. You're implying that RS have not made the connection between WikiLeaks and the emails showing the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders.
- To Prunesqualer's point, the inclusion of details that are completely tangential to Assange (like the number of alleged GRU agents indicted by Mueller) is absurd when contrasted with the removal of material about WikiLeaks or discussion in the CIA about kidnapping or assassinating Assange. Many of the arguments being made on this talk page make no sense, or are wildly inconsistent. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also what material about Trump has been added today?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- They probably mean the stuff I had to restore about Podesta. Hopefully the whole paragraph can be removed sometime but the whole section has been reverted as per usual status quo long standing consensus etc. because of the new sanctions and there being objections to the changes. If pieces have got to be restored per 'consensus required' could we make sure a good reason is supplied as per WP:CCC. NadVolum (talk)
- Becasue RS made the connection between Russia Wikilealks and Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree with Prunesqualer. Many people don't realize why the leaks by Assange=WikiLeaks were significant for the Clinton campaign. This explains it. Such context is important for readers. Right-wingers often mistakenly, because they are lied to in their media bubble, think it was much more serious matters (maybe illegal acts or collusion with Russia) that were revealed when that was not the case. The leaks were merely embarrassing, and that's all.
Of course, seen from a national security perspective, the fact that the hacking even happened, and that it was only the Democratic material hacked by the Russians (who also hacked the Republicans) that was released by Assange=WikiLeaks is also significant and evidence of the partisan, anti-American, nature of the Assange=WikiLeaks/Russian support for Trump. Top GOP politicians are essentially living in a state of sustained blackmail, as they know that embarrasing material is being withheld only as long as they continue to back Trump and support the Trump/Russia agenda. This may explain why so many GOP politicians have acted so weirdly, as if they are compromised. Like Trump, they are wittingly or unwittingly acting as Russian assets.
The exact wording may vary, but the Guardian content should be used. -- Valjean (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I can see you think it really important to include that, but this is the wrong place. This article is a biography of Julian Assange. Even if it was an article about Wikileaks I'm not altogether convinced it would be relevant. I guess it could be included if there was no article which covered the whole topic, but there is one and there is a link to it just under the section heading. I think the applicable TLA except it is a lot longer is WP:TOPIC. NadVolum (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Wording of the indictment
Currently the indictment is worded as follows:
- Conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information,
- Conspiracy to commit computer intrusions,
- seven counts of Obtaining national defense information,
- nine counts of Disclosure of national defense information.
There are some problems with the wording which should be fixed:
- The first words on some lines are capitalised and on others are not.
- The words "Obtaining" and "Disclosure" start with a capital.
- The word "defence" is misspelt.
Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Inappropriate usage of "stable version"
On 8 October 2021, administrator El C imposed the consensus required provision on Julian Assange. Since then, there have been two nonconsensual restorations—here and here—of previously disputed content to what the editor (who is not an admin) calls the "last stable version."
According to the explanatory supplement Wikipedia:Stable version:
It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator.
Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just had a look there and the differences from the version when the sanctions were applied are trivial. Things like a link put in and curly quotes changed to straight quotes and those are good. So I woud say the reverts per the sanctions are fine. NadVolum (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- [41] is a diff between the version just before the sanction was applied andthe current version I looked at. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- If differences are trivial, why violate the consensus required provision to restore previously disputed content? Surely minor corrections could have been made to existing content without reverting to the "last stable version." Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: In the case of the Seth Rich restoration, I believe your revert just removed recent uncontested additions to the section. I request you undo that revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)