Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

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)

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)

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)

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)
The article just needs to follow what RS say. The best of your knowledge isn't at issue. This is longstanding consensus text and the onus is on you to demonstrate any need to change it. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 17 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)

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.[1] 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)
That is the standard operating procedure even if it will degrade the article's quality. The RfC should be interesting with at least three versions to choose from, ranging in standard from atrocious to almost acceptable. Burrobert (talk) 11:25, 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)

RFC, how should we word the material about Assange and Seth Rich?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this rfc, the community discusses how to treat a sentence in our article on Julian Assange. The matter relates to US politics, and is, therefore, contentious and fraught. The community does not reach consensus about how to word the disputed sentence --- but the discussion has nevertheless been useful, and considerable progress towards a consensus has been made. From the discussion below, it is possible to put some constraints about how the disputed sentence should read, and I hope that these constraints can inform a subsequent talk page discussion that might reach consensus --- or if not, it could help to shape a subsequent, simpler, rfc with fewer options.
The current wording, with the phrase "must have known", does not enjoy consensus support. The community wants to replace it, and it should be replaced.
The options that enjoy the most support at the moment are C and F. Using Wikipedia's model of rough consensus for decision making, it is not possible for a closer to choose between C and F; but C and F have some common features that help us shape what the article should say. We know that the final sentence should begin with the words: "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead... because these words are common to C and F. And we know that it should end with the words: ...to coordinate the release of the material. because these words are also common to C and F. All that remains is for editors to refine the words in the middle.
I hope this close is helpful, and I do hope that editors will be able to do this without the need for a further RfC.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


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)

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)

Is anyone actually going to act on this RFC? Slatersteven opened this RFC is it his job to bring in and admin? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now asked for it to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven, does this mean we're closing an RfC without resolving the problem? The offending wording "Assange must have known" is still in the article, so we shouldn't close the RfC. I even created a "Reboot" subsection below, but no one commented. Maybe we should close this an immediagtely make that Reboot a new RfC. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No it means I am asking an uninvolved editor to assess consensus and make a decision on what it is. But if you oppose the close say so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 23 October 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)

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 the (who acted as a front man to Russian hackers) implies that the G2.0 online persona was a natural person, which it was not. Revised F has addressed that Geogene (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    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)
    I agree that it works. Geogene (talk) 19:04, 24 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 [[2]].
This [3][4] Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The article in the Sidney Morning Herals does not say that Assange must have known the Rich was not the source because he was dead. I can't access the other two. Can you quote what they say about that? TFD (talk) 22:27, 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)
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)

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)

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.)[3] 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)
    What needs to be clarified is Assange's willingness to insinuate to the world, wink wink, that murder victim Seth Rich was a criminal turncoat. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 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)

"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)

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)

Reboot

We seem to have stalled. The offending wording "Assange must have known" is still in the article, and my proposed edit (immediately above) has not received comment. It solves several problems and provides more information and how RS interpreted the situation. That information is important to include. Please comment. We need to resolve this. -- Valjean (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

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) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e 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.
  2. ^ Bump, Philip (13 July 2018). "Timeline: How Russian agents allegedly hacked the DNC and Clinton's campaign". Washington Post. Retrieved 17 September 2021.
  3. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (18 April 2019). "Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ a b c d e 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).
  6. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference wapotimeline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
The discussion above 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.

WP|SYNTH claim re. Dmitry Medvedev

Our article currently says “In November 2010, President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev suggested through his office that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize” yet here is what the sources we base that on say:

  • The Jerusalem Post article says: “ Sources in Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office have suggested that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently incarcerated in solitary confinement on rape charges, should win the Nobel peace prize, The Guardian reported on Thursday. While Medvedev was in Brussels for a Russia-EU summit, the source told Russian news agencies that "public and non-governmental organizations should think of how to help [Assange]. Maybe nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."”
  • The Guardian article(which the above Jerusalem Post article apperars to be based on) says: ““ Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder. In what appears to be a calculated dig at the US, the Kremlin urged non-governmental organisations to think seriously about "nominating Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate". "Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him," the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: "Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."

Nowhere do the sources actually say that Medvedev himself suggested “through his office” or otherwise that Assange get a peace prize – he may well have instructed the “source” to do so, but we cannot prove that - and to inferring otherwise is to indulge in WP|SYNTH. I changed the wording accordingly to say: “In November 2010, a source from inside the office of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.” However my edit was reverted to the WP|SYNTH version by SPECIFICO. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is why we need to reset back to the last consensus version and get agreement here for any edits.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
On this page there is rarely (if ever) a truly “consensus version” so it may be difficult to identify a widely accepted “last consensus version”. We also have quite a bit of work invested in the new version – I see no reason why we shouldn’t simply do what we usually do, and continue to edit the section, polishing out the problems – The misleading/synth wording of the Medvedev sentence is easily put right (someone just needs to reverse SPECIFICO's reversion. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus Required" may be imperfect, but it is more flexible than full protection. Meanwhile, it would be a good start if you'd read WP:SYNTH so that you can express your concerns on a more policy-based footing. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:SYNTH which says it’s ok to write misleading information in BLPs. Medvedev did not publicly suggest “that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize” – the man was perfectly capable of saying the words himself and had numerous platforms on which to do so but he didn’t choose to It is ridiculous that you think it acceptable to say in a BLP that he did. Please undo your revert at the earliest opportunity. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
And there's nothing in the NBA Rulebook that says so, either. Please don't cite WP:SYNTH again unless and until you are able to cite it correctly. Read WP:SYNTH. If you did read it but do not understand it, that's quite unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
So we can say someone "suggested [a thing] through his office" even when they have actually said no such thing and the R.S. only have an unnamed "source" saying the thing. Welcome to Wiki in Wonderland. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:CIR you need to either a) Read and understand WP:SYNTH, or b) refrain from invoklng it falsely and with no valid basis. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Be careful with such PAs. Prunesqualer seems to understand SYNTH and is applying it correctly. -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I oppose Slatersteven's perpetual meat-cleaver solution "to reset back to the last consensus version" in order to resolve a tiny contentious passage. In this instance, a mere 3–4 words are in dispute: whether to change through his office to from inside the office. Please, let's deal with that by, as Prunesqualer recommends, "simply doing what we usually do, and continue to edit the section, polishing out the problems" via consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with that approach, if I understand you correctly. When there is dispute over content, the solution is not bold editing, but discussion and development of a consensus version on the talk page which is then installed to (nearly) everyone's satisfaction. Such content is usually protected from edit wars because most of the editors will protect it. -- Valjean (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Valjean: The relevant discretionary sanction in place directs: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. It does not dictate that discussion and development of a consensus version must precede editing of content that has not been challenged via reversion. Please, is there a policy basis for your alternative approach? Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 as far as I can see the current version breaches the WP:SYNTH rules and as such should be removed regardless of discretionary sanctions. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022, the approach I proposed is based on experience and the desire to keep editorial disputes on this talk page. They should not spill over to the article. BRD seeks to achieve this end by recognizing that the moment disagreement is evident in the article editing, the disagreement should immediately be moved to the talk page and stay there until a consensus is achieved. An editorial battle shouldn't leave even a tiny puff of smoke in the article. Keep the shooting here. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Valjean: But that's exactly what happened in this case. Prunesqualer made a small edit of a sentence that had not been disputed since the relevant discretionary sanction was imposed, and 46 minutes later SPECIFICO reverted it; 48 minutes thereafter, Prunesqualer created this talk page section to discuss the disagreement until consensus is achieved. I can't see what you're objecting to. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Valjean, except when it involves Schiff/Yahoo/Hearings??🤦‍♀️. Prunes, there's no SYNTH exception. You must be thinking of BLP exception. SYNTH is a content issue. Anyway it is not SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
It’s saying something the sources don’t say – It’s SYNTH Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not a " mere 3–4 words are in dispute", almost all of the section is in dispute, just over three or 4 separate threads. This is why it needs resetting and then we have one thread discussing it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven: You have no support for resetting. You are the only editor advocating that. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
So, almost all of the section is in dispute, not just 3 or 4 words, we need to stop having a thread every time an edit in the section is reverted, it is just confusing matters.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the hard work Basket has done to organize the text, I think the whole section needs to be blanked and a new consensus version decided on talk. Failing that, I reluctantly support a reset to the status quo ante. The article needs to be written in summary style, not play-by-play or a scrapbook from which readers are left adrift to form their own conclusions. Surely by now there are RS secondary and tertiary summaries of how the world has viewed and discussed Assange and his story. time to pull this all together in a coherent NPOV summary. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I oppose blanking the whole section. That's not editing, it's vandalism. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Neither blanking, nor reverting to some unspecified time in the past (when the section clearly breached NPOV, BLPBALANCE, STRUCTURE etc) is remotely appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism -- which is a defined term on WP. It would be just putting the ship in drydock while we get it seaworthy. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
And where, pray tell, is "putting the ship in drydock while we get it seaworthy" defined in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd have to agree WP:SYNTH does not apply, putting sentences together to imply something not in the sources. it is just straightforward WP:OR saying something that is not in the sources. NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikileaks-julian-assange-_n_794965 "ussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have pledged support for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and have gone as far as to suggest the beleaguered site's frontman be honored with a Nobel Peace Prize.". https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/A-Nobel-prize-for-Assange-sought/article15587925.ece "Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize", https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/russia-give-julian-assange-a-nobel-prize/343071/ ""Russia is embracing", https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2010/12/russia-suggests-assange-nobel-031313 "Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize", It seems all the RS are treating this as an official statement.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Medvedev/Kremlin Source

I edited this bit to conform it to the two cited sources, neither of which attributed the opinion directly to Medvedev. (recently Steven found another source that does attribute it to Medvedev, so we may be discussing that in the future.) Be that as it may, in this subsequent edit, the key statement of both citations was removed -- namely, that the suggestion of a Nobel Prize was devised to "help" Assange in his struggles, not to honor him for the actual merits of his deeds. Fpr the avoidance of doubt, I am asking here whether anyone objects to wording that accurately reflects the cited sources, making clear that the sources were suggesting helping Assange, not honoring him? SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The notion that that is the key statement of the sources, despite it being in neither the headline nor the byline of any of several reliable sources, is your own invention. Even spookily useful idiot Luke Harding couldn’t get his editor at the now-properly-neutered Grauniad to put it in the byline. On the issue of attribution, I think we could attribute it to the Kremlin fairly; the idea that the source in Medvedev’s office might have been acting without the authorisation of Medvedev himself seems unlikely - and would surely be seriously unwise in the precarious position of a Russian civil servant. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As a somewhat experienced editor, you should not need to be told that headlines, even in reliable publications, are not RS for encyclopedia content. Headlines are not written by the journalists we trust for WP content. Headline writing is a separate role at RS publications. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand your edit of my conformed-to-source recognition of previous complaints about attribution to Medvedev himself, seein' as how y'all are now prepared to attribute it to da Kremlin. Further, it is the key point because of a Nobel Prize was mooted as a mere propaganda or public relations ploy then as {Ping|Stevenslater}} has pointed out, this whole Nobel bit is not meaningful assessment of Assange, per se. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
What are you on about? No-one’s suggesting using something from the headline or byline that isn’t in the text. The headline and byline of multiple articles do factor in determining what constitutes the important information in those sources. Rather than using, say, the presumption of one editor based on, at best, nothing. mere propaganda or public relations ploy - now we really are getting into the arena of OR. This is the talk page; post as much of your original research as you like. Just don’t expect other editors to take it very seriously. If we were to interpret Spook Harding’s reference to a ‘calculated dig’ in those terms, the thing to do would be not to include the content at all, given the obvious implication of insincerity such an interpretation would carry. I’m not opposed to doing so (removing the whole thing). But deciding to use your own narrow view on what is key, ignoring what the sources highlight, is not the way forward. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia practice and norms concerning headlines and Verification.you can start your readinbg here. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I’ll not be doing so. As ever with your discussions here Specifico, please remember to only link to policies that are actually pertinent to the issue at hand, rather than talk discussions somewhere between tangential and zero relevance. The policy is HEADLINES, it says If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. What is in the body? The first sentence: Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder. Obviously the author considers this key; hence they put it first. It’s also considered key information by the editors of six publications. Does the rest of the article suggest this was not really about Assange but only a calculated dig at the U.S.? Perhaps. If so, and it is insincere and merely a dig at the U.S., it doesn’t belong in a section about views that are actually about Assange. The section, silly as it is, is about views on Assange, not about "times his name was invoked in diplomatic point-scoring". It might be appropriate as a footnote in U.S.-Russia relations, but likely not. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You are seriously misrepresenting the two cited sources, but I'm sure that any editors who wish to comment will check what they actually say. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I’m not. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this content above, do we really need another thread about it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Misleading sentence.

The article reads: 

On 11 April 2019, Assange's asylum was withdrawn following a series of disputes with the Ecuadorian authorities.

I assume that it was the British authorities who disputed with the Ecuadorian authorities? If so, then the sentence suggests that Ecuadorian president withdrew the asylum under the pressure of the British authorities, which is not true. Note that the word "following" is ambiguous. But even if we replace it with "after", the sentence will remain unclear, though less misleading. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No it was between him and the Ecuadorian authorities, which if you bother to read the article you would see.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Then you admit that the sentence was misleading. You are right that I did not bother to read the [whole] article. But just because something is well explained in the further part of the article does not mean that we can start the article with misleading sentences. The article lead can (and should) be less detailed but not evidently misleading. BTW, thank you for so quick response. Now I promise, I will read the whole article :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
??? No, it wasn't misleading. It was indeed the Ecuadorian, not British, authorities. -- Valjean (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Right, to be misleading it would have had to say something that was not true, it did not. It did not say who it was he was in dispute with, but it did not mislead anyone into thinking it was anyone it was not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@User:Slatersteven I thought that those disputes were between the British and Ecuadorian authorities, without Assange. Maybe it was misleading only to me. I suspect that my brain works differently. English is my second language, and I could use it as a convenient excuse, but I have similar problems in my native language. I simply try to apply pure logic to understand what I read. But sometimes logic is not enough without some language instinct or intuition. I wonder how many readers could read that sentence like I did. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not the place for a discussion of your application of logic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@User:Slatersteven Of course, you are right; but, please, read my last sentence. All I want is to know how other readers interpret the wording in question. This would allow me to write better, more readable sentences while editing Wikipedia articles. Anyway, I understand that our discussion is over. Regards :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The cited source explains the disputes. I have revised the sentence to better describe this. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The link you provided is fantastic. Thanks for your edit. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to get feedback from our readers and although we strive to make articles as clear and unambiguous as possible, there's great value in hearing specific issues that we overlooked. Thank you to both IP and Basket. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:SPECIFICO You have made me feel much better, and I am beginning to believe in myself. Thank you so much :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ithaka

We have not yet mentioned Ben Lawrence's documentary Ithaka which will debut at the Sydney Film Festival this month. It is a feature documentary that follows John Shipton's battle to save his son, Julian Assange. It was filmed over two years in Europe and the UK and contains original music by Brian Eno.[1][2] "The film follows Assange’s 76-year-old father John’s campaign for justice". "... how does somebody keep going when you’re up against this adversary? When you’re up against the most powerful force on the planet?"[3] It would fit under "Filmography". Burrobert (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it by him?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Not by him, about him. I see now that we have put films about Julian under "Films". Is that a more approriate place? Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as a filmography is about films he has worked on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok I’ve put an Ithaka entry in the “Further Reading” / “Films” section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks Prunesqualor. Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ithaka". Sydney Film Festival. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
  2. ^ "Ithaka (2021) - The Screen Guide - Screen Australia". www.screenaustralia.gov.au. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
  3. ^ Nsenduluka, Mibengé (1 November 2021). "Julian Assange's brother to release bombshell documentary about WikiLeaks founder". Retrieved 1 November 2021.

Use of talk page as a blog and scrapbook

@Burrobert: it appears to me that your voluminous posts of random internet clippings and your personal opinions, including some sensitive BLP content, to this page are inappropriate. I am posting this here in case anyone cares to refute this reaction. Otherwise, Burrobert, please relocate such content to a userspace page or off Wiki. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And this would have been best on their talk page, not here. THis talk page is about this article and not that user.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I explained my reason for posting here because the issue affects all editors and article improvement. Do you have any substantive reaction? SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You have my reaction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I don’t see a problem with people drawing attention to material which may be discussed - with a view to putting something in the article - others may prefer to just insert stuff in the article, then wait for the likely reversion and consequent discussion here – but I really can’t see a problem with Burrobert’s approach, where’s there’s harm in a few well intentioned and researched lines among this vast cacophony? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
And the original research personal opinions and BLP comnmentary postings? If there were any article content proposal, citations of supporting sources would be constructive. But a dump from all corners of the internet and personal speculation is not directed to article content improvement. It's just fan-site and soapbox.I would welcome any reasoned explanation as to how mirroring the internet with no structure, thesis, or article-related proposal is appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Scrapbooking is an accurate description. But is there a policy or guideline that prohibits spamming a talk page in the article namespace this way? On 13 October 2021 I objected to Burrobert 's self-indulgent "social experiment" as a distracting waste of time. In my opinion, his robotic relentlessness has been disruptive not constructive. Yet if he insists on using this page as his own personal garbage dump (adding, to date, an indigestible 98,744 bytes pertaining to the Yahoo News investigation), we can't stop him. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes wp:not. Now take this to ANI or stop talking about it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I haven’t done the exact workings out but I would say at a glance that Burrobert’s contributions amount to about 2% of the material on this page, and of that maybe a third of that could be unkindly interpreted as straying from the topic (personally I find all of his contributions interesting). This section is unnecessary, contains obnoxious unwarranted attacks on a fellow editor, and is disruptive. No more of this please. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I complained about the 'experiment' but much of that seems to be in response to quite unreasonable demands for reliable sources so no real objections from me. Now I might start objecting if there was an editor who had a large numbers of posts but didn't contribute much except for complaints objections and WP:TLAs. NadVolum (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Prunesqualer: The problem is not the content of the entire page, it is the amount of non-article-improvement-directed content published in the single Yahoo! section and the subsection. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I wonder how you would react if the Watergate scandal where played out today – It was after all uncovered by two journalists working for a single news outlet lead by leaks from a single unidentified leaker - all the reporting in the immediate aftermath was based on their story (the Yahoo story remember had more journalists working from many more inside sources) – Would you have tried to keep that out of Wikipedia? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Prunesqualer: Your glance is grossly misleading. First, as SPECIFICO points out, we are discussing in this section not the entire talk page but only §3 Yahoo News investigation. That section by itself comprises 29% of this page (176,793 of 612,757 bytes). Burrobert's contributions totaling 98,744 bytes represent 56% of §3 and, not counting his contributions to other sections, 16% of the material on this page. A far cry from 2%, no? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
OK my "Glance” was much too casual (I just scrolled up the page about half way and went by that, as it happens, misleading impression) - none the less we don’t need to be so harsh about an editor who is (I’m guessing) highly frustrated by a consistent trend towards playing down the Yahoo story – some even tried to keep it off the page. No wonder he is pointing to more sources in an attempt to convince others of the significance of the story – perhaps if others could be more accommodating and less obstinate he wouldn’t need to fight so hard – anyway there is no call for this section (and the harsh comments) the edits in question are well up the page out of the way where those with unyielding POVs can continue to ignore them. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Prunes, your personalized speculation about me and what I might have thought 50 years ago is grossly and bizarrely off-topic. Your equivocation raising first-tier RS Washington Post in a discussion of talk-page SOAPBOX is not responsive. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_33&oldid=1140127740"