Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

Reverted Prunesqualor Edits

Since I contribute to the Assange article quite regularly, and since nearly every edit I make these days gets reverted, often within minutes of it being made, I thought it might save time to have a section dedicated to these edits and reversions (I can always renew the section every few months when the clean up bots archive the old ones). The latest edit I made was an addition to the “Assessments” section and read:

  • “U.S. Philosopher and civil rights activist Cornel West said of Assange: “He has been simply laying bare some of the crimes and lies of the American empire.””

It was reverted with the following summary: “I think we have enough support, it is now much larger than the opposition section”. However:

  • 1/ It has been pointed out by more than one editor on this page that we should not have to keep support for Assange and criticism in some sort of artificial balance (though in fairness I personally think a rough balance is desirable).
  • 2/ Even if such a balance where called for, there is nothing to stop other editors adding to the quotes/persons critical of Assange to redress that balance.

Given the above, and since Cornel West is a notable person, his quote is directly about Assange, and the RS from which it is sourced is impeccable I would be grateful if another editor would reinstate my edit. Thank you. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to expand an already large section with every person who offers support (which is exactly what I said I was afraid would happen (more than once) in threads above this).Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven I would be happy to see the reduction of the section and a redressing of the support/contra balance by the simple removal of the Putin and Medvedev comments. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

PS It is enlightening to examine the detail of the claim that “support, it is now much larger than the opposition section”. Firstly we don’t actually have an “opposition section” (or a support one) there is mush mangling of of both in the three paragraphs we have. Secondly some of the “support” that we have chosen to prominently include is from people generally considered in the west to be undesirables – something akin to “damning with faint praise”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, we have a lot more support than we do opposition, we already have more, it does not need expanding anymore. Note the page is under consensus required not 1RR. So no editor should reinstate this until there is consensus. What does this tell us we do not already know, that we need to know?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be double standards here because we don’t have consensus to include the Medvedev material which apart from the WP:SYNTH issue is WP:UNDUE since the comment was not made by Medvedev himself (just a lackey) and was clearly not very sincere - so why is it of significance to Assange’s life? Presumably if I now delete that sentence on the above grounds no-one is supposed to reinstate until we have consensus? (or would treating other peoples edits the same way mine get treated be shockingly bad form?) Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
They are not the same kinds of figure, so the cases are not anaolgous. And you already know my opinion of what should be done with that section. And this is another example of why I think that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed - You are quite correct “They are not the same kinds of figure” - Cornel West is much more important (and sincere) than an underling in the office of Dmitry Medvedev who may or may not have been mouthing the disingenuous sentiments of his boss. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
See my reply in the correct section, this is not about the Russians.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
And as you agree they are not comparable stop trying to compare them, and make a case based upon the merit of the inclusion, and not what other editors are saying in other threads (and stop casting aspersions about users, deal with content, not the person saying it, and AGF).Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Since the WP:SYNTH issue has now been dealt with my case for removing the Medvedev sentence is weakened – so I’ll drop that (however if anyone tries to pretend that sentence comes under the heading of “support” for Assange - coming as it does from an undesirable boo hiss Russian - I shall take issue and seek it’s removal). As for the Cornel West material it belongs because West is a high profile respected figure who is a passionate supporter of Julian Assange and has actively campaigned for his release, as a Google of “Cornel West Assange” will reveal one example being | here where West said the following: “Yeah, let me first say that it is a blessing, honor and privilege to sit here with my dear brother Gabriel and brother John, who are biologically and lovingly connected to my very dear brother, Julian. I have a deep love and respect for him. I had dialogue with him when he was there in the Embassy of Ecuador back eight years ago... ”. (Please note this is not material I intend to include merely to show the importance of Assange to West). Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
We should not and can't have quotes from every single high profile figure who has commented on Assange. We have to draw a line somewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Again I have to say, this is just what I was afraid of (and said so) a while back about a death by a thousand lines. We had a line you had a line they add a counter line until you have 15 paragraphs. The section needs reducing, not expanding (hell the whole article does).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In 2016 Wikileaks published some DNC emails that where leaked by someone else and where published also by other people and apparently that warrants a section nearly twice the size of the section dedicated to “Assessments” of his entire life and work, I mean honestly it’s bonkers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)A

No, as the 2016 DNC hack has been covered by a large number of RS, you want to include an opinion covered by one RS. As I said before the "assessments" section should not just end up being a list of people, rather it should discuss how he has been assessed, with a few choice quotes for the purposes of illustration. It is not my fault if all people want to do is have a list of names, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
So instead of arguing to add one line every few days, how about suggesting how we can reduce the article? adding lines does not reduce the size of oversized sections, and can be argued to be an example of false balance. Well we have some stuff saying he did this now we need to balance that with people talking about unrelated stuff to balance that, which says how great he is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
To be clear I’m saying the DNC leaks section does not warrant being twice the length of the Assessments section, and I am arguing for the inclusion of a single sentence which is supported by a single RS – nothing wrong with that, but you make a false comparison between my one sentence and the entire DNC section, what’s that about? You say you want the article reduced but resist the deletion of the insincere Medvedev sentence and don’t back me up when I seek to reduce the overblown DNC section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Err, you raised the DNC section, not me. And this is not about reducing the DNC section, so please stop with these constant whataboutisms. We are discussing the line you want to add, nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Moorever I have said (more than once) that we should reset the “Assessments” section back to a much smaller size (thus removing the Medvedev sentence as well) and being from scratch to create a more tightly written section (as in fact my edit of that section had done). It is not my fault if people keep on adding to it, rather than trying to get it back to a more compact state (in fact even here I make the same point about " a death by a thousand lines", this is what I was talking about. I am not the one adding one line here, and another lien there, and have said (more than once) that needs to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I and others have already made it clear we are against resetting the Assessment section so please drop that bone.
  • I think the Assessment section is too short you think it too long. We must agree to differ on that.
  • I think the Medvedev sentence is insincere tosh – you think it belongs. We must agree to differ on that.
  • I think the Cornel West support (with quote) is worthy of inclusion – you don’t. We must agree to differ on that.
Not much more to say between you and I for the present. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunes, please help us stay focused here by removing your personal distress about getting reverted and placing it on your user talk page or a separate linkable user space page -- then you can retitle the section to indicate whatever article content (apparently the laundry list of Assange mentions) is to be discussed here. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this content above, do we really need another thread about it?Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

David House material

The Subsection “US criminal investigation” includes the following information: 

"Computer expert David House, an acquaintance of Manning who met Assange in London after the soldier was arrested in May 2010,[119] testified for 90 minutes before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia in July 2018."

I added the following sentence immediately after: 

“House, who testified in exchange for immunity, later said that: “This is not an investigation borne out of a concern for national security, It is an investigation borne out of retribution and revenge against Mr. Assange over the [2010] leak that he precipitated, and how this leak impacted the careers of politicians in Washington, D.C.”

This addition was reverted with the following explanation: “UNDUE opinion of non-notable person” I would ask the following:

  • If David House, is “non-notable” then: why does the preceding sentence remain in the article?
  • Why did a grand jury give him 90 minutes of testimony?
  • Why is it worth noting how long he testified but not that he testified “in exchange for immunity”?

In the name of consistency I suggest we either get rid of the David House material altogether or reinstate my edit which gives some context to his testifying. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You talk about “the House content and all the other play-by-play about the trial” however the David House material in question does not refer to a “trial” but rather a grand jury investigation – and WP:NOTNEWS hardly applies as the investigation took place in July 2018. I would rather wait for feedback from other editors as to whether to delete all the David House material before acting but I hope you can see the inconsistency in your reverting my material and not the other House text. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
In the sentence that begins Computer expert David House, I support changing the final clause to testified for 90 minutes in July 2018 before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, in exchange for immunity, about his relationship with Assange and about the 2010 war log disclosures. On grounds of WP:NOT (vehicle for propaganda), I oppose including House's March 2019 partisan smears in The Washington Post about prosecutors' motives. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 I appreciate your constructive input. There may be differences regarding who’s “partisan smears” get allowed in the article eg we have allowed Judge Michael Snow’s attack on Assange: “a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" who has "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse". But not Houses attack on the US prosecution. Seems like double standards to me. But if others won’t agree on that, since we currently say nothing about the substance of House’s testimony, or his views on the case, perhaps we would be better just dropping the whole House sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Prunesqualer: FTR, on 6 Sep 2021, I deleted the following sentence from our Assange BLP: Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" and he had "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse." My edit summary stated: remove judge's gratuitous insult and "no reasonable excuse" scolding, neither of which add value to his finding of guilt in an uncomplicated proceeding. My edit was reverted. There ensued a lengthy talk page discussion, initiated by me and in which you participated, that yielded no consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 Yes, I remember it well - my bringing up the issue again was in no way intended as a criticism of you (sorry if it came across that way). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
As this is about Assange I am not sure what any of this tells us about Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The view that: “This is not an investigation borne out of a concern for national security, It is an investigation borne out of retribution and revenge against Mr. Assange over the [2010] leak that he precipitated, and how this leak impacted the careers of politicians in Washington, D.C.” expressed by an involved party (one who a grand jury considered sufficiently knowledgeable to question for 90 minutes) may be argued to tell us something about Assange’s predicament. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Who is not an expert, and Grand Juries question a lot of people. Moreover, we already say much of this, this seems to just be adding one nonnotable., nonexpert, opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Anyway there seems little point in mentioning House giving evidence (one among several who did) without any reference to any of his testimony or opinions (notable or otherwise). I suspect everyone here would be content to drop the rather lame/vacuous/unenlightening sentence we currently have. To save further effort (hopefully) I’ll delete it - if someone wants to reinstate we can open a new discussion. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of material which countered Judge Snow’s ad hominem attack on Assange

In 2019, shortly after his arrest, Assange was subjected to a court proceeding which dealt with his relatively minor offence of skipping bail. Not only did the judge sentence Assange to very nearly the maximum sentence permitted for this (to be served in a maximum security prison - almost unheard of) but he took the opportunity to publicly harangue the defendant who, during the whole proceedings, had said nothing more than “not guilty”. Yet we have seen fit to quote this judge’s ad hominem attack "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" – defenders of Assange where scandalised by the judge’s comments (though barely any of that made the mainstream establishment/media). Craig Murray (a long time supporter of Assange, and himself a notable whistle blower) responded to the judges actions by writing an article which was highly critical of Judge Snow. I felt that quoting from that article gave some balance – however one of my fellow editors apparently thinks Murray’s remarks are “UNDUE”. Really? Murray is a high profile ex-establishment figure who knows more about Assange and his case than almost anyone else alive. To describe his input as “Undue” is outrageous. As for the other reasons given for excluding his input we are told he is “fringe” “gadfly and “controversial” – for goodness sake since when do these qualities (even if we agree with those descriptions) disbar people from being quoted. I’m getting sick of being reverted on spurious silly grounds like this and suspect the editor in question only gets away with it because he shares POVs with a sizable group of regular editors ie mob justice prevails. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your accusation that "a sizable group of regular editors" share a POV that "mob justice prevails" is grossly offensive. It reminds me of your similar accusation at your user page that Wiki's Julian Assange article is being compiled for the most part by the prosecution. Your repeated uncalled-for attacks on fellow editors must be condemned by all fair-minded contributors. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 You are undoubtedly one of the more reasonable and fair minded of those who are not keen on Assange here - but your self-declared regard for the USA in combination with comments like “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” along with some rather mocking or dismissive remarks about the man don’t suggest much love lost and several other editors here almost exclusively editing to remove Assange positive material and include Assange negative material. I think a fair minded spectator would see my point. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not about my mocking or dismissive remarks. It's about your outrageous allegations that "mob justice prevails" among editors in compiling Wiki's Julian Assange article "for the prosecution." No fair-minded spectator can support your assault on our integrity. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
What on earth do you expect to achieve by pushing a POV yourself? You become just another POV pusher and make Wikipedia a worse place. Sticking in something showing some Assange supporter's opinion doesn't exactly improve the article, and they didn't say anything of note, that the judge was a jerk is pretty obvious anyway from the article. NadVolum (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you could petition the Admin who wisely invoked "consensus required" and ask him to change it to "mob justice required". SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree Craig Murray's comment should be removed. If an impartial observer criticised Snow, that might be worthwhile noting. But it is not worth noting that a long-time supporter of Assange and opponent of the legal system (currently in jail himself) has done so. I don't think there was anything unusual about Assange's sentence or the judge's comments. Judge's often make harsh comments about the people they are sentencing. As Prunesqualer says, this didn't become a "mainstream" issue. I also don't see the logic of complaining that Assange was given "very nearly the maximum sentence". What would any expect, given that he was a fugitive for 7 years? If there was a mainstream source saying that Assange had received a severe sentence, that might be worth noting. But all we have is the whining of diehard Assange supporters who seem to think he should have a "Get Out of Jail Free Card". Comments like this add nothing to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Can't say I think much of Craig Murray's enthusiastic support for Salmond and contempt of court might have been a reasonable sentence. But for the actual thing they convicted him - giving information that could identify some of the women - any indications I've seen say that's total rubbish. Too many judges are getting high and mighty puffed out with their own grandness they can't accept criticism and do wrong things to exalt their office. NadVolum (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
And in a strange link back to this article: "He commented that what he found “most shocking” was “the peculiar determination of the judges to make sure that, during the three weeks we have to lodge the appeal, I am not allowed to go to Spain to testify in the criminal prosecution for the CIA spying on Assange's legal team.” He was supposed to be a principal witness there, but don't think RS have commented on this to any great amount. NadVolum (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Samaritans sentence

The Judgement of Judge Vanessa Baraitser references Assange’s calls to the Samaritans no fewer than eight times. They formed a key part of Assange’s defence. A Google search of “Samaritans Assange” (without the quote marks) gives 145 results (excluding repeats) – most of the early ones are from notable mainstream sources. Assange’s repeated calls to the Samaritans are both verified and noteworthy. Why then is there not a single mention of the Samaritans in our article? When I did make reference I was reverted with the explanation “remove non-sequitur. No indication of its significance or relation to the narrative of this section” – yet my sentence referencing the Samaritans immediately followed “During the court proceedings defence drew attention to a prison service report stating that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's cell” – clearly the section is referencing Assange’s suicidal tendencies and mention of Assange’s calls to the Samaritans is entirely appropriate here. This is an unwarranted reversion which should be reversed. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not a non sequitur and is related to the narrative of subsection 5.5. However, its significance is not established by the cited source (The Independent), which merely states that Assange has contacted the Samaritans phone service on several occasions. This differs from the preceding sentence, which refers to a prison service report stating that a hidden razor blade had been found. The reference for that sentence (PressGazette) does not mention Assange's calls to the Samaritans. The prison service report confers significance on the razor blade because the authorities took official notice of it. If a WP:RS can be found reporting that the prison service likewise took official notice of Assange's calls to the Samaritans, that would establish significance and justify inclusion in subsection 5.5. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
At best, it is SYNTH. Please read SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 Judge Baraitser notes in her January 2021 judgement “[Assange’s] prison medical notes record numerous occasions on which he had told the In-Reach prison psychologist, Dr. Corson, and other medical staff (for example a prison nurse) that he had suicidal or self-harming thoughts, felt despairing or hopeless and had made plans to end his life. He has made frequent requests for access to the prison’s Samaritans phone. On 5 May 2019, half of a razor blade was found in his cell, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear.” It may be considered a primary source but it should establish the facts and please note we already have several RS which reference the calls to Samaritans - since when do we only include material that is not only given in RS but also explicitly details the official source of the information?. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
When you allude to RS that "explicitly detail the official source of the information," I take it you mean Baraitser noting that Assange made frequent requests for access to the prison's Samaritans phone. By itself, that does not establish significance. Why didn't the prison service officially report those requests? It's the dog that did not bark. Assange's defence team naturally played up this connection in an attempt to bolster their claim that he would be at risk of suicide if extradited to the US. But if the prison authorities did not take those requests seriously, Wikipedia should be cautious so as to maintain NPOV. We should not be in the business of promoting his defence's strategy. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the High Court's ruling on the U.S. extradition appeal is expected by the end of this month. If Assange's frequent requests for access to the prison's Samaritans phone are significant, the High Court will in all likelihood tell us that. Surely we can wait another two weeks to see how this shakes out. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
All this thumping the Samaritans and half razor is about actions that, if true, were entirely under Assange's control. Speculation by WP editors is irrelevant. For all we know, Assange's attorneys instructed him to contrive this "evidence" as the basis for their pleading. If there are significant RS that matches the proposed content -- without SYNTH, without OR interpretation -- let's see it and evauate this proposed article content. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we follow the reliable sources please rather than making up OR fantasies or appealing to future judgements for significance. Judge Baraister did halt the extradition on health grounds including this and mentions it. It contributed towards the decision and it is in reliable sources. The decision will not disappear, at most it will be overturned. NadVolum (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If it's overturned, the details of the razor blade caper will not be worth mention in the article. 2. If there are abundant RS discussions connecting the pivotal role of these Samaritans, calling them central to the judge's ruling, please provide the top 3. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Deciding what is, or is not, “noteworthy” is not an exact science and editors would do well to remember that. The initial Judgement by Judge Baraitser which denied extradition on the grounds of mental health is a piece of history regardless of what follows - and the evidence used to make that judgement (which is available for all to read in Baraitser’s summing up) repeatedly mentions the Samaritans calls (and the razor blade). Some parties may wish to play down the significance of those pieces of evidence - for instance the US prosecution - but I don’t think it is for us to do their job. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
So are we to conclude that you're unable to provide 3 RS references that document what you appear to believe? SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with Reuters? "UK judge rejects extraditing Julian Assange to U.S. over 'suicide risk'". Reuters. 4 January 2021. NadVolum (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Plus as to the OR about why weren't Samaritan calls recorded, calls to the Samaritans by prisoners are specifically allowed and must not be monitored. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The Samaritans obviously should be mentioned. I don't know why we are arguing about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022, what is the basis for your claim that The prison service report confers significance on the razor blade because the authorities took official notice of it. If a WP:RS can be found reporting that the prison service likewise took official notice of Assange's calls to the Samaritans, that would establish significance and justify inclusion in subsection 5.5.? Why do prison service reports have a special status?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Suicide is DUE. Samaritans is incidental. So is razorblade. SPECIFICO talk 05:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, your argument is not easy to follow here at all. How can you conclude, given the RS, that the Samaritans is unrelated and therefore undue? The RS clearly connect the two. ––FormalDude 🐧 talk 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this would be better summarised as Dr Kopelman said that Assange was at risk of suicide. The judgment by Baraitser only mentions the razor blade three times. For some reason, editors became fixated with the razor blade, and mention of Kopelman was removed from the extradition hearing, even though Baraitser placed a lot of weight on his testimony.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Dude: An unencyclopedic detail. The issue was suicidal proclivities, not who he called or how the court verified it. SPECIFICO talk 05:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure. We could sum up the hearing in one sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure some people would love to just summarize the whole article to Assange is the Son of the Son of God, praise Him, or Assange is the Spawn of the Devil, the most evil person the world ever produced, However we're supposed to follow WP:WEIGHT "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Uncyclopaedia is thataway for people who want to be their own RS. NadVolum (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
NadVolum not sure there are any regular editors here who view Assange as even close to: “the Son of the Son of God, praise Him”, even in jest - I’m probably his most consistent defender on this page of late, but consider him pretty flawed (with significant saving graces). As for what his detractors on this page think I can’t say but they seem a pretty mixed bunch.
Jack Upland You said “Sure. We could sum up the hearing in one sentence”. Was that meant as a joke? We have an entire long section dedicated to Assange publishing some D.N.C. documents that someone else not Assange leaked/hacked and that others as well as Assange published – but – in Assange’s own life story/Wiki page we must condense into a few paragraphs his years in prison and protracted court proceedings involving hundreds of pages of evidence and many hours of expert testimony? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
With regard to his extradition to Sweden we sum up the hearing in one sentence. It certainly could be done. However, given that editors have chosen to give detail coverage of this extradition, I think mentioning the Samaritans is warranted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
At present there seems to be more support that otherwise for mentioning the Samaritans calls. Would it be ok to reinstate the sentence now? Or would another editor like to try a new wording? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Marianne Williamson comments

I recently inserted the following sentence into the “Appeal and other developments” section: ”Former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson argued that Thordarson’s admission would “destroy” the U.S. case against Assange and urged the Biden administration to drop efforts to extradite the publisher.” A good RS was provides yet the edit was removed on the following grounds: “insignificant opinion and prognostication by fringe figure. The outcome will be known soon enough, at which time more knowledgeable and respected analysts may offer useful opinion content . Given that Marianne Williamson is a respected figure in the US Democratic Party her intervention on the subject of Assange is surely noteworthy. To describe her as a “fringe figure” and her opinions as “insignificant” seems inappropriate. All too often in the article we give the impression that the U.S. establishment is a monolithic body who are in opposition to Assange and wish to see him extradited – yet there are people within the system who oppose their governments line. I think the Williamson material is telling because it’s an example of someone in the US political establishment who has doubts about their government’s policy towards Assange – on those grounds I’d like to see the material reinstated. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose such inclusion. It would probably be unfair to describe Marianne Williamson as a fringe personality in American popular culture, although it's revealing that her Wikipedia BLP is bannered with an alert to "multiple issues," including content written like an advertisement—not the sort of thing we'd expect to find on the page of a well-established celebrity. Her stature within the the Democratic party, however, is another matter. In 2014, she unsuccessfully ran for Congress. In 2019, she unsuccessfully ran for president. That's it: two failed campaigns. That qualifies her as a fringe political figure. You seek to inject her argument that Thordarson's admission would destroy the U.S. case against Assange, which is exactly what Edward Snowden—who like Williamson is not a college graduate, much less a lawyer—has professed. We don't quote Snowden in this regard for the obvious reason that he has no legal expertise. For the same reason, we should not quote Marianne Williamson. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Editors’ personal opinions about Williamson’s prominence are not relevant. The question is what do reliable sources. I presume (please correct me otherwise) that the source for this is The Hill, a generally reliable news organisation. BUT, The Hill was the only source that reported her comments, and they were the source that interviewed her. This is therefore not a secondary source, so it should not be included. If there are other reliable sources that picked up on Williamson's comments that could merit their inclusion. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point. Both Prunesqualer's assertion that "Marianne Williamson is a respected figure in the US Democratic Party" and my calling her "a fringe political figure" are personal opinions. Let's see what WP:RS have to say about her political prominence and, more importantly, about her qualifications as a legal analyst. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It is of course not only Marianne Williamson and Edward Snowden who hold the view that the Thordarson revelations signal “the end of the case against Julian Assange”. I think it worthy of note that the U.S. government has chosen to push forward with their case in the face of such a large setback i.e. their most important witness (and anyone who has looked at the US superseding indictment can see that “Teenager” is the most cited potential witness) has been exposed as a inveterate liar a paedophile and a serial fraudster. Why should our article not draw attention, in some fashion, to the rather exceptional circumstance of the US pushing forward notwithstanding? So if not a quote from Marianne Williamson perhaps we can find another with the same intendment. I would also like the article to point out that Thordarson is not the only FBI/CIA “witness” against Assange who has a questionable past and been put under duress and/or incentivised into “cooperating” with US authorities (perhaps other editors could help me on that). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see there's any point in including commentary about what's going to happen in the "case against Julian Assange". Even the phrase, the "case against Julian Assange", is problematic. Assange is currently facing extradition, and the argument currently concerns his health. Assange could be extradited, and he could face an espionage trial in the USA, potentially years in the future. There is no guarantee that Thordarson would be called as a witness at that trial. In fact, if he has recanted his testimony, why would he be called? Including speculation from Williamson, Snowden, or Pamela Anderson about what will happen over the next months or years is pointless. We don't know. We don't know if there will be a trial. We don't know how it will go. All we can say is that Thordarson is not playing a prominent role (or any) in the current legal proceedings. And, by the way, the FBI like other police agencies do regularly cultivate witnesses who have criminal records, who have been involved in organised crime such as the Mafia etc, and they do use various methods to persuade people to co-operate. But, again, there is little point speculating about how the prosecution will go months or even years in advance. Lining up Assange supporters to say that this is the end of the case is really pointless. Assange and his supporters seem to have been crowing victory is nigh for some years. If this is the end of the case, we will find out soon enough. However, since the courts don't seem to be discussing Thordarson at the moment, I wouldn't hold my breath. If Thordarson turns out to be pivotal, we can acknowledge that when it becomes apparent.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Admin Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at the Admin Incidents Noticeboard with which several editors of this page may have been involved. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FTR notification here of "a discussion at ANI with which several editors of this page may have been involved" comes more than three days after Cambial Yellowing began that discussion but only a few hours after SPECIFICO observed, Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community. (Personal attack removed)Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Basketcase2022: As in other discussions, you would do well to read policies before you invoke them. Especially before making baseless and inaccurate accusations of bad faith. Wp:APPNOTE is clear that when looking to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors it’s normal practice to message at The talk page of one or more directly related articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It's a question of timing, isn't it—why wait three days? Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It’s a question of learning what bad faith looks like before accusing others of it. Please do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Please do so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Correct - I have no interest in irrelevant non-issues, and I’m under no obligation to respond to your pointless questions. You are under an obligation not to make baseless accusations of bad faith. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Discus it an ANI, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI the administrator who responded to this ANI case has punted. I'm coming to realize that this is unlikely to get sorted in the usual places, he wrote yesterday. As for resolving the dispute outlined in this ANI case, an RfAR would be the way (part of it). But I'm not gonna file it. I'll leave that to others, he concluded. As the titular subject of this case, I have neither the experience nor the skills to create an RfAR in order to clear myself of wrongdoing; but other editors may wish to pursue the matter for their own objectives. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You'll just give yourself high blood pressure by wanting to clear yourself of wrongdoing. As you yourself show the admins seem to have problems coping with their main job, so they'll give your feelings short shrift unless you can show it is a bad ongoing problem which is causing disruption. NadVolum (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 has been blocked as a sock. Let's hope, the sock-master is not still socking here, with another sock. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad to see they're chopping weeds, I was having a rather negative view of the whole business. NadVolum (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"His youngest child, a son"

Under "Personal life", it says, "In 2015, in an open letter to French President Hollande, Assange said that his youngest child, a son, was French, as was the child's mother". The English language sources I have seen just say "child", not "son". Is "son" a correct translation?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The cited source states, in French: Mon plus jeune enfant et sa mère sont français. Unless I am mistaken, that translates to: "My youngest child and his mother are French." (Emphasis added.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not right. Sa in that context could mean "his" or "her".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
An April 2019 story on the English-language website of RFI, which is owned by the Government of France, recounts (emphasis added):
Back in 2015, Assange wrote an open letter to then-president Francois Hollande, published in Le Monde, warning his life was in danger and asking for help.
"My youngest child and his mother are French."
Have you found any English-language source that translates Assange's French statement as "her" mother? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
No, as I said, the English-language sources I have seen do not give the sex of the child.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case we should abide by the English-language source that I cited, which translates Assange's French statement as "his" mother. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It remains true that we don't know how many children Assange has, even if indications of this have been removed from the text and the infobox. According to Robert Manne in this article, Assange has a daughter born around 2006. If the above is right, then Assange has at least five children: Daniel + daughter + French son + Gabriel + Max. I think it would be better not to have a total in the infobox if there is no definitive number known.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    I removed the Infobox's children parameter due to uncertainty as to number. I favor adding his daughter to Personal life, citing Robert Manne, but could not work out how to word it, given that Manne's account is so sketchy. Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    I suppose we could say, "Assange reported the birth of a daughter in 2006-2007".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    Except it's unclear from Robert Manne whether Assange's daughter was born in 2006-2007 or Assange simply revealed it then—perhaps years after the fact. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The possessive pronoun gets the form of the following noun in French, so it is always 'sa mère', regardless of the gender of the child. All languages have these things where something is not clear without additional explanation. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:8D1A:9886:92ED:D4DA (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked for assistance at the Help Desk. It appears true that the French doesn't specify whether the French child is a son or daughter. We have one source that uses "his", but that could be just the generic use of the male gender, or a mistake. As all the other sources refer to a child, I think it is better just to say child until more information comes to light.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Baum, Gussin and Podesta speculations

I have pointed out on several occasions that the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section is too long. True the events surrounding the leaks and publishing where the subject of endless hype and speculation - especially in the US (a subject seemingly more attractive to Pro Clinton media outlets than the embarrassing contents of the e-mails). However, in real terms Assange had little impact, as the material was published by numerous other outlets (i.m.o. if we could replay history without Assange the incident would have been little different). Can we seriously look at least getting rid of some dross e.g.: “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”. and : “Podesta, in an interview with CNN, stated "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence”. It’s speculation, and since we already have: “The [Mueller] investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.” We don’t need less qualified speculation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly support getting rid of those. As I've pointed out before there are sources which make it pretty obvious those are pretty much personal suppositions rather than having any reasonably firm basis in fact or expert analysis. We should base any analysis on expert opinion or where RS is based on reasonably obvious facts. And I certainly dislike people who say 'may have' instead of according to our analysis as shown in xyz or even just say they have done an analysis and have come to a very likely conclusion. NadVolum (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I have long believed that Baum and Gussin should go. But I don't understand why you have created two sections on the same topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes sorry Jack Upland my earlier section strongly overlaps with this – that section was over generalised, the humour/satire in it didn’t go well and distracted people. I’m still hoping to streamline the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section (with approval), but doing so in small, well focused bites. How do you feel about the Podesta sentence being cut BTW? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
As it is very much part of Assange's alleged boas the stuff about timing is relevant, the sex tapes are not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I checked before about whether there was a dump of emails when Hilary Clinton rose in the polls and found none and that was substantiated by the fivethirtyeight article about Wikileaks impact on her figures. So I did something I should have tried before which is look at the Washinton Post article which is behind a paywall. And guess what? It doesn't say anything like what is in the article. They accused the newspapers of talking about the emails more when she rose in the polls! As the article says 'The media’s urgency to maintain drama in an election that was increasingly looking like a blowout made this story all but inevitable.' So can we just get rid of that business from the article thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
YOU checked?, that is OR. We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands".Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes I did check the asserion that whenever she rose in the polls Wikileaks released emails because I did not think there was enough releases to form any reasonable conclusion. Have a look at [1] and see if you can guess without looking at the timeline when Wikileaks released emails if that is a basis. And I checked a fivethirtyeight [2] about any effect as they do good statistical analysis - but they had no real conclusions. And then I checked the paywalled newspaper article. The relevant point is that the newspaper article was about the newspapers putting out stories to generate a controversy as her figures went up. 'The two trends are strongly and statistically significantly correlated (.33 where the maximum positive correlation is 1.0). As Clinton’s lead in the polls goes up, the number of stories mentioning “Clinton email” follows suit. As her lead declines, the frequency of such stories declines as well.' There's no statistical analysis done on Wikileaks releases and the "But perhaps..." at the end is just some musing with the instance of the Podesta email dump without any analysis to back it up. You need more instances to make a case, has anyone been able to back it up with an actual reasoned case or analysis rather than what loos like crickets chirping to me? Did anyone else follow them up? Have we any other reliable source for the idea? NadVolum (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Your OR does not trump an RS's. Your OR can't be used to dismiss or question an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Writing "Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls" gives the impression that Wikileaks actually did do something of the sort. There is no evidence in the article they actually did so, There is no indication in the article that the authors did any study which might indicate that. There is no follow up on that. We should not have it in the article. The OR I did was simply to find out if there actually was some basis for what they said despite my feeling there was insufficient data to come to any such conclusion with any statistical significance. Perhaps there was some thing I hadn't understood which would justify what they said. I'm pretty certain now there just isn't. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it means they said it, not that it's true. And wp:OR cant be used to analyze and dismiss RS (they are wp:rs because they are assumed to do researches before they publish). What you do not seem to understand is our policies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
So you just want it in the article even though what they said about releases when Hilary Clinton was climbing in the polls is simply not borne out by the facts except in the one instance they mention and there's no explaination of the discrepancy and nobody has followed up? How does that line up with your constant calls to remove stuff because there's already too much in the article? NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
And accusing me of hypocrisy is a violation of wp:npa. I am objecting because the reason for removal is flawed, and this is a serious allegation that is at the heart of the controversy surrounding Assange's actions during the election. Ohh and here is some more about his timing issue, not (maybe) this specific allegation, but the fact he timed his releases to harm Clinton.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.htmlSlatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
https://time.com/4425876/julian-assange-dnc-email-democratic-convention/.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not disputing those at all and that is already referred to in the article earlier in that section. I am referring to what Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin which is not supported by the facts nor by other reliable sources. If you think they are related then the subject is already better covered in the section. You were very happy to object to stuff by an actual expert which is more relevant and has multiple reliable source backing up their view. You continually object to proposed changes based on the article being too long. If you want to complain citing NPA I'll be very happy to provide other examples there to substantiate what I said. NadVolum (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
You need an RS saying their facts are wrong. I objected to adding more material, so stop with the falsehoods now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
And stop making this personal, stop with the violations of wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Well you accused me of conspiracy theory because I quoted media analysis sources and then took me to ANI. And now you argue that your size argument is only for stopping anything being added but is not a reason to remove this silly business. And you expect me to assume good faith about you? NadVolum (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
And it is'nt facts. It is a remark at the end of their article which is just a supposition. They don't even say they actually believe that to be true. It was true for the instance they gave but then again why wasn't it done earlier or later and why does it not seem to apply to any of the other releases? NadVolum (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Both the Trump and Clinton campaigns have 'dirty hands', fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! I'm impressed by the quality of most of the political stuff I've seen on Wikipedia, there's both whitewashing and blackwashing but they tend to keep to the facts and just omit things at worst. Like here where the 2016 U.S. presidential election section misses out that another outlet published Hillary Clintons emails first. Don't worry I'm not going to go on about that even if holes are a thing I particularly notice! NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven please note that the Baum, Gussin “article” in the Washington post is actually an opinion piece i.e. not governed by the same editorial processes as a piece produced by their own journalists, you should also note that the piece is based around speculation about the statistical spread of Wikileaks releases supposedly corresponding with increases in Clinton's lead the polls – yet neither Baum or Gussin are trained/qualified statisticians able definitively make those judgements – If you actually read the piece our sentence is based on you find they even admit their theory in only speculation. This stuff really does not belong in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Would editors also note that our article contains the line: “The [Mueller] investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.”. So we don’t need the sentences containing mere speculation from Baum/Gussin and Podesta when we have a credible and authoritative statement that Wikileaks timed releases in collaboration with Clinton’s enemies. “The stuff about timing [may indeed be] relevant” but we don’t need to repeat it over and over in the form of weak speculation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Well most people within any type of study should have some grasp of statistics nowadays so I wouldn't have eliminated them on that account. Something like this should have had a bit of obviousness and not need any delicate test requiring a professional. The releases may have been coordinated - but I definitely can't see a link to a rise in Hillary Clinton's popularity like they conjectured. But yes the opinion piece bit should at least close this business down. NadVolum (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
RE: "opinion piece bit" -- That's why the text is attributed, rather than stated in Wiki-voice. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It is covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. At best they are WP:PRIMARY sources and if you look at #3 there you'll see "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." So here a secondary source would be needed. NadVolum (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Assange/ “2016 U.S. presidential election” section alone we have (I’ve trimmed the material to save space):

  • “...The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention ...”
  • “...one hour later WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence.”
  • “[Russians]... provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.”
  • “...unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material”
  • “...WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls...”

There is much other material dwelling on Assange’s dislike of Clinton. Just how many times do we need to say, in one convoluted/speculative form or another that: Wikileaks/Assange disliked Clinton and published the information they were given accordingly? Name me one significant Western news publisher which hasn’t taken sides in a US election (publishing material accordingly)? Why on earth are we going on and on about this publisher’s unexceptional act of taking sides. Please note I am not asking for the removal of all this material – just some sense of perspective – particularly as there are numerous other wiki pages which already deal with these issues - we don’t need this ludicrous overkill. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How is what you said or WP:OTHERSTUFF exists relevant? (assuming exits should be exists) NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Using what we do (or do not do) on other pages as an argunment.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The argument is not that something should be done because the same sort of thing is done elsewhere which is what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. Please see WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Actually it is you who have just used a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument with no other justification. And I have no strong objection to your otherstuff argument but I do wish you would think a little more before just tossing out invalid policy links for what others say. They gave an argument for not having multiple repetititious opinions in a section which has a main article which describes the topic - and that has hardly anything related to this. Was disliking Hillary Clinton so worthy of note? She lost the election. We don't need unsupported conjectures here. NadVolum (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
When did I make an other stuff argument?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"Actually I seem to recall quite a few of our articles on publishers also talk about their perceived political bias" NadVolum (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
What? what was in response to someone claiming we do not do it, I was not the one making the comparison argument, I was pointing out it was factauly flawed. I have never said we need to include this because of other stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I have listed above five sentences, in just the Assange/ “2016 U.S. presidential election” section, which all deal with Assange/Wikileaks timing their releases to harm Clinton/help Trump. That’s overkill especially as at least two are openly speculation (the Baum/Gussin and Podesta comments/quotes) - these are the ones I asking to be removed. Surely that’s not unreasonable? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have said why I object to blanket removals. There may be the possibility of merging and reducing, but then we would need to see what new text is being proposed. It is an accusation (made in more than one RS) that Assange timed the leaks, we should mention that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m simply asking for the removal of two of the sentences, out of the five which mention the timing or intent of the releases. So we will still have three mentions and everything else remains unchanged. The two to go will be:
  • “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”.
  • "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence”.
Left in place will be:
  • “...The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention ...”
  • “[Russians]... provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.”
  • “...unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material”
I hope you’ll agree that’s plenty of remaining mentions Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It needs a rewrite, not just random mentions. I have said before what we need is better porose, not just lists of who said what.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
That some reliable sources said the releases were timed does not mean the releases were timed to when Hillary Clinton was rising in the polls. Can you please find another reliable source saying that? If not that should be removed, it is in no reliable secondary source as far as I can find and it is factually untrue - which somehow seems not to concern you at all but might others. As to Podesta we should not have their personal conjectured link in the biography, can we keep to stuff which is actually supported by the Mueller investigation at the very least. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
And again, your OR does trump RS, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The onus is on whoever wants to try and keep it to find a secondary source. NadVolum (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
FOr what, we are now discussing different issues. But we do have an RS, they are experts and thus SPS is allowed, you are not an expert, so your OR is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
They are not journalists and the article appeared in what would be covered by WP:NEWSBLOG andtherefore counts as a primary source. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is all over the place, we seem to now be discussing two separate issues, a specific line, and a wider issue. This is why I say we can't just have a blanket deletion based upon this thread. Rather we need a focused discussion of the wider issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The question is whether the two sentences identified should be removed from the article. The reasons from different editors may mention other things but those are the actual changes being discussed. NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Then no, as they are widely aknowlged experts commenting on their area of expertise.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Did you actually read WP:SPS? The article rellycomes under WP:NEWSBLOG but supposing they were counted as experts per WP:SPS it says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." NadVolum (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
and what SPS has to say about newsblogs "(as distinguished from newsblogs, above)," So newsblogs are not covered by it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how that invalidates the statement in WP:SPS. What policy do you want to try and justify it under? NadVolum (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
You cite NEWSBLOGS, which says If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ...". Nobody's proposing otherwise, are they? SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If you read WP:NEWSBLOG you'll see thatit is then counted as a primary source and needs a secondary source to back it up in some way. So where is this secondary source? NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No it does not, it says we attribute them, we do with this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No, a personal blog is SPS. This is a NEWSBLOG, as defined. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Follow the 'opinion piece' link there and see where it lands you. NadVolum (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe the basic rule from that is such opinion pieces are okay only if a secondary source has given it some attention. NadVolum (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Quote please, as I have not seen anything that says that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Note the 'I believe'. I was giving my understanding of what the link meant since you seemed to think a newsblog could be used like a secondary source if you just attributed what it said. There is a get out for some straigtforward things but what were discussing here is not that as it is simply wrong. NadVolum (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You cited NEWSBLOG as the basis for your objection to Slatersteven's view. NEWSBLOG could not be more clear in drawing the distinction between reliably published opinion, which must be attributed, and on the other hand self-published blogs that are fraught in any BLP context. The content at issue falls in the first category, and may be used but only with attribution, which we have done. But I agree with Steven that the central objective must be to evaluate all the material related to this content and to come up with a summary narrative that concisely reflects all the sources in DUE proportion. When a long current events article such as this is written, there will be content and sources that, in hindsight, are less significant than initially believed. For example, the very repetitive Rapporteur content or the speculation concerning pending legal affairs. If this is a similar case. To arrive at a good encyclopedic summary, we should not be trimming the scrapbook, but rather we should be writing an comprehensive overview. SPECIFICO talk
Please follow the link at WP:NEWSBLOG and stop misquoting policy. If you want to discuss something else set up a separate discussion. This discussion is about whether two sentences should be removed from the article. NadVolum (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
We have, and have not seen what you think you have, so we have asked you to quote it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Here is the relevant line from WP:NEWSBLOG with the actual link in
If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..."
Just click on "opinion piece". Both of you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to do that. NadVolum (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Both Steven and I have already emphasized that. Most recently, I did so directly above your reply "stop misquoting policy". Previously, a few inches above, I quoted the same text in blue font. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
And did you arrive at WP:PRIMARY when you clicked on opinion piece? NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Just affirms what Steven and I have said, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". I am not expressing any opinion as to how this content should be handled, except to say that we will not get to any lasting good version by adding and subtracting references individually as you appear to contemplate. We need to come to consensus as to the weight of the mainstream narrative per all the available sources and then write content that reflects it, citing the appropriate references. The two you are challenging may or may not ultimately be useful for article content and citations, but we can't determine that in isolation. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The dispute is not over whether it was reputably published, however that is only one of six points applicable to primary sources. And you truncated even that point which continues "... but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", and has a note saying exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Do you dispute the particular citation would be covered by point 3 of WP:PRIMARY? NadVolum (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
In fact since you seem to accept that point 1 applies we can just concentrate on that, please see WP:REDFLAG. It is certainly surprising and it is challenged here as it seems to contradict the facts. And it is supported purely by a single primary source. And you pair apparently think it is important. NadVolum (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Their opinion is attributed. That is fully in accord with what's written at all of the links you've cited. REDFLAG is not applicable. A reliably published opinion is a valid primary source for that opinion, and that's all anyone has ever said here.I'll have no more to say on that. Our task is to present a summary of the mainstream view, which is that the releases were strategically timed. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
They said there was a particular timing. Their particular timing is what is in the article and it is disputed and is not part of any mainstream view as far as I can see, and you have not provided a secondary source to show it is supported in any way by anyone else. Yes the opinion has to be attributed, but that is just part of what is required. Attribution is necessary but not sufficient, it has to follow the requirements of WP:PRIMARY as well. The first point there says in full:
"primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
And misuse them has a note link to "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources."
So it links to REDFLAG as being applicable. NadVolum (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Since you appear to reject what Stevenslater and I have explained, I suggest you ask for other opinions at WP:RSN or elsewhere. Again, I have no opinion as to whether that reference should ultimately be used in an NPOV presentation of this content. It does represent the mainstream view, however. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I would be nice if we could settle this based on some common sense rather than interminable wiki lawyering. I repeat - we have five mentions in a single section of Assange’s/Wikileaks publishing against the interests of Clinton. If Wikileaks had done the hacking themselves, or where the only people who published the material, that might be justified. If we were writing a book length biography then maybe, but for a single encyclopaedia article covering a whole life story it’s overkill (especially as its covered in other articles). Perhaps we need a R.F.C. on this but please let’s keep it simple this time (so we may actually get a clear result). I suggest the following:

Should the following material be removed from the article (see discussion above):

  • “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”.
  • "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence”.

Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
That question has already be answered, asking it again does not change the response.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven Where and when have we already had an RFC asking if those particular two pieces of text should be removed from the article? I think you are mistaken (maybe didn’t read the above comment/suggestion correctly). NadVolum I will try to open the RFC in a few days when I have more time (obviously feel free to do so yourself if able). Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I see, you were asking do we need an RFC. Unsure, as I seem to recall it being said too many are being launched here already.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
RfC is a very bad idea at this stage. There should be discussion and rough consensus as to the central narrative if the weight of RS before getting into detail about which sources best exemplify and support it. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Appeal loss

Do we really need to mention it in three separate places?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the one under hearing and left the lead and appeal sections reference. NadVolum (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

An interesting parallel

Apparently, Assange’s lawyers cited David Mendoza’s case as evidence that US assurances cannot be trusted. It would be worth linking to his bio under "See Also" except that he does not seem to have a Wiki-page.[1]

Is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we cite the substack article by Richard Medhurst. I don't know how we are dealing with substack as a source. I was only suggesting that, if David Mendoza had a wiki page, we should link to that page in the "See also" section. Burrobert (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure this is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be a very different case involving a very different person. I think including it would potentially confuse readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I'll give the lawyers more credance than you thanks. The important point though is that there seems to be no report of this in a reliable source that can be cited, so nothing could be put here anyway. Anyway it looks like the judges have come to the conclusion they are not entitled to dispute what the US says. Which I think is in line with the extradition agreement the UK has with the US. NadVolum (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I think we have to remember that this is an extradition process, not a criminal trial. As quoted before, in about 90% of cases, the accused person gets extradited to the US.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Medhurst, Richard (29 November 2021). "Classified Documents Invalidate United States' Appeal Against Assange — Richard Medhurst". Richard Medhurst’s Newsletter. Retrieved 1 December 2021.

Further reading

Our guideline for external links and further reading do not favor self-published blog material such as the link just added to Matt Taibbi's substack. It should be removed and I urge editors to review WP:EL and WP:Further reading. Note that further reading links should provide access to the document being linked. It is not a bibliography. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about the quality of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Journalist?

Why is this not part of his occupations (past and present)? 2A00:23C7:598B:101:9D35:4239:AE0C:C085 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Because he isn't one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
It depends on your definition. He didm't go out interviewing to get a story, he edited and published what was sent to him. NadVolum (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
As I recall his status as a journalist has been called into question by some RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
We had an Rfc about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Trimming and relocation of non-biographic content

I recently trimmed some content that related solely to Wikileaks rather than to Assange personally. I think there's been longstanding consensus here that we do not edit as if Wikileaks were a mere front organization indistinguishable from Assange the man. The removal was swiftly reinserted here apparently rejecting that distinction (stated in my edit summary) as grounds for removal.
There has been much discussion here about how to trim this article, and it seems to me that removal of non-biographic and personal information is one of the most straightforward ways to get started with that task. Does anyone object to undoing the re-insertion of this content? If so please explain why and whether you propose an alternative approach to removing non-personal infiormation from this bio. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that content appears to be relevant to WikiLeaks, not Assange personally. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Best to take this slowly. You were selective about the material you chose to remove. There is a lot of similar Wikileaks-only material in the article. Here are some examples:
  • After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.
  • During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries.
  • In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaign, the contents of a Yahoo! account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked into by members of Anonymous. After briefly appearing on a blog, the membership list of the far-right British National Party was posted to WikiLeaks on 18 November 2008.
  • WikiLeaks released a report disclosing a "serious nuclear accident" at the Iranian Natanz nuclear facility in 2009. According to media reports, the accident may have been the direct result of a cyber-attack at Iran's nuclear program, carried out with the Stuxnet computer worm, a cyber-weapon built jointly by the United States and Israel.
  • The material WikiLeaks published between 2006 and 2009 attracted various degrees of international attention, but after it began publishing documents supplied by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks became a household name.
  • The “WikiLeaks publishing” section is, as expected, almost wholly about Wikileaks.
  • A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said that WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government, focusing instead on hacks relating to the US presidential election. WikiLeaks said that, as far as it could recall, the material was already public.
  • WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder and wrote: "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 his murder is connected to our publications."
  • In March 2017, WikiLeaks began releasing the largest leak of CIA documents in history, codenamed Vault 7. The documents included details of the CIA's hacking capabilities and software tools used to break into smartphones, computers and other Internet-connected devices. In April, CIA director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia".
By the way, I am not advocating removing the above material. Burrobert (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that some of the stuff should be rmoved. But just removing any sentence that doesn't have Assange's name in it is not the way to go. The article should list the major releases and the linked articles can give the details. On the specific part removed by SPECIFIO the aticle gives too much detail about Cablegate okay - but it doesn't say the bit where Assange was particularly relevant in that he ordered the bulk dumping of much of the cache. So I fully agree with Burrobert that it needs to be done a bit at a time. NadVolum (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
A bit at a time is exactly what I did. I chose what I think is an obvious high priority non-bio detail. If you have an alternative first bit to trim, please present it rather than just saying no. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
My experience of you has been of you putting out ridiculous objections to anything I've proposed doing, so you'll excuse me if I don't feel particularly like spending time helping you. The best I can come up with is that I will try to make constructive comments instead of listing out lines of irrelevant policy references. NadVolum (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the notion that we should not edit as if Wikileaks were a mere front organization. The material you sought to remove does not fit that description, so it's not clear why you raise the notion. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Poll

I'd like to make some concrete progress on better focusing the article on Assange the man, his bio. Does anyone oppose this trimming, and if so, why and what change would you propose to address any concern? SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I reject that as does Burrobert above. and I gave a particular reason why. NadVolum (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
In fact why is the article missing anything about the encrytion key release which led to the business of unredacted material being released? That's directly related to the bit you wanted to remove. It is just ridiculous that isn't mentioned when it has contributed so much to his troubles. NadVolum (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The article is focused on Assange's biography. You've not demonstrated otherwise, which is why there's little support for your proposal. The content is clearly relevant to Assange's biography, detailing as it does material he was significantly involved in publishing, and for which publication he continues to be pursued by an angry, petulant government and foreign policy establishment having an extended tantrum. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could offer a reasoned policy-based argument on the matter at hand without any personal opinions, unsourced assetions, interpretations or irrlevant and unfounded allegations. If ypur understanding of RS narratives is that these Wikilinks policies and actions were in fact central to Assange personally, then please add well-sourced content to share such important information with our readers. The text as it currently stands makes no such connection. Note that in articles about, for example, American presidents, we make the distinction between their bio articles and their presidential administration articles -- even though the connection to them personally seems every bit as clear as what you attribute without citation to Assange wrt Wikileaks. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Helpful to whom? It’s not clear why you link to OR and soapbox. OR does not apply to talk pages. No-one is soapboxing (it was you who solicited comment by starting this section; the notion that the responses you sought to elicit are “soapboxing” because you happen to disagree with them falls too far into the ridiculous to merit much comment). The relevance of the content is readily obvious to most editors which is why it has remained as long as it has. You seem eager to try to put the onus on other editors to establish why it should be kept. The onus is not on other editors. It falls on you to establish why it should be removed. You’ve failed to do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I was referencing this comment of yours directly above which says he continues to be pursued by an angry, petulant government and foreign policy establishment having an extended tantrum. That's not constructive. It violates WP:TPG. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No talk page guideline have been violated by stating what’s going on. If you believe they have, take it up the appropriate venue (clue: not here). Cambial — foliar❧ 00:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It is like removing Giordano Bruno's views on cosmology and Catholic doctrine from his bio and only mentioning that he was was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition and burned at the stake. Burrobert (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed removing any of Assange's views in this poll. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It is like removing Galileo's work on astronomy from his bio and only mentioning that he was tried by the Inquisition and kept under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Burrobert (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
No again. Gallileo's work on astronomy is his personal work described as such. Of course that goes in his bio, just as noteworthy actions or statements of Assange belong in his bio. Here we're talking about Wikileaks actions that do not reference Assange the man. Please consider the issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly Burrobert, can’t you get your analogies right the first time so poor Speci doesn’t have to keep telling you No again, again? Do try harder. It’s obviously like removing Homer’s work on the Iliad and the Odyssey from his bio and only mentioning that he was suspected of having shot Mr Burns. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Argument by analogy is a weak form of debate and one that's entirely unnecessary here. My proposal was simply and directly that this article stick to its topic, Assange the man -- no analogies or any other subjective criteria. It would be more constructive to stick to the crux of the question. As it is, sidetracking into off-topic comparisons has the effect of filibustering the issue. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Gosh, you’re right. It is a weak form of debate. Almost as though we're not really trying. And yet, in its weakness, it is at least significantly more convincing than rehashing the same tired, vacuous nonsense arguments you brought six months ago, six months before that, a year before that. They were refuted by Darouet; they were refuted by Thucydides; they were refuted by me; they were refuted by others. You said the Goldwater rule was Wikipedia policy; you said the UN was an irrelevant sideshow. Now the publications that Assange was central to publishing that made headlines around the world are not relevant to his biography. It’s all terribly clever, but it’s all total nonsense. Why would we bring the big guns? Cambial — foliar❧ 10:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll be content, if it's pointed out that Assange has gotten little to no 'support' from corporate-owned mainstream news media. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion of that issue in the section in which you first raised it - "Assange is a classic victim of 'cancel culture', so demonised that he can no longer get a hearing". Should we create a new section or move the discussion here? Burrobert (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Could we get back to the issue please. As I see it so far SPECIFICO proposed to remove a couple of paragraphs. He was opposed and I gave specific reasons why. And then they set up a poll section saying does anyone oppose it and if so why, as if anyone who says anything against what they say doesn't exist. So exactly what is this poll section in aid of? Burrobert gave lots of other examples of sentences that didn't mention Assange - perhaps investigating them they could check them out properly and then make a better case on one or more of them instead? Or even attempt improving the article by including the bit I pointed out about this proposed deletion? I find it dispiriting that they delete things like Assanges mini-stroke putting in spurious reasons like that medical information has to come from a medical person - as if doctors told everyone stuff like that about their patients. By the way I made a mistake with that as the information was at the end of the previous paragraph as well - go ahead and delete that too and we can start up another RfC on whether it should be there as that seems to be the level of consensus needed here for anything. Polls? What's the point if people won't listen to each other? NadVolum (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessments section extremely biased

If one only had the assessments section and the Reception of WikiLeaks article to go off of one would think the only reason anyone had to dislike Julian Assange was one didn't like him disclosing government secrets. In neither place did I find discussion of Trump and Russia bias allegations, allegations of spreading conspiracy theories, allegations that he asks that his privacy be respected though he does not try hard to respect that of others, or, anything from Domscheit-Berg.DraconicIntel (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is a hotbed of contention so being WP:BOLD probably wouldn't help, if you have some sources for what you say, or even better some words to go with them, I'd suggest putting them here and they can be discussed. Yes there are lots of reasons people don't like Assange, but lots of people in the news are weirdos one way or another. The US elected Donald Trump as president for chrissake and he preferred Putin to his own security services and passed around conspiracy theories and gets the lawyers out for privacy of his own affairs though he has no qualms about using anyting he knows about others. Make sure your sources are WP:Reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Reminder to OP that they need to be secondary sources reporting on views. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Most, probably all of what I mentioned is in the WikiLeaks article which, actually, is written to my satisfaction and in my opinion more NPOV, just I believe that information should more better be reflected here because Wikileaks is far less in the public consciousness now than Assange is.DraconicIntel (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Could we leave public consciousness out please. There's enough trouble here with people pushing their own point of view. That way lies soapboxing and twisting things and various other stupid things afflicting the article. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
When I say public consciousness, I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about that Assange is being covered in the press, which is routinely used as acceptable sources on this site, far more often lately than Wikileaks is, probably due to fact that activity at Wikileaks itself has fallen off much in recent years.DraconicIntel (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
We need RS saying this, and I would remind all users about wp:soap. And again, before we start adding huge amounts of material we need to trim what we already have.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I found all the sources for what I said in the Wikileaks article, except for Assange's high concern for his personal privacy, which for the best thing I could locate outside of my memory is below referenced article from Wired[1].DraconicIntel (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me to support anything like what you say. In fact the opposite if he was willing to go ahead with the business in the first place but didn't manage to finish properly. NadVolum (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
If you're referring to the article referenced below, could you quote it to back that up? But I would also say this is far from the biggest negative assessment that's out there on Assange.DraconicIntel (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure which of your suggestions this source backs up, it's you who need to provide a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
"...after spending 50 hours meeting with a ghost writer at Ellingham Hall -- the country estate in the UK where Assange is under house arrest while awaiting a ruling on his extradition case -- Assange grew uncomfortable with the project. According to a statement on the publisher's web site, the project proved to be 'too personal' for the transparency guru, who suddenly decided in March after reviewing the first draft of the manuscript that 'all memoir is prostitution.' Sources told The Independent that Assange felt the book was too heavy on personal details and too light on manifesto. Although 38 other publishers around the world had already sub-contracted with Canongate to release the book, Assange formally moved to withdraw from the Canongate contract in June."DraconicIntel (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
How could a serious person believe this supports discussion of Trump and Russia bias allegations, allegations of spreading conspiracy theories, allegations that he asks that his privacy be respected though he does not try hard to respect that of others, or, anything from Domscheit-Berg. ? We are not stupid. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not using that Wired article to refer to anything other than one thing I originally mentioned I couldn't find in the Wikileaks article. All other negative assessments are in this site's Wikileaks article.DraconicIntel (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
You really do have to list the sources and say what you think they show rather than pointing to the Wikileaks article and expecting others to see things the same way as you do. For instance I do not see the reference you gave as showing that he asks for his privacy to be respected or that he is very interested in that, and I'd have thought that should be an easy thing to show if true. What I saw there was a person who was interested in getting his views over and found the biography was just concentrating on him as a person, so it didn't become an authorized biography. NadVolum (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I might do that later when I have time but I find that a bit unnecessarily tedious for sources not in contention already on another Wikipedia article that aren't hard to find.DraconicIntel (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
That does not mean he is a hypocrite over privacy, just that he found it 'too personal', that could mean upsetting to go over old wounds (for example), I suggest you read wp:v. All we could you that for is to say "Assange felt the process of writing his biography "too personal", and that it did not cover enough of his "manifesto". Indeed that seems to express his idea, more than be about him. That does not mean he saw it as an invasion of privacy, so much as not serving the agenda, he wanted to push with it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair, except I'm not sure he understood what a biography was supposed to do and that manifestos were tangential to it.45.43.101.69 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Quite possibly, or any number of other possibilities. But we need a source saying X, not a reader inferring it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.wired.com/2011/09/assange-memoir/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_35&oldid=1136859055"