Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Thordarson’s Stundin revelations (again)

A paragraph dealing with Thordarson’ Stundin revelations, was recently deleted as a result of a RFC ruling. I then placed a new slimmed down wording about Thordarson’s revelations into the article (which was almost immediately removed | Here ) I justify my inclusion because at the time of the RFC it was expressly noted that: “This RfC is about the specific text ... not about deleting reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale.” – Also please note my newer edit addressed issues pointed to in the RFC – for these reasons I don’t believe my wording should be omitted - Would some kind editor be good enough to review my edit and if approving, to reinstate it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, it is all very undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The talk page is at your disposal. If there's consensus or a new RfC endorses your version, it will be reinstated. There's no rush. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: In your 23 September 2021 RfC closure you wrote:

... editors discussed whether/how to include reporting that an individual had recanted their testimony ... Editors achieved no consensus regarding the inclusion of the proposed text. Since this content was introduced in its first form to the article within days of its being challenged and removed, the content should not be included in the absence of a consensus as to whether or not the content should be included. ... While consensus can change in the future, particularly if substantial new coverage from reliable sources should emerge, the content should be omitted from the article in the absence of an affirmative consensus to include it.

Now, just eight days later and without consensus, an editor has attempted to place what he calls "new slimmed down wording" into the BLP, insisting that "at the time of the RfC it was expressly noted that: 'This RfC is about the specific text ... not about deleting reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale.'" That assertion is misleading because it was not part of Slatersteven's original entry creating the RfC. Rather, it is an unattributed quotation from a subsequent comment by Cambial Yellowing.

Mikehawk10, please clarify this for us. When you wrote that "the content should not be included in the absence of a consensus," did you mean only the RfC's specific proposed text or, more broadly, any reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not for Mikehawk10 to redefine the question that was asked in the RFC. The question was about the specific text. That's how the opener chose to word it, and the comments were made in response to that question. That said, the reasons given for not introducing the content should be taken into account, and the repeated theme was insufficient reliable and/or mainstream sourcing. Specifico is right that this should be discussed on talk first, and the content needs to be sufficiently different to justify a different approach. In particular, there are a large number of European news sources which reported on this, yet the same sources appear to have been used in the edit. More and/or better sourcing is needed, as well as a different wording. Cambial foliage❧ 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just put some proposed text to include here and we can discuss any problems and see if some text with a consensus can be found. It was put in the article, it was removed, the proper thing to do now is discuss here. For starters the second reference didn't mention Thordarson and had no direct relevance that I could see. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW I don't think Mikehawk10: has any further relevance unless they want to get involved in disussions here. NadVolum (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

My suggested revised wording was: “In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the FBI’s witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson admitted fabricating allegations used in the US indictment against Assange.” Please also take into account newly introduced RS here Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Cambial foliage❧ 21:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is reliable for what it says, but it just isn't relevant to the sentence before it. For starters one was the FBI and the other was the CIA - and didn't mention Thordarson. NadVolum (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum If you look at the second paragraph in the final section (The CIA’s crimes) you’ll find: “However, the FBI’s hands are far from clean. In June, Icelandic newspaper Stundin revealed that an FBI informant (who had himself been convicted of sex crimes) admitted that allegations in the US indictment against Assange were fabricated.” I sited this article not to increase the veracity of the claims but to counter the “not noteworthy” claims which say the story has not been widely enough covered. But since “Jacobin” is seemingly not considered an acceptable RS even for that, even with two other RSs, this is all moot - The US’s key witness against Assange claims in a newspaper interview that he was incentivised by the FBI and lied about several of his claims to them – and we can't even mention this in our article – seems beyond a joke. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if these two RSs would help (the second is Stundin again but gives more specific detail and includes audio recordings of the original interview) Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

List of sources

Prunesqualer, maybe we can collect the links here and when we get a critical mass open a new RfC - either here or at WP:NPOV/N since it's a DUE issue and the local consensus cannot override a general policy.

• Washington Post (generally reliable) [1]
• Der Spiegel (generally reliable) [2]
• Mail & Guardian (generally reliable) [3]
• Deutsche Welle (not rated) [4]
• Berliner Zeitung (not rated) [5]
• Stundin itself (not rated) [6]
• Tribune (magazine) (not rated) [7]
• The Wire (India) (not rated) [8]

  While a lot of these sources aren't on RSP (perhaps due to being not in the US/UK), most of them are respectable mainstream outlets. Alaexis_¿question? 11:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned in the RfC, the recanting was also mentioned in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Lens, Private Eye, The Hill and some Icelandic sources. Burrobert (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to those mentioned by @Alaexis::

Business AM (Belgium)

* Deutsche Welle (in English as well as German); DW is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia generally, as well as on the few occasions it is mentioned in passing at WP:RS/N.

Cumhuriyet (long-established Turkish newspaper)

The Hill (considered reliable)

The Intercept (considered reliable)

NTV (Turkish TV channel) National TV News in Turkey

*I requested a translation of the original reporting of Thordarson's fabricated testimony from Deutsche Welle (available in Bosnian, Spanish, Croatian, Romanian, Albanian, and Serbian, but not English) from some of the native German speakers listed at Translators available. De728631 was good enough to translate the relevant paragraphs, available here.

The proposed new text should be discussed before any RFC is launched. Cambial foliage❧ 12:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• We are already getting some duplication in our article/website suggestions. Would it be possible for editors to add their RSs to the list begun by Alaexis, and in the same format, ie name of site: wiki reliability: Site web address? (might keep things tidy and usable). ok probably not a good idea. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Scoop (website) (not rated)
  • The Shift (not rated)
  • The Reykjavík Grapevine (not rated) Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Marianne Williamson, the Intercept, and the like are not going to esablish DUE WEIGHT in mainstream discourse. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The multiple sources above, including those you mention, already do constitute due weight. Cambial foliage❧ 14:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NPOV. You will need to demonstrate what you assert. Spiegel, which would be a good source if it covered the substance of your narrative, only says that Assange's advocate brought this up -- not that it has any significance or merit. There does not appear to be sufficient sourcing for the content you are suggesting. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    Why would I read npov? I read it years ago, and it doesn't support your contention. I'm not going to waste my own time; please don't suggest that I do. Why don't you read it, as you're evidently unfamiliar with its content. Cambial foliage❧ 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    That is the page that explains our policy on DUE WEIGHT, which is the factor you need to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    Correct. And? Cambial foliage❧ 14:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    Also specifico, your claim about der spiegel is utterly false. Refrain from making things up. Cambial foliage❧ 15:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    A Google translate of the section from Der Spiegel "The Icelandic newspaper » Stundin « recently reported that one of the chief witnesses for the US Department of Justice had confessed to having made up central allegations against Assange. Sigurdur Ingi Thordason had incorrectly presented himself to the US authorities as a close confidante of Assange and had stated that Assange had commissioned him with hacker attacks on Icelandic politicians." Seems pretty direct to me, have to agree with Cambial Yellowing, it does cover the substance and I see nothing supporting "only says Assange's advocate brought this up". Though I'm not sure why that would be relevant anyway even if it was true - woud he bring up something which would be easy to show was false if it was? NadVolum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As I seem to recall that one of the points made here (more than once) is "ahh look at how the mainstream media are ignoring this, nudge nudge" I think wp:undue is has relevancy here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". If there are differing views in reliable sources about an event, then we need to balance the article according to the coverage of each view in reliable sources. If there were sources which stated Thordarson did not recant his testimony then we would need to balance that view against the coverage provided by Stundin etc. However, afaict there are no sources claiming Thordarson did not recant. In summary, what alternative view from reliable sources outweighs the reporting from Stundin, Private Eye, The Hill, Der Spiegel ... Burrobert (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer: none whatsoever. Cambial foliage❧ 15:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Specifically on the subject of the “WP:UNDUE” I would ask disinterested editors to bear in mind the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other mentions this story has had in smaller outlets or those considered not “reliable” by Wikipedia in its (biased) list of reliable sources. Organisations with audiences rated in the tens of thousands should not simply be ignored when it comes to the noteworthiness of what they choose to cover. PLEASE NOTE: I am not arguing these outlets are to be relied on as “reliable” sources of information – merely that they represent significant strands of opinion/interests in our world and, as such, their views/interests should be recognised, and should at least be given some small weight in considering matters of “notability” or “WP:UNDUE”. There are currently 120 news outlets rated “green” (“generally reliable” or better) by Wikipedia. The list is dominated by US organisations (with a few dozen based in countries closely allied to the US). Perhaps the agenda should not be totally dominated by outlets based in countries whose governments have a dog in the fight. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". So if non RS care, we do not. We care about what RS care about., it's called policy. Any argument based upon "let's ignores policy" or "we are biased" is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, and RS do care. so...? Cambial foliage❧ 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Then any text must be based upon what the RS say. So if the RS say "He recanted his testimony, but it was not a key part of the case" that is what we say. What we should not do is give equal weight to non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I believe one RS says something along the lines of what you put in quotes. Several say "key witness" "lead witness" "chief witness" or analogues of the same. Cambial foliage❧ 15:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's an important primary source rather than a secondary source which I think might be useful once some form of words is actually in. NadVolum (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Plus here's the original Stundin news article ratherthan the supporting excerpts from interviews. NadVolum (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The main details of Thordarson's story has been known for a while though only now has he retracted his claim that Assange asked him to do the hacking.

And I'd like to just list the FAIR article pointing out the lack of coverage by corporate media. Seemingly I'll be reported to ANI for peddling conspiracy theories for pointing out anything like this but we'll see if that happens. ;-) NadVolum (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No I said I would report you if you (YOU As in YOU) tried to use conspiracy theory arguments to justify edits or as some kind of appeal to reason. Nor am I sure that article is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Beyond belief: Not a single mention of “Thordarson”, “Teenager”, “Stundin” or even “Iceland” in the article. This suppression of information on the Assange page has got completely out of control. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well then ask his defense team why they are not making a bniose about this, if they did it would get the coverage we need to include it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the 17 references below – that is more than enough coverage for inclusion. The material is not included because of cynical filibustering. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is how, in a way that does not give undue weight to any claims. and lay of the stuff about user conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Those who are following the Thordarson saga may be interested to know he has been arrested in Iceland. The initial report came from Stundin which described him as "a key witness for the United States Justice Department according to documents presented to a UK court in an effort to secure the extradition of Julian Assange. He was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In a recent interview with Stundin he admitted to fabricating statements to implicate Assange and contradicted what he was quoted as saying in US court documents". Consortium News says "It is not clear if Thordarson recanting his testimony is related to his recent arrest. In his September interview Thordarson said the FBI promised not to reveal to Icelandic authorities any crimes he committed in Iceland in exchange for his cooperation". Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Assange's defence did bring up a number of points about Thordarson in the case before Judge Baraister. It is however the corporate media that decides what makes a big noise, and they seemingly think his marriage is important but anything like that is not. And you can report me again to ANI if you want and see where that gets you. NadVolum (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But they have not brought up the fact he has recanted, and this may be why the media are really not giving it much attention, it's not part or having any impact, on the trial (And thus, not important to the trial). And yes of course details about his life are important.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not currently in court, the lawyers are there for when it goes to court again. Anyway there's quite enough other people who have talked about it just they haven't been mentioned in corporate media sources. Or are you saying you are a better judge of the situation than media critique sources? And where in Wikipedia does it say the only acceptable reliable sources are corporate media or that they are necessary for an article like this? NadVolum (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the Stundin story plus the interview "Assange on the Brink" number 14 below not give you the slighest cause for worry about what is happening and why it isn't being reported in your favorite newspaper? And do you really think people were more interested in his wedding than they would be in something like that? NadVolum (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:soap, I am worried about what we write, not anything else, and that is all this talk page is for. And again, we go with what the bulk of RS say, so (again) propose a wording that confirms to what the bulk of RS say. And wp:undue is clear, we go with what the bulk say (or do not say) and if the bulk ignore it so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"if the bulk ignore it so do we". Is that a new policy? Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.", so yes if the bulk of RS has nothing to say about something we cannot give it more than a line (and arguably nothing as the bulk of RS do not care), and that line must be in keeping with what the few RS that do cover it say about it. No its not a new policy, it is wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the policy. Saying nothing is not a "significant viewpoint published by reliable sources". Burrobert (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The policy says weight is according to its prominence in RS publications. It has not been widely covered. It is not prominent. It is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersetven has accurately quoted npov. Your personal interpretation of it is not commensurate with the text you quote or any part of the policy. if the bulk ignore it so do we is not part of WP policy. The absence of reporting is not a source at all, and your inference from that absence that it means other sources believe the report not to be accurate is (very poor) original research. We have multiple mainstream European news organisations that have reported on it. There is currently one mainstream news organisation that disputes the widely used characterisation of the witness as "key" "chief" or "lead". What's required now is a different wording, and a clear consensus to include it. Two editors objections, largely based on writing the word "undue" in block capitals with little in the way of logical argument, are not a barrier to inclusion where there is a much larger consensus to include. Cambial foliage❧ 14:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be my take, its purpose is to keep out flash in the pan "exclusives" that better sources ignore. If this is as important as the claim, the defense will use it to totally undermine the US case. Until they do it is being ignored by the almost all decent RS. So we can wait, wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of what is a decent RS. Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, Berliner Zeitung, NTV, The Hill, Mail & Guardian, and The Intercept are all reliable and mainstream sources. The Washington Post is also reliable and mainstream. I suggest we begin collectively drafting a replacement text about Thordarson's fabricated testimony. Opponents of including the content can continue to post blue links to the undue shortcut if they so wish. Cambial foliage❧ 14:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No I am not, and neither are you. I have said (more than once) suggest a text here for us to discuss. But I object to anything more than about a line, and object to anything that says this has anything to do with the court case, as no RS has said it does, all they say is the investigation, not the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. It would be taken more seriously if it wasn't totally false. Of the various reliable sources mentioned in the preceding comment, at least six describe Thordarson as a key or main witness in the court case. Cambial foliage❧ 15:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

spiegel.de "The Icelandic newspaper » Stundin « had recently reported that one of the chief witnesses for the US Department of Justice ", note it attributes the claim and does not say of the

case.mg.co.za ". In June, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin reported that a key prosecution witness against Assange has admitted" it attributes the claim, it does not say it is a fact. tribunemag.co.uk does say it, but unsure its a great source (and if the case is collapsing then why not wait until it does?).   So which one were you thinking of that say he was a key part of the case?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your contention was that no source says it has anything to do with the case. Der Spiegel (the source you picked out), from the byline: Now it comes to the appeal proceedings - and the prosecution will probably have to forego an important witness in the future." Deutsche Welle: Key witness admits to lying The irony is that the High Court judges granted the US appeal just days after it had come to light that the key witness, Icelandic national Sigurd Ingi Thordarson, had admitted to fabricating incriminating testimony against Assange in return for immunity from prosecution and a financial reward. The Hill: Williamson spoke to Hill.TV shortly after Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness against Assange, admitted to falsifying claims against Assange to gain American immunity. I'll not go through the whole list. That some mention the publication in which the admission of fabricated testimony was first published is not pertinent. Cambial foliage❧ 15:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It translates as important, not key, and they are not the same. And it does not make any mention of him being key the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It translates as "key", not "important", according to those actually in a position to give an informed opinion. Cambial foliage❧ 16:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It is now time to see some suggest text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

What? In the first instance I used the word "important". The second sentence was not in translation, it's from the article in English. The Hill only publishes in English. As to the translation from the Deutsche Welle article in German, at least two uninvolved fluent German-English speakers on Wikipedia, found using WP:TRLA, confirm the translation as "key": here and here. I'm going to rely on the translation from uninvolved native speakers over your own. Cambial foliage❧ 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" is just those viewpoints that have been actually published in reliable sources and there is no assumption of some silent majority saying it is undue for inclusion in Wikipedia. The 'silent majority' idea would wipe out nearly every single article in Wikipedia! Anyway I agree that now is the time to start framing something. I'll start by saying I think the Stundin article and Der Spiegel and the Intercept citations are needed for the story itself. Something about the Icelandic Minister and throwing out the FBI is needed for background,perhaps the Slate for that. And a media critique source probably FAIR should round out why foreign sources are needed and that's an imporant story in itself. And maybe the HIll and Washinton Post for something, response? Consortiumnews could possibly be used as a primary source for anything relevant said the interviews but probably would fail being stuck in direct as it is not a secondary source. NadVolum (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The aspect about FAIR and media critique is certainly important, but I don't think it's of much relevance to Assange's biography so shouldn't be included here. Cambial foliage❧ 17:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It definitely seems relevant to Assange's biography to me. Do you think it has little effect or what's your reasoning? There's been a number of allegations of strategic omissions from the media but I think this one is probably the most egregious and is reliably sourced. NadVolum (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess my reasoning is that this apparent "blackout" most likely arose because of structural factors to do with the ownership of the media in the US & UK, rather than any (c)overt strategy. Those factors have been discussed at length elsewhere.

The lack of attention in the anglophone media likely impacted the degree to which some demographics of the general public in US & UK are informed about Assange. But in my view the anglophone "blackout" is not about his personal biography or about the court case he's currently caught up in. Cambial foliage❧ 20:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate too much about the reason for the blackout but as far as effects are concerned it does mean that politicians mostly only hear the prosecutions case and I'm pretty certain that does him harm even in court. NadVolum (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a proposed wording I put this on the page a few days ago (It was reverted 12 minutes later - reason: “no consensus"):

In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the FBI’s witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson admitted fabricating allegations used in the US indictment against Assange.

I chose what I thought a pretty tame/non-controversial wording (omitting phrase “key witness”, leaving out Snowden’s comments saying revelations “undermined the criminal case against Assange” any reference to the “media blackout”). Short and I can’t see much to object to in it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I support that wording. Burrobert (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I support it also - looks good. DUE, notable, and relevant to the biography. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

yes,looks good. If anything it might be too “tame”; we have more than five reliable news orgs that point out his key role in the superseding indictment, so it’s reasonable to use that descriptor. Might be worth mentioning WaPo dissent. Cambial foliage❧ 21:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I support it too though I'd think of it is a start and later additions can be added about key or not key or the background or how much of the case is affected or media blackout or anything else. Best to add a bit at at a time and check it as it goes in rather than one big thing that gets stuck in some silly RfC. NadVolum (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

OK I’ve gone ahead with inserting that basic version – I hope others can add more citations and then later (pending further talks) maybe get reference to “key witness” (reading the U.S. indictment, and other sources, there is no real doubt “Teenager” Thordarson was a key witness). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

He did not admit it, he claimed it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Could somebody explain, succincty, why this re-insertion does not violate the consensus in the recent RfC. If not, it needs to be reverted. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The RfC was for a particular wording. Burrobert (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "claimed" as it is a word to watch. If "admitted" is too pointy, then "said" is a neutral alternative. Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I would rather we had discussed any wording before it was added.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no substantive difference in the content, and given the outcome of the RfC, such similar content mustn't be reintroduced before discussion and consensus. The arguments against the initial content that was rejected at the RfC are just as applicable to the newly inserted language. It should be reverted and consensus should be pursued on talk. To reintroduce such similar text soon on the heels of the RfC is at best gaming the process. There's no rush. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting the close of the RfC refers to omitting the content and not the text or wording, thank you Slatersteven for restoring the state as of and reflectong the RfC close. Regarding the poll below, I think it would require a new RfC, not just an informal poll among current talk page requlars, with all previous participants and other relevant groups notified in order to reverse a thoughtfully-closed recent RfC. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing editors do not get to redefine the question asked in an RFC. The question: "should the below text be included?" was answered and the text is not included. If a closing editor were to create an additional outcome that was not asked that would constitute a WP:SUPERVOTE and the RFC would need to be unclosed and requested for an admin closure. There is a clear consensus to include the current text. If you wish to gather wider community input about the content in general feel free to open yet another RFC with that question. In the meantime the consensus is clearly to include. Cambial foliage❧ 14:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been objected to, and thus needs consensus to add, and not edit warred back in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The correct remedy would be for you to request a review of the close, not to override it on your personal say-so. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the consensus is very readily apparent.

The close has not been overridden. The closer indicated, correctly, that there was no consensus for a positive answer to the question asked by Slatersteven. No-one has sought to include that text, and the current text is entirely different, in spirit and word. Cambial foliage❧ 15:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I note with interest that you already understand this. Cambial foliage❧ 15:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

From the above comments, here is a breakdown of editors' positions on the question before us:

In favour:

Prunesqualor billets_doux

Cambial

Nad

Alaexis ?

Mr Ernie

Burrobert

Against:

Steven

SPEC

Burrobert (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "Basket?" from the above list. I made one entry at this talk page section, in which I pinged User:Mikehawk10 seeking clarification of his 23 September 2021 RfC closure. He did not reply. Absent such clarification, I have no opinion on this matter. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Text

In June 2021 Icelandic newspaper Stundin published details of an interview with Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, one of the U.S. Justice Department's witnesses against Assange. In the interview Thordarson stated he had fabricated allegations used in the U.S. indictment.

Support

Aye Burrobert (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The original RfC asked for substantive extra coverage so I've put in more references. In particular Der Spiegel is the match for Washington Post any day and it says a chief witness. I think I should go and add back the Washington Post too since it did actually cover it. NadVolum (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Support Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, plenty of RS across the world found it notable (Spiegel, Deutche Welle, The Hill etc etc). At one sentence it's not UNDUE, considering that Assange's indictment and extradition proceedings are covered in minute detail. Burrobert, do you want to make it an official RfC? Alaexis_¿question? 17:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh is that really needed? Can't we just wait a day or so and see if it sticks intead of forming trenches like World War I? NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  As I suspect it will reverted at the first opportunity, yes I think this is needed. It will show if there is a clear consensus any reasonable person would not argue with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Look, I'm tired of this too and the consensus was obvious a long time ago. Still, it's not a big extra effort and so I think it's worth it. Alaexis_¿question? 17:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're right, paricularly here where there is a previous RfC. I think though a better scheme in future might be to assume good faith - and then if there is stonewalling report the disruption and have anyone concerned blocked. After all the article is supposed to be under active arbitration remedies. That way I think a more general range of editors might be willing to participate rather than having a cold war in effect. I believe having new editors has been raised as desirable. NadVolum (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes as due and notable per the sourcing. A new RFC is not needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yep. Multiple RS characterise the fabricated testimony as coming from a key or chief witness for the USJD indictment that is the basis for the extradition case. Cambial foliage❧ 09:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

• Needs RfC to override previous recent closure Due process sometimes requires patience. "I'm right" is not a substantive argument to rebut UNDUE irrelevant article content. At most it belongs in the bio of this witness. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If you think this needs an RFC launch one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What Slatersteven said. Just remember to keep any RFC question neutral, like the two recently initiated by Slatersteven, otherwise it’s likely to be reverted so the wording of the question can be discussed. Cambial foliage❧ 09:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What would it take to convince you that your interpretation of UNDUE is completely wrong? NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Stevenslater, I said that it requires an RfC to override the previous closure. I do not seek to override the recent closure. I think that would be a waste of time. Why revisit a very recent decision? Any new RfC would be launched by the editor seeking to revise the consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

      Nobody is objecting to you raising an RfC in this instance - but I would appreciate you saying in whch policy or guideline you saw support for "it requires an RfC to override the previous closure". It is disruptive to bring up the same issue repeatedly but in this case more reliable sources were found and that was the main objection last time a consensus was agreed. If there is a specific rule about needing an RfC to override anoter RfC I would appreciate knowing where it is otherwise I will treat your statement as unreliable like your statement about UNDUE. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

      I do not wish to start another RfC. We need to abide by the recent close, which I believe was a fair and thoughtful evaluation of the RfC. @El C: has placed this page under the "consensus required" page restriction. The RfC closure is our current consensus. There is no acknowledged, agreed new subsequent consensus -- only various objections by editors who (if I understand correctly) did not agree with the closure of the RfC. As I said above, you are free to request a closure review. Additional sources, even if they were valid, would not justify adding UNDUE content to the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, can you clarify, the RFC was about the inclusion of specific text, and not the wider issue of inclusion in general. Thus does the RFC close prevent altered text from being used?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• It’s not clear why you’re pinging and questioning Mikehawk10 as though they are an authority here. That is not how WP operates. They are simply another editor like you and I. Cambial foliage❧ 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged, a couple of things. 1. My understanding is that the aforementioned Stundin RfC concerned the inclusion of a specific proposed text about it. Which is to say, the question wasn't 'should the Stundin content be included,' per se. Until an RfC concludes in a way that excludes it outright, alternate proposals are fine (i.e. a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE isn't required).

2. This proposal isn't an RfC (not listed as such), yet it is structured as if it is one, which probably undermines rather than aids its utility. FWIW. El_C 03:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the close, @Mikehawk10: repeatedly refers to "content" rather than "text". I do not think that contentious material that's been contested as UNDUE among other flaws can be cured simply by minor tweaks to wording or googling additional mentions in the press. I think a new explicit consensus is needed to reinsert that content and I have reverted to the status as of the RfC by removing the new text that does not have demonstrated consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualor: I see that you have reverted the removal of this content, thus violating the Consensus Required page restriction. Please self revert. It's clear that there are several editors with policy-based objections -- for some of the same reasons the RfC did not find consensus for including this content. You may continue to pursue consensus on talk, but an involved editor should not simply declare that their view is correct, or has consensus, without being able to demonstrate such. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)@Prunesqualer:20:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualor was right to carry out that revert. It was the removal that violated Consensus Required. You refer to policy-based objections. Yet your objections above largely consist of endless bluelinks to the undue shortcut with little exposition, and a fundamental misunderstanding of that part of NPOV policy. It is not "SIGCOV for article text". Yet that is the misinterpretation you have repeatedly asserted in order to back your objection as ostensibly "policy-based". The discussion above is extensive with numerous references to the policy that is actually relevant. Your objections have been addressed and countered numerous times by different editors, often with no further response from you, yet you WP:REHASH the same now-tired arguments with little or no variation. At some point this has to be understood as becoming disruptive. Cambial foliage❧ 21:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

“2016 U.S. presidential election” subsection too long

I think it’s time we got a little perspective regarding Julian Assange’s part in the 2016 U.S. election. Wikileaks published some information - which other outlets also published – Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time – big deal. Does this really warrant one of the longest sections in his entire biography? I’m not sure it even warrants it’s own sub-section or mention in the intro. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree its too long, but I think it is part and parcel of much of the criticism of him, so yes I should have its own section and be in the lede. So do you have any suggestions as to how to trim it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2016 election involvement may be “part and parcel of much of the criticism of [Assange]” but that doesn’t mean his role was that important. Everything to do with U.S. elections gets used as a political football – in this instance Clinton, her team and most of the Democrats in America where casting about looking for whatever they could to blame for her unexpected defeat – Assange just happened to be one of the easier targets, we should not be playing that game – as I said “Wikileaks published some information which other outlets also published – Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time” - that’s what it really boils down to. Regarding suggestions I would lose the following:

• Paragraph 4: “On 7 October, the Washington Post published...”.
• Paragraph 5: ”In mid-October, the Ecuadorian...”.
• The final sentence in paragraph 7: “Political scientists Matthew Baum and...”.
• Paragraph 8: “A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said...”.

The final three paragraphs dealing with Seth Rich should be revisited, as what we have is badly written, over long, and repetitive. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph 4 has Podesta saying that " One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence.", that is I think relevant.

Paragraph 5, yep that can go.

paragraph 7 I think helps to argue that Assange was not that influential.

Paragraph 8 Again I think this is needed for balance.

I disagree we need to revisit the last three paragraphs, we have only just had a discussion on this material.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• paragraph 4: Clinton’s campaign chairman complaining about the timing of Wikileaks releases five years on is not very news worthy – it has already been explained in the article that Assange strongly disliked Hillary Clinton and took some action to harm her election chances – fact is, other people were also putting out the leaked material and Assange’s influence was not that great (even if it suited his ego and the Clinton team to believe otherwise.
• paragraph 7: Please note I only asked for the removal of the final sentence which, when you read the source, is just a bit on inconsequential 5 year old punditry/fluff.
• paragraph 8: A magazine writes an article saying that Wikileaks declined to publish material about Trump – Assange points out the information was already in the public domain, and that they don’t publish stuff that’s already out – 5 years on that seems a bit inconsequential but if others really want to keep it I won’t argue (at least it’s short).

As for the Seth Rich material: The RFC is still unresolved (plenty of filibustering going on there, seems to me) but you should be aware there is virtually no support for the poorly written and repetitive version currently in the article, so yes almost certainly there will be a rewrite (eventually). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

As we are not a new paper something being not news worthy is irrelevant, we are dealing with history.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that “newsworthy”: WP:DUE issues are what we are dealing with here - when we give over an entire large subsection to mostly trivial details. In this instance I’m not taking sides with Assange, as I think even his bitterest critics must have to suppress a loud yawn when reading over-long 2016 U.S. election section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not trivial, as coverage at the time suggests. Nor do I object to reducing it, I just object to blanket removal of sections, rather than reducing those sections.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

We are talking paragraphs not "sections". That asside perhaps you could make some suggestions for reducing this vastly overblown subsection? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This talk page section is framed too broadly. Yesterday an administrator imposed the consensus required provision (CRP) on Julian Assange. We must now adhere to its procedure for removing content as described in the relevant explanatory supplement.

Editor1 removes a portion of article content;
Editor2 reverts, re-adding some or all of the content;
Prior to consensus on the article talk page, no editor may re-remove any of the re-added content.

If the BLP's 2016 U.S. presidential election subsection is too long, there are two solutions.

1. Editor1 may remove the entire subsection.
2. Editor1 may remove selected content from that subsection.

After the exercise of Option1 or any exercise of Option2, another editor may revert (subject of course to the preexisting WP:1RR restriction), after which any editor may create a talk page section to seek consensus on that edit. As I read the explanatory supplement, prior consensus for each such initial edit is not required. Accordingly, instead of discussing various potential edits in advance, editors ought to implement the CRP procedure outlined above. At this point, we don't need brainstorming; we need focus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I gave a pretty detailed description of what I think should happen to the “2016 U.S. presidential election” – that’s about as much “focus” as anyone could wish for. We get repeated grumbling from some editors for inserting or removing content without consultation on this page (I for one am sick of being reverted after making perfectly reasonable edits) – and heavens above, what fresh hell is this - now it’s complaints for consulting too much. OK I’ll do the edits and wait for the reverts (and complaints) and see if that gets us anywhere. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  As what you have suggested above has already been objected to making that change would violate brd, as you already know it is going to be reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree it is too long and support big time trimming. This section also mixes Assange and Wikileaks. Wikileaks has its own article and there is no reason this content should be duplicated here on a BLP. Assange is quote notable on a personal level and this article should focus on his personal life. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  NOw that is a better argument. Yes we can trim the stuff directly relating to wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I chopped most of it out just now. Feel free to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am less sure about removing the Podesta stuff, as he was a target. So I feel his opinions are valid. As I had objected to its removal it should not have been removed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Excuse me for saying so Slatersteven but I’m not sure you have yet been granted supreme veto power over the entire Assange article – You are of course free to revert material but not to assert that I cannot edit material when you h°ave made some sort of objection to the change. Moving the Seth Rich material is a nifty way of reducing the section size (if not the article size) BTW Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Consensus required restored", the point is edits should not be made Without consensus. And no I am not free to revert, the page is under 1RR, I have reverted once today.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: If you provide diffs showing which Podesta stuff you previously objected to removing and today's edit(s) that most clearly removed it, I will revert that and create a new talk page section to focus on it with the object of achieving consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Update: I took care of this. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose any reduction in this material, as it was widely covered by reliable sources at the time. It's one of the most notable things Assange has ever done. Also, how much separation is there between Assange and Wikileaks? Is there any evidence that Assange doesn't have complete editorial control over WL? If not, then I don't think WL content should be removed from this article. Geogene (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  The infobox at Wikipedia's WikiLeaks page lists as "key people" Julian Assange (director) and Kristinn Hrafnsson (editor-in-chief). The latter's BLP states: It was announced on 26 September 2018 that Kristinn Hrafnsson had been appointed editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks by Julian Assange following an extended period in which Assange lost access to the internet earlier in the year. WikiLeaks said Assange would remain as publisher. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  2 years after the election.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  In 2016 Assange would have had even more control over the site. According to that, he delegated running the site to someone else only after he lost internet access. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  So Assange has control and the site is administered by an employee? Geogene (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I support the changes to the section. There is a full article about the business. This article should just show a summary with enough to outline the topic and the bits whaich are particularly relevant to Assange. Ediors may think Wikileaks is the same sort of thing as Assange but if Assange only comes in as the head of Wikileaks that is not enough for inclusion. I think what has been left satisfies the requirements of WP:SPLIT well. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Donald Trump's Twitter feed has its own article, that doesn't mean that his most controversial tweets are only covered there. Geogene (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I fail to see the equivalent of 'Wikileaks' in what you said which might make it relevant. NadVolum (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I fail to see why you think the fact that "Wikileaks" did something controversial can possibly have no bearing on Assange, who owns it. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  It might have some bearing - but we've got to wait for reliable sources to point it out. Plus we're taking about a summary here - no need to duplicate articles inside other articles. A bit about Wikileaks might be needed for background context in a section but we defnitely can't just stick chunks of Wikileaks in here. NadVolum (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus for these BOLD cuts. The section should be restored to the status quo ante and a detailed dscussion begun. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: If you disapprove of today's WP:BOLD cuts, which thanks to users Slatersteven, Jtbobwaysf, and Prunesqualer have reduced overall article size from 244,115 to 236,506 bytes, please revert accordingly and create a new talk page section to seek consensus on that particular issue. This present talk page section is cluttered with too many digressions onto side issues such as Assange's role in WikiLeaks, each of which requires a separate talk page section in order to focus on their specific merits. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  I will revert, but remember the onus is on those who wish to change longstanding article content. So it's not up to those who object to the cuts. I think we need a structured discussion, starting with the top-level issue as to whether Wikileaks content belongs in this bio article and then getting into the significance of each part of the section that are proposed to be removed. I'd also note that it's not necessary to remove longstanding content in order to seek new consensus. As Slatersteven has noted, that gets tricky with the 1RR still in effect. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think this trimmed too much. The 2016 election is a major part of his biography and had a significant impact on how he is perceived, and the vital points related to him need to be covered. I particularly object to the removal of the paragraph stating that he got the leaks from the Russian government; again, this is a turning point in his biography (it became a major focus of coverage of him afterwards) - and it makes no sense to remove that paragraph but leave the one after it where he denies that connection. If people think the paragraph doesn't discuss Assange directly enough, reword it or tweak it, but it's easy enough to find sources supporting that sort of rewording, and the focus of it is important enough to his biography, that simply deleting the paragraph wholesale seems like a nonstarter. --Aquillion (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also, regarding the connection to the Access Hollywood tapes, there is no need for us to rely so heavily on Podesta; there's extensive sourcing that Roger Stone had Assange and wikileaks contacted directly after the tapes and told him to release the Podesta emails, all of which (as far as I can tell) treats it as fact and makes the connection overtly, with many sources specifying that Stone sought to contact or put pressure on Assange specifically. We can just say so in the article voice with appropriate sourcing. This avoids rambling digressions and back-and-fourth and just states the key point in a relatively concise manner. If people are fine with my additions in that regard, I'm fine with removing the Podesta quote - it's unnecessary to quote Podesta's speculation at the time when we have later sources overtly stating what happened as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aquillion: FYI see here. SPECIFICO talk 08:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I am fine with leaving out those specific sentences (which was why I ended up self-reverting my restoration of them when I took a stab at rewriting the section) as long as we state the more general point that there's a broad agreement among cybersecurity experts and intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the leak - does drilling down into stuff like that actually tell the reader more than basically saying "experts agree it was Russia?" We don't really need to get into the nitty-gritty of how many people Mueller charged - it's the connection between Assange and Russia established in coverage of this incident that is important to his biography. However, we do have to clearly state that cybersecurity experts and multiple intelligence agencies agree that it was Russia, and avoid wording things in a way that implies that there's any serious dispute over that point - I would focus on that top-level summary instead. (Assange's denials notwithstanding; they are near-universally dismissed in coverage, so I would briefly mention them for a few words in the body but avoid giving them any further focus per WP:MANDY. There's enough coverage to note his denials, but given the tone of that coverage, not enough to give it any weight beyond that.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

      Yes it seems pretty definite the leaks came from Russia, but it is certainly not clear that Assange knew that or should have believed the American intelligence services saying they thought that without producing any evidence. After all he'd have had a pretty jaundiced view of them by then! I'm not sure he'd have cared if he did know but that's another matter. So we've got to be a bit careful and not say things that imply he knew like saying Wikileaks talked to the Russians instead of saying they talked to Guccifer2. NadVolum (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the idea of this was to cut down the text and just keep the main Assange bits and refer off to the main article about the business. However there has been a lot of POV editing since I agreed with the chopped down version. We now have Stone Asking Assange to put out the emails - but we don't have that Costa said he did not contact Assange even when offered a plea bargain to say that he did. We have Assange talking to the Russians rather han Guccifer2 even though that is the benefit of hindsight. The POV pushing should stop and the edits conform to what was there before in tone. A separate section of the talk page can be set up when this bit of editing ends for people who want to disagree with what was there before. That is not just chopping down a section that is too long. NadVolum (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  I accept that the DNC leaks issue changed perceptions of Assange in the U.S. - the question for the historian (and encyclopaedia writer) is "why" and "where the new perceptions fair/accurate"? Undoubtedly powerful political interest groups spun Assange’s role for their own ends – we need to keep coming back to what Assange actually did (not the story that vested interests have spun). Wikileaks – at a time when Assange was at (or near) the top of the organisation – published leaked e-mails (which were also published elsewhere). Assange said some ill judged things on the subject and foolishly dipped his toe in U.S. domestic politics. In a time when the democrats where desperately casting about for figures to blame for a humiliating loss Assange was a perfect target, and is still being vilified to this day as a result. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've restored the original Podesta paragraph though it had very little to do with Assange personally and so could possibly be removed as part of this shortening exercise. I've left the bit about talking to Russians as it was there originally, it is an extension to the previous sentence about what the Mueller report said, probably should be attached better. Mueller report view is definitely hindsight. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  NadVolum, you removed numerous sources. What, specifically, is your objection to these sources and the connection they make between the Access Hollywood tapes and Assange's decision to drop the Podesta emails later that day?

  • Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee notes that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone called up author Jerome Corsi the day that the Trump Access Hollywood tape was released and may have encouraged him to put pressure on Julian Assange to release stolen emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in direct response.
  • When Trump’s campaign learned about devastating recordings of the candidate boasting about sexual assault in October, Stone told his contact, Jerome Corsi, to get Julian Assange to “drop the Podesta emails immediately.” (WikiLeaks did so.)

  You stated in your edit summary that new one implied Assange was contacted by Stone whereas evidence is he wasn't, but the text made it clear (as the sources do) that Stone had Jerome Corsi contact Assange. This is, as far as I am aware, well-cited and undisputed fact, and central to Assange's biography due to the large number of high-quality sources that treat it as vital context to the Podesta email drop - if you believe that evidence says otherwise, you need to produce sources directly contradicting these. We can talk about how cautiously to word it, but right now it seems as though you removed well-sourced text and the source citing it without a valid rationale. --Aquillion (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  See for instance [9] "First, Corsi says he continued to insist to Mueller’s team that despite what his emails might suggest, he actually never did get any inside information from WikiLeaks or any intermediary.", "Second, on the Access Hollywood tape day, Corsi says he never did successfully get in touch with Assange." Stone telling Corsi to do something is one thing. It happening is quite another. Stone likes to talk himself up and has tried to butter up Assange but it looks like Assange did not think much of him "Stone is a bullshitter,” Assange posted. “Trying to a) imply that he knows anything b) that he contributed to our hard work.” NadVolum (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  But even Corsi's account says that he believes Stone ultimately contacted Assange ((“I continue to suspect that Stone had other sources that provided him access to Assange and WikiLeaks,” he writes.)); and Corsi's account (unlike Mueller's conclusions) are not taken seriously by any sources. (Mueller’s team did not believe this story, according to Corsi.) This is a clear WP:MANDY case - we have to follow the sources, which generally accept it as fact that Stone contacted Assange via Corsi; we can at best mention Corsi's denial, but we cannot automatically accept it as fact and use it as the basis for editorial decisions when the sources we have either reserve judgment or plainly accept it as fact that Stone ultimately contacted Assange. If nothing else, the heavy coverage of this aspect makes it clear that we must go into depth on it somehow - we can discuss Corsi's denials, even Corsi's own speculations, but we cannot simply say "well Corsi denied it so we're going to ignore every other source and omit this aspect entirely." The best we can do is mention that Stone attempted to get in touch with Assange, note the conclusion by Mueller and most sources that he succeeded (likely via Corsi), and note Corsi's denial + the fact that he believes Stone contacted Assange via another route. That covers, as far as I can tell, every source we have with appropriate weight and focus. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Removal of DNC leak material

I recently inserted the following into the article: “The leaked e-mails revealed an acrimonious split within the Democratic party, with senior D.N.C. staff sharing stinging denunciations of Clinton’s rival leadership contender Bernie Sanders”. The edit was almost immediately reverted by SPECIFICO with the excuse “UNDUE opinion” – This really has to be some sort of (not very funny) joke. I don’t believe SPECIFICO even had time to read the Guardian article from which the information was sourced. I would like to request someone reinstates my edit and also sanctions SPECIFICO for his (yet again) disruptive behaviour. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to confirm SPECIFICO reverted my edit only three minutes after it was made – that was not sufficient time to access, read and digest the cited Guardian article – which leads to the inevitable conclusion that SPECIFICO simply dismissed the edit without any due diligence or consideration – It’s no better than vandalism. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It maybe they felt it was undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That text introduced a partisan opinion that I think is UNDUE for Assange's bio and a bit of a SYNTH justification for Wikileaks' publication of the DNC emails. Let's see what other editors think. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is there a strong link with Assange or is it required to provide some context? Basically why is the fact that there was a split in in a biography of Julian Assange? Isn't that in the linked article? NadVolum NadVolum (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You have to be joking – the news that the DNC favoured Clinton over Sanders was a major international scandal – you are simply riding roughshod over the whole article and other people’s work. You should be topic banned and the sooner the better. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

BUt what has this to do with Assange, this article is not about the DNC, Clinton, or Sanders. What does it tell us about Assange?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Also if you want users topic banned, take it to ANI not here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually it would be Arbcom Enforcement rather than ANI. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum As things stand the article contains only limited information about what the DNC leaks contained –. Yet material is being added into the article (including today) giving details about Trump’s crass actions at the time (the details of which are only very tangentially connected to the leaks). How can we justify the omission of key information about what the DNC leaks contained – but justify the inclusion of barely relevant details about Trump - It’s just absurd. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Becasue RS made the connection between Russia Wikilealks and Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

1. You've been saying this article is about Assange, not WikiLeaks, so by your own reasoning, any connections between WikiLeaks, Russia and Trump would be irrelevant at this article

2. You're implying that RS have not made the connection between WikiLeaks and the emails showing the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders.

To Prunesqualer's point, the inclusion of details that are completely tangential to Assange (like the number of alleged GRU agents indicted by Mueller) is absurd when contrasted with the removal of material about WikiLeaks or discussion in the CIA about kidnapping or assassinating Assange. Many of the arguments being made on this talk page make no sense, or are wildly inconsistent. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Also what material about Trump has been added today?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

They probably mean the stuff I had to restore about Podesta. Hopefully the whole paragraph can be removed sometime but the whole section has been reverted as per usual status quo long standing consensus etc. because of the new sanctions and there being objections to the changes. If pieces have got to be restored per 'consensus required' could we make sure a good reason is supplied as per WP:CCC. NadVolum (talk)

I have to agree with Prunesqualer. Many people don't realize why the leaks by Assange=WikiLeaks were significant for the Clinton campaign. This explains it. Such context is important for readers. Right-wingers often mistakenly, because they are lied to in their media bubble, think it was much more serious matters (maybe illegal acts or collusion with Russia) that were revealed when that was not the case. The leaks were merely embarrassing, and that's all.

Of course, seen from a national security perspective, the fact that the hacking even happened, and that it was only the Democratic material hacked by the Russians (who also hacked the Republicans) that was released by Assange=WikiLeaks is also significant and evidence of the partisan, anti-American, nature of the Assange=WikiLeaks/Russian support for Trump. Top GOP politicians are essentially living in a state of sustained blackmail, as they know that embarrasing material is being withheld only as long as they continue to back Trump and support the Trump/Russia agenda. This may explain why so many GOP politicians have acted so weirdly, as if they are compromised. Like Trump, they are wittingly or unwittingly acting as Russian assets.

The exact wording may vary, but the Guardian content should be used. -- Valjean (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see you think it really important to include that, but this is the wrong place. This article is a biography of Julian Assange. Even if it was an article about Wikileaks I'm not altogether convinced it would be relevant. I guess it could be included if there was no article which covered the whole topic, but there is one and there is a link to it just under the section heading. I think the applicable TLA except it is a lot longer is WP:TOPIC. NadVolum (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum Please look at where the article stands at this moment rather than an idealised future version. in the current WP article we are seemingly including material not very relevant to Assange (ie quotes from - boo hiss – Trump). Yet we are suppressing material very relevant to Wikileaks at a time when Assange played a significant role in managing Wikileaks. That does not look good. I would venture a guess that not one person editing here is a Trump fan (personally I can’t stand the man). However, seems to me, little is achieved by dishonesty. Let’s try to tell the story as best we can as it was. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. There was a discussion about removing stuff like that when the consensus sanction was applied. The bit you are looking at was removed as part of that but has been reinstated as per the sanction because there some dissent over it. NadVolum (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, I think we all agree that, according to RS, Assange did this to harm Clinton. But for article text, I don't think we should present that as if it were a partisan view of the Clinton team, leaving the reader to make factual inferences. There are abundant RS independent accounts that verify the bias and intention of Assange's actions. Let's use those sources and state it as widely noted or in wikivoice. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for what you want just put them in another section on this talk page and start a discussion. In fct why didn't you just do that instead of deleting the text? NadVolum (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I don’t know why you keep harping on about Assange wanting to harm Clinton. Assange didn’t like Trump but thought Clinton would be even worse – so what. The New York Times, Washington Post and many others did everything in their power to harm Trump – so what. Assange’s reach was certainly not as great as theirs – in fact his influence has been blown out of all proportion: The information Wikileaks published was also put out in other sources and had Wikileaks refused to publish it the people behind Guccifer 2.0 would have effortlessly turned elsewhere for a platform. Talk about a storm in a tea cup. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My comment was addressing Valjean regarding his concern that I removed content about purported harm to Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 10:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We should consider requesting full protection

Two days ago an admin imposed the consensus required provision. Since then, I have drawn attention to three violations of that discretionary sanction:

• Violation of discretionary sanction (18:46, 9 October 2021)
• Inappropriate usage of "stable version" (two)

Given these violations, I seek consensus to request temporary full protection so that Julian Assange can be edited only by administrators. We very much need a cooling-off period. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

And it has all been corrected and there's a deathly lack of movement. We can live with a small amount of problems without needing full rigor mortis. NadVolum (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The latest two violations to which I referred have not been corrected, nor has there been any disciplinary action exercised against the two offenders. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no violation, could you check again thanks. NadVolum (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Basket, any editor may request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. You do not need agreement of others. It is decided by an Admin who will review your request. DS violations should be reported at Arbcom Enforcement after first notifying the editor and requesting a self-revert. Violations are often inadvertent and even more often are promptly corrected upon such notification, so as to avoid a sanction proceeding at AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You said that a disputed version was restored. Well of course, how could it ever be otherwise here? The version was that just before the sanction was applied. And you just prove the case in m:The Wrong Version. NadVolum (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: the discretionary sanction declares, You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. It does not matter whether the content was trivial or significant, or that it may have been subsequently restored. The mere fact of nonconsensual reversion is the violation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To me this looks like a boomerang issue with you engaging in TE and then coming to the talk page to try to stir up conflict. Your edits appear like an attempt at ownership. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Since arriving at Julian Assange on 5 August 2021, I have been the least tendentious editor of that page, as any fair reading of my contributions would show. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Please, there should be no personal remarks on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not a violation, as it was the version that was prior to the dispute that led to DS being imposed. The changes were disputed straight away, it is why NC was imposed to stop the constant reverts. This is the pre-edit war version, and that is the correct version to reset to until the RFC about the content is concluded. Remember, I helped create the version I have now reverted, hell I created the Seth Rich section. I am trying to sort out this mess within the confines of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha, groan ow. Trying to summarize my feelings.. That does seem to be the best that can be done in the circumstances I'm afraid. NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

And if people stopped altering it this would not be an issue (and would not have been one). Can we please leave it alone until the RFC is closed? People do need to know which versions is being discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of "stable version"

On 8 October 2021, administrator El C imposed the consensus required provision on Julian Assange. Since then, there have been two nonconsensual restorations—here and here—of previously disputed content to what the editor (who is not an admin) calls the "last stable version."

According to the explanatory supplement Wikipedia:Stable version:

It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator.

Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I just had a look there and the differences from the version when the sanctions were applied are trivial. Things like a link put in and curly quotes changed to straight quotes and those are good. So I woud say the reverts per the sanctions are fine. NadVolum (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

[10] is a diff between the version just before the sanction was applied andthe current version I looked at. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If differences are trivial, why violate the consensus required provision to restore previously disputed content? Surely minor corrections could have been made to existing content without reverting to the "last stable version." Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have overlooked the second diff to which I linked, in which the editor removed the entire subsection (−4,256‎ bytes) devoted to Seth Rich. There is nothing trivial about such a wholesale nonconsensual deletion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It was duplicated in the reversion of the 2016 election section. NadVolum (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: In the case of the Seth Rich restoration, I believe your revert just removed recent uncontested additions to the section. I request you undo that revert. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean putting a section header and link onto it? I'd support that. NadVolum (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

MY reason for doing this was there seemed to be a lot of confusion as to what was meant by "last stable version" and "current version" and users had in fact stated that that they felt this version was OK. Thus I felt that the edits that altered that had been contested. It also makes it easier in the RFC above to know just what we are talking about. As was pointed out the seth rich section duplicate material in the restored content. When there is a dispute we go back to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, but I believe that much or all of the Rich text had not been dispted and much of it was a good addition to the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation restored without consensus

Subsection 4.6 2016 U.S. presidential election contains a serious BLP violation. We state that The Washington Post "published a story on the Access Hollywood tape, a recording of a Trump interview conducted by television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump described his habit of sexually assaulting women." However, the cited source does not contain the word "habit" and its two mentions of "assault" stem respectively from an official of an organization that endorsed Trump's soon-to-be defeated Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and from Mitt Romney, whom Trump earlier that year had derided as "one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics." These biased sources do not justify Wikipedia's accusation of chronic criminal behavior against a living person.

Our BLP policy directs that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLPPUBLIC further advises that in the case of public figures, if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Accordingly, at 11:11 on 10 October 2021, I removed the contentious material, with the edit summary "attribute quotation instead of paraphrasing, which can be misconstrued as criminal behavior and thus implicates WP:BLPCRIME." Instead of "Trump described his habit of sexually assaulting women" in Wikipedia's voice, my revision read "Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women," with inline attribution to The Washington Post and with no accusation of criminal behavior.

Seven hours later, the contentious material was restored without consensus and in violation of the discretionary sanction imposed two days before by an administrator. I have added a {Disputed inline} tag, but otherwise the BLP violation remains intact. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You are allowed to revert a BLP violation at any time on any page. SPECIFICO talk 09:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I reverted—and it was restored. I don't know how to explain that any more clearly than I did in creating this talk page section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You already said that. SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the current consensus sanction says you have to raise it at WP:BLPN and ask for a quick resolution there. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Can't see where I got that from. But if you do remove it on BLP grounds please set up a section at BLPN nd refer to that otherwise people will start going on and on about th consensus required sanction.

See #Consensus required restored where it says go to BLPN. NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I'd have thought groping was a form of sexual assault but it is much better to follow what the sources say rather than inferring anyting. NadVolum (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Or WP:AE if the consensus required restriction has been violated by them and not you. However in this case I don't think that would work so I'd recommend BLPN. NadVolum (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You got reverted but it was rolled into the change to the "last stable version." I will restore your improvement which addresses a BLP sensitive issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy enough with the change. Hopefully we can consider the page as it is now as a new start state for improvement over that when the consensus required sanction was applied. I think now might be a good time to try putting back the edits to the 2016 section - but getting consensus one at a time. For instance I think this Trump business should be removed and not talked about here until the Podesta emails or 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak articles says something about it at the very least - but I can't see us getting consensus on that anytime soon. NadVolum (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wording of the indictment

Currently the indictment is worded as follows:

Conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information,

Conspiracy to commit computer intrusions,

seven counts of Obtaining national defense information,

nine counts of Disclosure of national defense information.

There are some problems with the wording which should be fixed:

• The first words on some lines are capitalised and on others are not.
• The words "Obtaining" and "Disclosure" start with a capital.
• The word "defence" is misspelt.

Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think these could be changed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Defense is the American spelling. The others are legalese ways of marking the actual charges, I don't see a need for Wikipedia to follow that. Is this article supposed to be American english or British or what? NadVolum (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's Australian English, which is as good as it gets, SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is defence in Strine. :-) NadVolum (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Maria Ressa's assessment

Re this edit, I believe that Maria Ressa's views on Assange are UNDUE here. This very article lists dozens of activists and politicians supporting or denouncing Assange. What makes her opinion special? Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

7%266%3Dthirteen, this article is under "consensus required" discretionary sanction (see details at the top of the talkpage) which means that "[a]ll editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." As far as I can see the Ressa's opinion is a new edit and thus should not be restored before a consensus is established. Could you self-revert your edit? Alaexis_¿question? 21:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

We're seeking actual content, not just mention of supporters and detractors. Ressa's comments are serious, in contrast with the preceding comment from The Guardian about Poitras' film. Let's compare:

• Maria Ressa (co-winner of the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize) was asked what she thought of Assange's arrest. "I think that the wholesale dumping of WikiLeaks actually isn't journalism," she replied. "A journalist sifts through, decides and knows when something is a value to national security, and withholds until you can verify that it isn't, that people who should not be put in harm's way by that information are protected."
• As the subject of director Laura Poitras's 2016 documentary film, Risk, "Assange comes across," wrote The Guardian in 2021, "as vain, sexist, arrogant and messianic."

It's pretty obvious which content is encyclopedic and substantive. Ressa is literally fighting for her life (Duterte would love to kill her) to keep real journalism alive in the Philippines. I say we keep Ressa and drop Guardian/Poitras. -- Valjean (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Since March 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to 109 individuals, only eight of whom have been journalists. Of the three such 21st-century laureates, 2011's co-recipient Tawakkol Karman was one of 500 signatories of a March 2016 statement calling on the governments of Sweden and the UK "to comply without further delay with the UN Working Group's findings and 'ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'" However, Karman has not made any individual statement regarding Assange, nor has 2021 co-recipient Dmitry Muratov. Which leaves just a single journalist Nobel Peace Prize winner who, in particular, assessed Julian Assange: Maria Ressa, in a quotation directly attributed to a reliable source, a video published by Time (magazine). That makes her opinion special. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss it but there is no consensus needs to be achieved before adding this information. El_C, I'm tagging you as you have added the consensus required provision. This edit has been challenged via revert and has been restored without consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 07:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Receiving a Nobel prize does not render an individual noteworthy for their opinion on any and all subjects. Opinions are included if and only if reliable sources indicate that the individual is noteworthy for their view on that subject. For the same reason that there is a consensus not to include opinions of merely "famous" supporters and detractors, we do not include views not considered noteworthy by reliable sources. I can see one source (Yahoo) that reposted the video as syndicated/aggregated content. That is not sufficient to render the opinion encylopaedic. Cambial foliage❧ 07:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NO but she seems as notable as many of the positive comments we have about Assange, she is an award-winning journalist (and one of the few to have a noble prize, something many of the other voices we have here do not have), two decades in fact of journalistic experience. She is one of the leading figures on the information and Democracy Commission launched by Reporters Without Borders. She in fact has many similarities to Assange himself, including being arrested, and that arr4st being condemned as an attack on journalistic freedom. Yes I think here views are worthy of inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting research. Could you indicate where reliable sources have indicated her views on Assange are worthy of mention, which is the criterion used on this website? Cambial foliage❧ 09:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Having said that, if this needs a third party RS reporting it, so do all the opinions we list (or names). Rather than linking to their own works, it is no different. So either we only list opinions written about by third-party RS, or we also allow interviews, opinion columns or articles written by the people whose views we give. What is it to be?Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of What is it to be? We follow WP policy here. WP:BLPBALANCE is unequivocal: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The views of individuals that are self-published should also not be included - I see someone snuck in a couple of johnpilger.com articles; these should be removed if there are no secondary sources reporting on what is expressed in those articles. Cambial foliage❧ 09:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC) [edit:also]

It's not an SPS, [[11]], it's an interview by Yahoo news. And again, if we have opp-eds we can have this, as this is not even written by here, its an interview.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't claimed it's an SPS. My fault; I should have been clearer: that was a separate statement mentioned because of the johnpilger.com articles. The reason the Ressa statement ought not to be included is that one presenter asked her a question on a red carpet. Did a reliable secondary source think her opinion important enough to report on? I see a mention on wsws.org (not considered a reliable source) and a passing mention in an opinion piece in The Manila Times, which seems largely intended to disparage Ressa, likely part of the well-known animosity between the MT and Rappler. Her having a prize is great, but not relevant to addressing whether her view on A should be on this website. Cambial foliage❧ 10:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Participants, please stop pinging me to enforce the sanction. Instead, explain the purported violation to the editor in question and give them a chance to undo it. If that fails, take it to WP:AE. If that also fails (lack of enforcement there, as was complained above somewhere), then the sanction will be lifted and will probably just go with blocks for edit warring or with full protection (or any combination therein). El_C 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden and others called [Assange] a "terrorist”

We supply four citations to support the assertion that:”Then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and others called [Assange] a "terrorist””. Here’s what the four RSs say:

• The Guardian article: tells us that, during an interview Biden was asked the leading question [prompted by a quote from Mitch McConnell], if he: “saw Assange as closer to a hi-tech terrorist than the whistleblower who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s” to which Biden replies: “I would argue it is closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers”. “closer to” is most certainly not the same as saying Assange is a “terrorist” (or even high-tech terrorist) as out article misleadingly says.
• The NBCNews Article: Quotes Mitch McConnell describing Assange as “a high-tech terrorist” – clearly a “high-tech terrorist” is not exactly the same thing as a “terrorist” we should not be using misleading partial quotes.
• The Hill Article: Quotes Newt Gingrich as saying “Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism”. This is the closest quote to actually calling Assange a plain “terrorist” though even here he does not actually use the word our article quotes, ie: “terrorist”.
• The Telegraph article: Says :” Writing on her Facebook page on Monday, [Sarah] Palin questioned why the US authorities were not looking for [Assange] in the same way that it had hunted suspected terrorists.” Then later talking about Wikileaks (not Assange) we have: “Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?” Questioning why an individual or organisation is not treated in the same way as a terrorist/terrorist organisation is not quite the same as straightforwardly calling them a terrorist as our article claims (also worth noting that Palin has since strenuously recanted her attacks on Assange and Wikileaks and has vigorously defended Assange on several occasions). At the end of the artile we have a quote from Rick Santorum saying:“We haven't gone after this guy, we haven't tried to prosecute him, we haven't gotten our allies to go out and lock this guy up and bring him up on terrorism charges.” Again – questioning why someone is not brought up on terrorism charges is not the same as directly calling them a “terrorist”.

The wording we use is disgracefully misleading and in violation of WP:BLPPUBLIC I am removing it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Prunesqualer for dealing with this inappropriate content that fails to comply with Wp:V as well as Wp:BLP Cambial foliage❧ 12:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But removing it completely may not have been the best way to do. The Hill and NBC News are reliable sources. They deemed Gingrich and McConnel’s views as worth reporting on. So they should probably be included. But as you rightly point out they need to be reported accurately. Cambial foliage❧ 12:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see an easy fix for this bad wording – please also note, above, I drew attention to an imbalance in this “assessments” section – there are several rather mocking or otherwise pejorative statements quotes and references about Assange in the section but not one positive quote – I hope before editors try to get Assange labelled a “terrorist” again they will also include a genuine positive quote about him to give some balance. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Slightly off topic but thats not how we do WP:BALANCE. Using positive quotes for the purpose of balancing out negative ones (or vice versa) would be reprehensible conduct unbecoming of an editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

HOw is this not being disused in Assessments above?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the habit of certain editors of reverting every edit I make (often within a matter of minutes without even examining the material) I wanted no misunderstanding about why I had removed the “terrorist” sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

“Assessments” section

Now that Assange’s awards and achievements have been stripped from the “Assessments” section (relegated to a perfunctory list near the foot of the article) we seem to have lost some balance. In the section we use quotes which describe Assange as a “terrorist” and his activities as “illegal” – but we can’t seem to find room for any positive quotes/assessments other than the mocking inclusion of “Rockstar [sic] of the year” (seems to me there is far too much snide jeering injected into the article by some editors). It’s good we inform the reader about the prominent people who have shown “support for Assange” but surly a genuinely positive quote or two, counterbalancing the ultra pejorative “terrorist” label, would be in order? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

IN what way have we lost balance, we still have plenty of stuff about support for him. in fact we have 65 words in the condemnation part and 86 words in the support part (excluding rock star of the year). The problem is that the condemnation section is prose text about what people have said, and the support section is just a pointless list of names. So let's remove the names and instead have one or two good quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I seem to recall a while back making just this point, what we need is not a list of names, but one or two quoted opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The “celebrities” most particularly the activists, intellectuals, and politicians who have come out in support of Assange tell us something about Assange’s stature, and since most educated people know something about the opinions/POVs of say Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei etc it gives insight into what Assange stands for (you can tell a lot about a person from their friends as the saying goes). I could see a case for a separate section at the foot of the article listing high profile supporters (like the awards section) and that way we could just mention of a few key figures with their quotes about Assange in the midst of the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Then it's balanced, as it has the same word count. What we can't do is unbalance it in a way that gives support of him greater coverage. And no I do not agree we should have some list of supporters any more than we need a list of detractors. But if we have one, we must have the other, that is what NPOV means.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I wondered for one moment if we really need to be petty enough to count the number of names we list in people who support Assange and those who are hostile - and then I remembered: this is the Julian Assange page– so, yes of course we do. I’ve made the case for a list of supporters above “you can tell a lot about a person from their friends” – I accept that you can also tell a lot about a person from their enemies, and so I’ll go along with an anti-Assange list in tandem. One thing’s for sure quotes about Assange being a “terrorist” engaged in illegal activities should be balanced with some positive quotes “that is what NPOV means”.Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And we should not turn this page into a list, I have said that before. We gain nothing by this, we do by one or two choice quotes. By all means reducing the last and replace it with quotes. My last word on this, as we are going round in circles again. Nor did I count the names, I counted the words, it is not my fault one is prose and one is just a list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate that was your last word, since I was hoping for a reasoned counter to the argument that a person’s friends and enemies tell you something about them – perhaps someone else would address that? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I will answer that, no it does not. Anymore than it did with anyone another person, also they are not "friends" and "enemies", they are supported and detractors. Remember uncle Joe Stalin? people support someone for many reasons, expediance being one, another is the enemy of my enemy. This is why a list is pointless, it tells us nothing about why they support (or oppose) him. So I have now answered that question. This is my last comment on that this. I oppose a list of names, I have always opposed a list of names and will continue to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

OK Slatersteven I understand you’ve said your piece now perhaps someone else could address this: As someone who is interested in Assange I always prick up my ears when a prominent person steps in to either support, or criticise Assange. A list of supporters and critics gives people like me a spring board for looking further into the person’s reasons for publicly taking sides on such a controversial issue/ examining what they have to say. An encyclopaedia should give us this information not suppress it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's get some basic principles right here. "Balance" and "due weight" here pretty much never mean "equal number" on each side, at least for controversial subjects, so attempting to have the same number violates several policies. We give more due weight, IOW greater number, to the side or POV covered the most by the most RS. That rarely produces an equal number on each side. IOW, avoid false balance. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You make a fair point – although as long as RS can be produced for all the individuals listed then clearly some editorial common sense must be used as to which names are worth including/ are important or revealing. That said, how do you stand on one or two positive quotes about Assange in the section? After all its titled “assessments” and already includes the (extremely harsh) assessment that Assange was a “terrorist” Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good, and some positive quotes might be a good idea. That might solve one of Burrobert's points below (make explicit). -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Some comments on the "Assessments" section:

• Why does it include the sentence "In 2011, Assange filed for the trademark "Julian Assange" in Europe, which was to be used for "Public speaking services; news reporter services; journalism; publication of texts other than publicity texts; education services; entertainment services"."?
• Most of the sources are from 2010. Let's update this.
• "Support for Assange came from .. ". What does this mean? Did these people like his dress sense, his manners, his after-dinner conversation? What was the nature of this support? On the other side, the nature of the criticism was made explicit - "his activities [were] "illegal"", he was a "terrorist", he should be subject to "assassination or execution". Burrobert (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Good points. -- Valjean (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Please! Talk about abuse of language. Assasination is not a "criticism". The criticism is attributed to Pompeo and is uncontested. The Yahoo!! "revelations" are not corroborated, UNDUE for this article even if true, and as several editors have noted should be considered for articles about the CIA, Trump, US covert actions, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a different section from this. NadVolum (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Responded to Burrow 3 cm above in this section, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that just saying"support for Assange came from.." is pretty much content free. The reader would have to look at the citations to get anyhere. I agree completely with Burrobert about that it needs to be more explicit. NadVolum (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  How would the following do: “Noam Chomsky described Assange as having “...performed an enormous service to all the people in the world who treasure the values of freedom and democracy...””? taken trom here Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Chomsky is nowadays not worth a hill of beans, I'm afraid. Might as well be quoting Glenn Greenwald, Taibbi,et al. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree about Chomsky: seems to me he still has some interesting things to say – Biden on the other hand (who we see fit to Quote describing Assange as a “terrorist”) IMO never was “worth a hill of beans” (unless you happen to own shares in an arms company). However, such lines of argument, by themselves, seem destined to get us nowhere. If individual editors think them “worth a hill of beans” is neither here nor there, in their own ways Chomsky and Biden are both notable figures worthy of quoting. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that "both notable figures worthy of quoting." -- Valjean (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't hang on WP editors' affection for Chomsky. He is simply not anywhere near the mainstream and hasn't been for decades. His opinion is not noteworthy. The comment about Biden is so detached from WP policy as to be unworthy of response. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  The opinion of Joe Biden, president of the USA's opinion is at best only as important as Noam Chomsky's, a man who does not have any ability to influence the extradition case, seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Nixon was ”president of the USA”. Martin Luther King had no “constitutional ability to influence”. Oh well - Whatever. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• There has been a long-standing consensus that assessments of Assange should be presented in chronological order, so that the assessments respond to the events of Assange's life. Suddenly this has been tossed aside. Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Jack Upland: I have rearranged Assessments in chronological order. Basketcase2022 (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's not the point. This is very early in the article and was originally a collection of opinions around 2010.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Whole load of predictable opinions here about whose view on Assange is notable by such-and-such a standard. The opinions are not relevant to page content and this is not a forum. WP:BLPBALANCE indicates how we determine whether views should be included. Secondary reliable sources are required. Most of the current ones fulfil this requirement, including Chomsky. Jack is absolutely right that chronological order is the most effective way to ensure the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. I think we should restore chronological order as far as it can be determined. Cambial foliage❧ 10:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If people want to replace the list of names with some positive comments go ahead, but it should replace the list of name, not ben in addition to it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So we also have to have supporters mentioned twice? We have to have quotes form everyone, so why do we not have quotes from all those who have attacked him? I provided what you have asked for, and it was not enough. We need three or four quotes, no more.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Who is this directed at? And if me, what is it you think I have asked for? Please revert to the version before your most recent reversion, as you have breached Wp:1RR. Cambial foliage❧ 15:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to set it back to there, as your version does not have consensus. Your change duplicates material. It has been opposed, and you must have known it would be. I attempted a compromise, which you have decided to reject. This gave coverage to support for Assange, it did not do so in a way that any user could have argued was undue, and did so in a way that made sure that as many varied opinions were given as possible.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You argued many times that views should be qualified as the actual view given, rather than a binary "support" or "oppose". I agree with that sentiment, and my edits followed the principle you said you were applying. The difference is that I didn't use it as an excuse to remove 95% of the material on a "side" I don't like. There is no reason to apply WP:FALSEBALANCE in making sure we have an even number of opinions on each "side". @Valjean: has already correctly pointed this out. You wanted views given in the actual terms, which is how it should be. That's now been done. I haven't restored any content you deleted, unless you are looking to Wp:WIKILAWYER by saying the wikilinked name of an individual is "content" that was restored. The list was the content, now rightly gone. The quotes are there in its place, which is the exact principle you suggested and said you were applying in your edit. Cambial foliage❧ 16:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent what I have said, I have said (more than once) we should have 3 or 4 opinions. So no your edit did not follow my suggestion, in fact, it went directly against it (as was clear from what I had added). Nor did I attempt any false balance, as the section I created was in fact slightly larger. I just did not (and do not) see the need to have some list of "and X Y and Z have all said 123". So I selected what I thought was a good selection of views (which is what I have always said we should do).Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for misrepresenting what you meant. It was not my intention. If your intention was that we reduce the numerous statements of support from many different segments of society from numerous countries to 3 or 4 opinions then my response is that that idea completely ignores the most fundamental aspects of the NPOV policy and could not even begin to be countenanced. I'm not going to try to parse what X Y and Z have all said 123 means as I don't wish to be accused of misrepresenting whatever it is supposed to mean. Where reliable secondary sources have deemed an individual's expression of their opinion on someone else as sufficiently important to report on it, then it seems worth including in most instances, particularly, but not exclusively, where the individual is deemed notable enough for their own WP article. Articles or statements authored by an individual (and possibly published by their employer), that are not reported on by secondary reliable sources, are not worth including. Cambial foliage❧ 16:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have opposed your content and have said why. It does not have consensus and should therefore be reverted, that is all I am going to say now on this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Section named “Children”

The tiny section named “Children” tacked on near the end of the article just doesn’t work. It consists of four sentences (I’ll deal with the first last):

• Sentence 2: ”His eldest child, Daniel, was born in 1989 in Australia.” - This is already dealt with in the “Early Life” section.
• Sentence 3: ”In 2015, in an open letter to French President Hollande, Assange said that one of his children was living in France with the child's mother” - This is already dealt with in the “Personal affairs” section.
• Sentence 3: “In 2020, Stella Moris-Smith Robertson revealed that she and Assange had two sons, Gabriel, born in 2017, and Max, born in 2019, while Assange was in the embassy.” - Assange’s two children with Stellar are already mentioned in “Personal affairs” - we can easily add the missing information “Gabriel, born in 2017, and Max, born in 2019” to the sentence in “Personal affairs”
• That just leaves the first sentence ”The exact number of Julian Assange's children is not publicly known.” - if needed this can easily go to “Personal affairs”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Usually we have a private life section where this kind of thing is included.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes - seems that “Personal affairs” does the job in this article. What do you think about getting rid of the "Children" section and moving the few things not covered elsewhere to that “Personal affairs” section? Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, it is what we do with everyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The current section entitled "Personal affairs" is a subsection of "Ecuadorian embassy period". Moving the section in what was "Children" - now "Personal life" like every other BLP - that includes information about children born in the 1980s, to a subsection of the Ecuadorian embassy part doesn't seem appropriate. I think there is a more direct question about whether the first sentence, sourced entirely to an "Entertainment Writer" for what appears to be a very tabloid website, should be included at all, if no better sources exists to support it. Cambial foliage❧ 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing I agree the section name change works, as now we can insert other material about his later private life – as things stand it’s a section with one paragraph containing four fairly short sentences, and most of the information therein is already covered elsewhere in the article. Perhaps we can fill it out a bit now. I’m quite happy to lose the tabloid sourced: “exact number of Julian Assange's children...” sentence BTW Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's a standalone section or a subsection, any heading that includes the word affairs—with its popular alternate definition as an intense amorous relationship, usually of short duration—is a questionable way to draw attention to Assange's various out-of-wedlock offspring. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: I actually intended to write pretty much exactly this in my last comment but got distracted and forgot. In other words I completely agree; the innuendo, deliberate or not, is totally inappropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The "Children" section is the best way of dealing with this issue. Assange has had children throughout his lifetime. the MOS:BLP says that events in a person's life should be dealt with in chronological order. It is simply wrong to suggest that a child that Assange fathered when he was a teenager was born at the same time as the children born when he was in the Ecuadorian Embassy. This section relates to children who are currently living and will probably outlive Assange. Hence this section is placed at the end of the article. "Personal life" sections are not supported by MOS:BLP or by logic. All life is personal. In Assange's case he hasn't had a job for some time. There is no way you can separate someone's marriage, intimate relationships, or children from the rest of their lives. The "Personal affairs" was recently inserted into the "Ecuadorian embassy period" without consensus. I don't believe it should exist. It certainly shouldn't be a repository of anything that eccentric editors believe to be "personal".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)