Talk:Julian Assange

Some old stuff

wot no article? I'm a bit surprised.....

1. today's article
2. older one

hmmmmm...... Privatemusings (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

hmm it is surprising.. I'm not sure if it'd be entirely coincidental though.

<3 Julian Assange

Side note: The above message ("hmm it... <3 Julian Assange") was made by an IP Address who, when WHOISed, gives E-WIRE-AU as the netname, and a location in Western Australia. Assange lives in Kenya, if I remember correctly. 58.166.17.72 (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Julian?

Correct me if I'm wrong but... I'm sure his name is 'Julien' and not 'Julian'. For evidence see http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/ and look at the top-right contact: julien@ post.harvard.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.25.194 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does sombody know the pronunciation of Assange? 134.245.5.104 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o2ZGk1djTU (5:25). don't know how to transcript it into IPA 62.113.209.26 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
2. No reference here to Wikileaks! I don't know enough about him to 'be bold' and update, but if anyone does that is one glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulvo (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Images

people keep reverting the good photos of julian to maximally bad, unrepresentatives ones claiming copyright violations which they are NOT. You can see how bad this is when there are two photos taken at a conference (new media days/copenhagen) within what appears to be seconds of each other, from the same camera, and the one that makes the speaker look dumb is picked, even though BOTH have been uploaded to wikipedia, one called "1" and the other called "2". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.69 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Copenhagen photos, you may have a point - I have changed it back from File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 2.jpg to File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 1.jpg, although I think that both of them are not very good (he is barely recognizable when they are displayed in the article).

File:Julian assange.jpg, which had been uploaded by User:Groasvans to Commons on 1 April 2010, can be found (in a slightly different edit) in this 2008 Wired article, for example - without any indication there that it is under a free license. It has just been deleted on Commons.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT wireds photo. It's distributed by WIkiLeaks itself as a press photo for the advisory board.

No one said it is Wired's photo. The point is: As it is usual on Wikipedia and Commons, the fact that a photo had been published elsewhere is seen as prima facie evidence that the uploader did not create it himself, i.e. is not the copyright holder as claimed. (If he is, there are standard procedures to identify oneself for that purpose, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.)

In any case, I don't see problems with the current photo (File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg).

Please sign your comments by appending four tildes (~~~~).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A version of this photo has now been uploaded again by User:Martinaharis as File:Julian assange 250px.jpg on Commons. Despite the advice given below, the upload does not come with evidence for permission to release the image under a free license (only with an invitation to ask for such permission by email: "See Talk:Wikileaks and julian@sunshinepress.org email.") Martinaharis described the image as "Head shot photo of Julian Assange, Australia, 2007, Date 4 January 2007", which is demonstrably false, see Internet Archive. This also makes the claim "taken by me, as per instructions from Julian Assange" dubious.

Because of this, I have nominated the image for deletion again and am replacing it in this article by the previous one.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think the File:Julian assange 250px.jpg photo is better. What kind of "evidence of permission" are you looking for and permission from whom? Gregcaletta (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of "evidence of permission" are you looking for - did you read the comment your were replying to? Once again: Back in April I already described one of the standard ways to provide evidence of permission to the user who said he was Julian Assange, see below. The fact that this suggestion was not followed casts further doubt on Martinaharis' claim that he/she was acting on behalf of Assange. Another way to resolve the situation would be to put up a notice at [1] declaring that that image is released under a free license, e.g. CC-BY-SA.

Lacking such evidence for permission, the image in question is usually speedily deleted (on the English Wikipedia under criterion F9). However I chose to start a normal (non-speeyd) deletion discussion on Commons to give the uploader more time to resolve the situation. But that discussion isn't meant as a forum for advocating changes in Commons' deletion practices or putting forth wildly inaccurate claims about copyright law, as you did there recently.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean make any claims about copyright law, as I am not an expert. I was making the point that it is impossible for Martinaharris to obtain "permission" from the copyright holder, if we don't know who the original copyright holder is. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. It makes the request for "permission" even more unreasonable, if she herself is the copyright holder as she claims, and we have no evidence to suggest that she is not. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your following remarks

... surely this is only if it have been published elsewhere on the web under copyright. As far as I know, the only person on the entire internet to have claimed copyright on the photo is this Martinaharris character. Until someone else claims to have copyright, there is absolutely no legal danger to Wikipedia in using this photo

That is quite clearly a legal statement (and a bold one). And it is false, see number 1 on the list of "10 big myths about copyright". It is wrong to assume that a photo published on a web page is not under copyright just because a copyright notice is missing, see also Copyright#Obtaining_copyright - copyright is assigned automatically, it does not have to be claimed.

A new user, Annedancer has reinserted the photo, claiming (on Commons) that http://iq.org/j-big.txt contains a release of the photo under public domain. However, that page does not exist (error 404).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That was not a statement about copyright law; I was pointing out the self-evident fact that someone other than Matinaharris would have to claim copyright before they can challenge Wikipedia for infringing copyright. I have tried to explain clearly that I am not assuming "a photo published on a web page is not under copyright just because a copyright notice is missing". In fact, I believe the photo is under copyright (which is why your 10 big myths is irrelevant). Again, Matinaharris is claiming to be the copyright holder, and we have no evidence to suggest that she is not. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the link was supposed to be this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20060714183340/iq.org/j-big.jpg. She wasn't using it as a legal statement; all it shows that the photo is not copyrighted by a major organisation, but rather to Julian Assange or someone close to him (such as Martinaharris). Gregcaletta (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would Annedancer have wanted to post the very same link that I had already posted at the beginning of the deletion discussion (to show that part of the uploader's claims about the photo's origin were demonstrably false)?

In any case, the deletion of the image yesterday seems to finally have prompted Assange and/or the photographer to resolve the situation (see below). I think this case shows that it is possible to provide permission under the current policies and practices of Wikipedia and Commons, but if you still insist on changing them, you can try to do so elsewhere (for example, in Wikipedia:Copyrights you would need to change the sentence If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The photo is in the public domain. There are no competing claims. End of story. From the Julian's site: http://iq.org/j-big.gpg.txt

"This photo was takin by Martina Haris on my instruction. We place it

into the public domain.

Julian Assange & Martina Haris" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.41.115 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. (The above URL is wrong again, but the link on the description page of the new file - uploaded today - is finally working. Given the contradictory statements about previous uploads, I have archived this permission statement using WebCite.) I'm happy that this is finally resolved, although I am still wondering why it took two months and two image deletions to get there.

The image description currently does not state when (which year) the photo was taken; as already remarked below in April, it would be nice if this information could be added.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: The mentioned permission at http://iq.org/j-big.jpg.txt obviously refers to http://iq.org/j-big.jpg, of which File:Julian Assange.jpg is only a cropped version (headshot). While this seems more appropriate for the limited space of this article's infobox, it might be worthwhile uploading the whole photo to Commons, too.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please fix"

Assange (or Wikileaks) seems to have objections to this Wikipedia article: "WL opponents seem to have created Julian's Wikipedia page ...").

I don't know if User:Privatemusings, who created the page, can be called a "WL opponent". I am certainly not (more like a fan, if not an entirely uncritical one), and I didn't get that impression of the other users who have edited the article either.

In any case, Wikileaks' statement "For ethical reasons we can't edit" is appreciated (it is in remarkable contrast to many article subjects who mistake Wikipedia for a PR outlet), see also WP:AUTO. But they (or Assange) are certainly invited to point out any faults they see with the article here on the talk page. Per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, articles such as this one have to conform strictly to Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and no original research principles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(replying to the wikileaks twitter thing) - I'm not sure where that's coming from - but yeah, if there's anything inappropriate here, please remove / fix, or if the chap himself would prefer it gone, perhaps there's some subtle way of letting us (the editors who've worked on it to date) know, and we can nominate it for deletion? - I'm up for whatever - oh, and I've removed the tags with the ratings etc. because I couldn't make them work with my updated info, and I'm not sure that anyone currently editing actually uses them :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved your comment here, to keep the discussions about different topics separate, I hope you don't mind.

The cited tweet by Wikileaks seems to object to the existence of the whole article, not to particular statements in it. But let's see if you get a clarifying response to [2], or if Assange will follow the above invitation and explain specific concerns here on the talk page.

These tags are being added to basically every article as a standard practice - some explanations about their purpose are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mendax

The citation (16) ,http://www.smh.com.au/technology/international-man-of-mystery-20100409-ryvf.html , makes no claims that Julian Assange is indeed Mendax , The article is inconclusive & speculative at best , this should be removed at the earliest . jeph (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald article carefully lists concrete parallels, which do not appear to be "speculative".

The sentence in this Wikipedia article currently reads:

Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out that there exist similarities between Assange and the person called "Mendax" in the book.[15][16]

So we have two independent reliable sources (the other being last year's Wired UK article) making that connection. (And additionally less reliable ones, like [3].)

And considering the fact that Assange himself co-authored a whole book about the scene he was involved in, and considered his hacking conviction a central part of his biography as late as 2006 [4], it also can't be said that this is an insignificant fact.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

this too seemed a bit flimsy, so I took it out too.. Privatemusings (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Wired UK and the Sydney Morning Herald (or Bernard Lagan) can be called "flimsy" sources. Please don't ignore the previous discussion, address the arguments that have been given for the inclusion and give some actual arguments for your deletion.

Also, please be a bit more careful while editing - your removal destroyed other citations of the same source.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think BPLS quite clearly asks us to have a very conservative tone , which is not the case when we say "there exists similarities between Assange and the person called Mendax in the book"jeph (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the current sentence in the article ("Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out ...") is actually written in a very conservative tone. But since you see it differently, what wording of the statement would you suggest to achieve such a tone?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Since adding that line does not actually add any significant value to the article or till such time "julian" himself or someone authoritatively comes out with it we should remove it.This is sort of like chasing the face of the man in the iron mask.It does not add to any real content to the article.jeph (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

< I agree with jeph - I'll do so now.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeph: You keep switching your arguments, first claiming that the cited source didn't support the statement as it was formulated in the article (when in fact it did), then objecting to the writing style (without specifying why you think its not "conservative"), then claiming the information has "no significant value" (without explaining why you think so).

sort of like chasing the face of the man in the iron mask - ok, I'll wait while you go and try to delete the section Man_with_the_Iron_Mask#Candidates ;) Seriously, the comparison is way off (did the Man with the Iron Mask write a book about the half-brother of Louis XIV?).

In the meantime, even Wikileaks themselves have linked an article about Assange as recommended reading which devotes a lot of space to Mendax ([5], in the Sunday Times). It looks like Wikileaks are a lot less concerned about mentions of Mendax than some Wikipedians are.

"It does not add to any real content to the article" - again, a personal opinion not backed by arguments. At least three independent reliable sources have now disagreed with you. (And versions of Lagan's article have now also been published by The Age [6], the Brisbane Times [7], [8], while Privatemusings still hasn't substantiated his accusation against Bernard Lagan that he wrote "flimsy" stuff.) Actually reading them will help to understand why this should be considered an important fact in his biography.

I am reverting Privatemusing's deletion until some more substantial arguments are being offered.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

where did you get the idea that I feel bernard lagan wrote flimsy stuff? That's not how I feel at all! (please consider asking me if I actually think or feel stuff like that before writing of 'accusation's - I think it turns the heat up unnecessarily) - I think the way we've had to write it is a bit clumsy (and yeah, lacks 'solidity or strength') as a snippet in an encyclopedia article - you quite like it though, so you've put it back. I kinda still reckon the article would be better without it - but fear not! We are allowed to disagree :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not conservative because there are no secondary sources for "mendax" .It does not add any significant value because the reference to "mendax" is not verifiable to the fullest extent because neither "julian " has come out in the open nor has anyone brought any clinching evidence.I stick by my analogy , it make for reams & reams of newsprint & bestseller books but at the end of the day it is nothing more that a nice lazy sunday afternoon read .

Wikileaks put out the sunday times article with a disclaimer saying "Profile on WikiLeaks editor (mostly, not entirely, correct) | Sunday Times" Thanks to Assange’s army of online dissidents, you can study the design of the Nagasaki atomic bomb or a report on how Britain acquired its nuclear weapons capability. " This is factually incorrect , the desing document being talked about is a preliminary doc , that gives as much info as u can pick up from any book, infact it was in the public domian till 2002 , before it was classified again due to a policy change . http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11115 , so if u cited the times article in a how to make an a bomb article it would be absurd , they have just mishmashed a lot of content they found online abt "julian"and made an article , just like most other articles available online that cross reference each other .Infact almost all the articles read the same , some even have the same flow of events. None of us have seen australian articles of the 1990's .

jeph (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Family

"Assange has a son, who is attending university as of 2010" from the wikipedia article reads like a fact , when it merely buys on the observations of others , that of Sydney Morning Herald from a book , does it not come under "original research" , is it verifiable ?? jeph (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

seems a bit intrusive, and flimsy, so I removed it. Privatemusings (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be familiar with the no original research policy. "Merely buying on the observations of others" (i.e. reporting information that has been published elsewhere, citing reliable sources) is exactly what we are supposed to do as Wikipedians. On the contrary, that policy forbids making own observations. And of course "no original research" doesn't apply to sources, or otherwise no facts at all would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia...

Also, your implication that the Sydney Morning Herald got the statement from the "Underground" book is obviously false. The article says:

Assange has said he has a son at university.[9]

Clearly this statement couldn't have been made in 1997, when the son was much too young to be attending university. In addition it should be noted that (according to the SMH) Assange released that information himself, i.e. it wasn't uncovered against his will by some sleuth.

Having children is usually considered a relevant fact in a biography about a person, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. (As opposed to the names of children - I would certainly agree that publishing them is intrusive, at least if they are not notable themselves.) That being said, I agree that the issue merits a careful discussion, so let's see what other arguments (besides mere opinion and a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies) might be offered.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article only says that "Assange has said he has a son at university " in the wiki article though it was "Assange has a son, who is attending university as of 2010" , which is not claimed in the article & falls under the ambit of original research. Also I could not find any secondary source for it in line with BLPS. What I meant was it "that of Sydney Morning Herald & from a book" .None of the other citations talk abt his son . jeph (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

yeah - I'd agree on this point also - I'll make this change, and the one detailed above. Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

of course, the status quo is that the reference to a son at uni. is absent ;-) - I think it's best left that way. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal is here between Jeph and Privatemusings, but this 'one bring up a concern and the other immediately go remove info' thing isn't appropriate. Privatemusings, I'd suggest you stop removing sourced material from the article without some basis in policy. If he's quoted saying he has a son in university and it is believed this is somehow relevant for the article, then it should be left in. Jeph's claim that it should be removed because no other sources than The Sydney Morning Herald and the book make mention of a son shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how an encyclopedia is written and what we consider reliable, secondary sources. Considering how long you've been editing, PM, I find it a bit unsettling how you've taken to editing this article. Lara 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

there's no deal, I don't think, Lara, and I'm not sure you're reading jeph's points in quite the way I am - I think he's asserting a degree of inappropriate synthesis in the way some information was written - however, I also think that it's dated and unnecessary personal information, so p'raps you'd agree with me on that front? Hope you're good anywhoo... Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

hacker ethics bit

I think the collection of writings in this section was pretty interesting, but it's not a good fit imo for a balanced bio, so I've removed it for now. I'll sniff around to see if there's a better article home for it.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes from Julian Assange

As it would not be ethical for me to edit this article directly, I am placing some notes here:

1. I have historically been a private person. However I accept that the public has a certain interest in what I am doing and speaking for and that the article may be valuable to people, if it is done with care.

2. The nature of my work, exposing abuses by powerful organizations and nation states, tends to attract attacks on my person as a way to color debate. The history of this page has numerous examples and, because this page is used as media input by lazy press, the stakes are high. Similarly, even when edits are factually true, there is a spectrum of truths about any person. What is inserted, and its tone, need to be not only true, but fair and representative.

3. The top photo of me is unusual for a public figure and tends to undermine my message. The edit history shows a lot of fights over the photo. The one used is not a press shot and is not suitable to my public role. It is a random photo taken at a random moment during a talk by a random person. Please use a cropped version of http://iq.org/j-big.jpg or another photo that suits my public role.

4. The 'market desire' for information about me and my status as a controversial figure has led to people inventing, and reprinting, a lot of junk about me that is either a distortion or is wholly untrue. While the Guardian (with some exceptions) and the New York Times (with few exceptions) have got things right, lesser publications have major errors. Even multiple publications saying the same thing can not be trusted, because they requote each other without attribution. I am attempting to get more into the public record to avoid this tendency, but I would much prefer to spend my time on exposing major abuses by governments and corporations than exposing shoddy journalism about me. Please do that for me, so I can spend time on what I'm good at, instead of reading my Wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.58.126 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) , modified by 209.236.250.213 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say that your restraint from editing the article yourself is appreciated - as remarked above, this ethical commitment sets you apart in a positive way from many people who abuse Wikipedia's openness to edit "their" article for PR purposes.

(Please be aware that based on the edits alone, there is no way to verify for certain that they were indeed made by Julian Assange, beyond noting that the first IP is registered to an institution where Assange recently gave a talk. But I am going to reply to your remarks on the assumption that they are genuine.)

1. & 2.: It is of course very important that an article about a living person like this one conforms to Wikipedia's principles, because of the repercussions it can have in the "real world", and you are certainly entitled to remind us of that responsibility. Unfortunately, in your remarks it remains entirely unclear which edits in the version history you perceive as "attacks" on your person, and which contributors to this article are suspected to have edited it on behalf of "powerful organizations and nation states". Focusing on the present version, you have not specififed which parts of the text you find unfair or not representative, which makes it hard to accommodate your concerns. - People come to Wikipedia for a neutral, balanced view, which (as you appeared to hint at in the earlier version of your comments) also has the potential be a valuable corrective to the self-image that a person or an organisation is presenting to the public. In any case, it is not identical to that self-view, see WP:NPOV.

3.: You are refering to File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg. The fact that a photo was taken "by a random person" instead of an official photographer does not mean that it can't be used. (Actually, most of Wikipedia's content is being contributed by "random" people instead of official representatives or authorized personnel.) Also, it does show you in a "public role", in fact at the occasion where in the opinion of another user (not necessarily mine, but it is still present in the article) you exerted that role "most notably". And I am not aware that you had objected to photos being taken at the event; at the very least you must have agreed to the official video recording that was done at the same time. Portrait photos in Wikipedia articles must not present the subject of an article in a false or disparaging light, but they also do not need to convey the subject's "message", a very unclear notion anyway. - While I am struggling to understand your objections to that photo, there would be nothing wrong with adding a different photo that everybody can agree on. A version of http://iq.org/j-big.jpg had been uploaded earlier as File:Julian assange. (For encyclopedic purposes, it has the disadvantage of being entirely undated, but perhaps you can remedy that.) As you see in the edit history, it was removed out of copyright concerns, and (as discussed above) it had to be deleted because it was lacking evidence for permission, i.e. proof that the uploader held the copyright to that photo, which is needed to place it under a free license as required. If you can provide that missing permission, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission (it is probably easiest to send an e-mail as described there, from an address that authentificates you - anything at iq.org or sunshinepress.org should do fine).

4. You are of course right in pointing out the downsides of journalism that come with freedom of the press. Misinformation can spread and irresponsible journalists can disclose information about organizations and public figures (or emphasize it to distortion) against their will, which can have a negative impact on their aims. But by its policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research, Wikipedia is to present information according to reliable published sources, regardless of whether we personally want to support or criticize the article's subject. "Reliable" means that the publication has a good general track record, not that it has never made any errors (so the NYT isn't excluded just because of Jayson Blair). It is unclear whom you mean by "lesser publications" - the Sunday Times? The "no original research" policy means that Wikipedia is not the place to "expose shoddy journalism"; on the other hand, "attempting to get more into the public record" first is exactly the right thing to do - then we will be able to cite your view alongside the disputed statement, or (depending on its importance and the circumstance) remove it as dubious.

Summarily, while you certainly have the right to demand that the article describes you fairly and accurately, you have so far not explained (apart from the photo issue) where and why it should have failed to do so. Instead of vague innuendo and general remarks about the press, please name specific statements and issues that you find objectionable, so that your concerns can be addressed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are always welcome to make contributions/suggestions to your article provided they follow Wikipedia:Autobiography. Also, if you find ways of improving your article or inadequacies/inaccuracies within the article, please be specific when pointing them out. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

US Gov't editting this page

Did anyone else notice that the edit that first mentioned that Assange was being "hunted" came from a US Government IP address? "16:48, 18 June 2010 152.133.8.4" It is only the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, but still strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericherren (talk • contribs)

Lengthy Ellsberg quote about diplomatic cables

I have removed the following (part of an even longer quote by Daniel Ellsberg) from the "Characterisation of Assange and his work" section:

..having read a hell of a lot of diplomatic cables, I would confidently make the judgment that very little, less than one percent, one percent perhaps, can honestly be said to endanger national security. That’s distinct [from the percentage that could cause] embarrassment—very serious embarrassment, [if people] realize that we are aware of highly murderous and corrupt operations by people and that we are supporting them. It is very seriously embarrassing..If the choice is between putting none of them out, as the State Department would like, and putting all of them out, I definitely feel our national security would be improved if they were put out. Between those two choices, I would rather see them all of them out. It would help understand our own foreign policy and give us the chance to improve it democratically. I hope they are out, I hope we get to see them.

User:Smallman12q has restored the quote without giving a reason (incorrectly claiming that he restored only part of it).

As already indicated in the edit summary, I have removed this because

• it is too lengthy, see also Wikipedia:QUOTE#Overusing_quotations
• it is offtopic (not a "characterization of Assange", he isn't even mentioned there)
• it is highly speculative (musing possible future decisions by Wikileaks about material they have - sort of - denied to possess)

For these reasons, I am removing this part again. If anyone has good reasons why it should be kept in the article, please discuss them here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

It has been argued that the advisory board does not exist. The reference goes to the WikiLeaks site, so there is no independent verification for its existence. Now, I'm not claiming this myself, but has anybody ever seen it? :-) The recent controversy should also probably be added to the article. By that I am obviously referring to the Manning-Lamo incident and specifically Mr. Assange's involvement in it. --77.109.215.4 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)