Talk:Julian Assange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Origin of the name[edit]

He has a typical French name, Assange, I though he was the descendant of French Hugenots.Is it the same than the French pronunciation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:747F:788B:7728:AA20 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

His surname is the same as his stepfather's and is of Chinese origin. It looks like this information has been deleted from the article. Totorotroll (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't be serious… nothing remotely Chinese in that name. French pronunciation yes, but I have no sources documenting his surname's origins. — JFG talk 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
"Assange is the Anglicisation of the surname Au Sang – a Taiwanese/Chinese émigré, born in Canton, China." KalHolmann (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The link is dead as of 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC). Boud (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Boud, I replaced the dead link in my preceding comment with a live link to Internet Archive. Please try it now. KalHolmann (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The archive link, and the indirect link to as a major source, do give strong clues regarding Assange's ancestry. But a clue is not necessarily a WP:RS. The next questions are: can we seriously claim to know who the authors of the sources are? what quality of sources are acceptable for a WP:BLP article? can the info be properly NPOVed? is ancestry info relevant in the "personal" section compared to other information? I'm not promising to work on this, I'm just making suggestions of what next to do for people wishing to add content to the article... Boud (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Boud, you are conflating two separate issues. This section is titled Origin of the name. As Totorotroll pointed out on December 1, "His surname is the same as his stepfather's…." As Wikipedia defines it, "A stepfather is the husband of someone's mother, and not someone's biological father." Accordingly, Julian's paternal ancestry traces from his biological father, John Shipton, not from his stepfather Brett Assange. Your assessment of "strong clues regarding Assange's ancestry" is not on point. KalHolmann (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You're right: so I'm correcting to: "strong clues regarding the origin of 'Assange' as Julian Assange's surname". Boud (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::They are being serious. In this book by David Welch a university professor it is mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The quote in that book is "Assange's unusual surname, itself given on Wikipedia in two competing pronunciations, is alleged to be a corruption of a Chinese surname; most persons say 'ah-SONGH'". The whole paragraph is sourced to reference 8. Lord Google didn't let me see what reference 8 is. So this is more a rumour (or Wikipedia self-reference) rather than a serious reference for the origin of the name. Boud (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a reference in Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography: "I've got his name - Assange - an unusual one, which comes from Mr Sang or ah-sang in Cantonese..." This is quoted here: Another reference is here: where Assange is quoted as stating: "'My father's surname is Assange. According to my father, on his side I am part-Chinese and part-Thursday Islander. My grandfather's name was George Assange and his father before him was also George, (however his) surname (was) Au Sang.'" Totorotroll (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering the lightning rod on his head -- does the etymology of his name matter? O3000 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This thread does not prevent you from working on other threads. Boud (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference category[edit]

I've removed the category "Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" per WP:PERFCAT. Just because he's mentioned in the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" doesn't mean he should be in this category. We don't include this category in the article of every pundit who has talked about Russian interference. There's also no evidence Assange or WikiLeaks knowingly worked with the Russian government to release the emails [1]. FallingGravity 01:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, that is a bizarre rationale. WP:PERFCAT pertains to performers, examples of which "include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc." Unless you can cite WP:RS that describe (and not facetiously) Julian Assange as a "performer," WP:PERFCAT simply does not apply. Before repeating your removal, please allow editorial consensus to form. I realize your attempt to delete the entire category failed today, but individually depopulating the category is not a suitable workaround to achieve your goal. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, then what does Julian Assange have to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election beyond being an "unwitting agent"? Like I said, there's no evidence he actively worked with the Russian government to publish the emails, like the category seems to suggest. (Also, my proposal was not to delete the entire category, but to define the scope according to WP:BLP.) FallingGravity 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
FallingGravity, as I understand it, your attempt to "define the scope according to WP:BLP" yielded a consensus to keep the scope as is. Instead of abiding by this, you're now trying to backdoor your proposal, proceeding as if it had been decided in your favor. Please await consensus here before imposing your singular will on this article. KalHolmann (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
By "backdooring my proposal" I'm sure you mean going through the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. FallingGravity 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I think BrownHairedGirl said there was no consensus regarding the scope, just that the category should be preserved. FallingGravity 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
FallingGravity, so which is it? Did you Propose deleting Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 16? Or did you propose "not to delete the entire category, but to define the scope according to WP:BLP," as you claimed on this very thread at 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)? I'm beginning to think you haven't read your own proposal, which would explain why you misunderstand the consensus reached. KalHolmann (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping a deletion discussion would produce consensus about the scope of the category if it was kept, but it seems that wasn't the case (although there was some support for removing biographical and other tangentially related articles). FallingGravity 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
FallingGravity, finally we agree on something: your proposal produced no consensus to remove BLP's from the category. That's why I object to what appears to be an attempt to circumvent the lack of consensus by singlehandedly removing selected BLP's one-by-one. Such an approach overwhelms my deference to Wikipedia's fundamental principle of Assume good faith. KalHolmann (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
He should not be categorized like this per WP:COPDEF. FallingGravity 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
FallingGravity, Your rationale for today, WP:COPDEF, replacing your absurd rationale proffered yesterday, WP:PERFCAT, advises: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes…the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for."
As our BLP describes, Assange has for many years been chummy with the Russian government:
  • 2010: Sources within Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office suggested that Assange should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
  • 2012: Assange hosted a TV show on RT (formerly Russia Today), a network funded by the Russian government.
  • 2013: At Assange's advice, Edward Snowden sought (and received) asylum in Russia.
  • 2016: WikiLeaks released private emails and documents embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, whom Assange considered a personal foe. Assange said he timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention, which was expected to nominate Secretary Clinton for president. Assange said Clinton was causing "hysteria about Russia" after the Democratic Party, along with cybersecurity experts, claimed that Russian intelligence had hacked the emails and leaked them to Wikileaks.
All of which is evidence that Assange's longtime Russian connections, and in particular his purposeful disruption of the 2016 United States presidential election, are among the characteristics for which he is best known. It remains to be seen whether or not Assange colluded with Russia in acquiring the infamous leaks. But it's undeniable that his role in all this is one of the driving factors in his current notoriety. KalHolmann (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A Wikipedian saying that someone has for many years been chummy with the Russian government does not mean we should put them in a category called Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia, each of my four bullet points above is paraphrased from Wikipedia's BLP Julian Assange. It's not "a Wikipedian" saying this; it's Wikipedia collectively as referenced in each instance by citations to WP:RS. KalHolmann (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Using your logic, he should be categorized under Category:People chummy with the Russian government. FallingGravity 23:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
FallingGravity, thanks for your brilliantly witty bon mot. That sure beats addressing the substance of my objections, doesn't it? KalHolmann (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is not some witty bon mot. Sources within Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office suggested that Assange should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with Assange being defined by Russian interference an unrelated election. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: I thought I already addressed this before. According to The Daily Beast, U.S. intelligence officials do not believe WikiLeaks or Julian Assange knowingly acted as a Russian front to interfere in U.S. elections. Plus Julian Assange himself has denied that his sources are from the Russian government, and even if you don't believe him (I myself am skeptical), his words are important when considering BLP implications of adding contentious categories. FallingGravity 18:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Assange wanted for espionage?[edit]

The German IT news site heise online (see de:Heise Online) claims "Die britischen Behörden erklärten aber, dass sie ihn wegen anderer Vergehen im Zusammenhang mit den Veröffentlichungen brisanter Dokumente trotzdem festnehmen würden", ie. "however, the british authorities said that they would arrest him because of other offsenses relating to the publication of delicate documents". However, heise doesn't give a source for this claim. Is it true or not? --rtc (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


still a necessary tag for the article? Doug Cousins (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

SRI International misidentified[edit]

The Hacking section currently refers to "Stanford University's SRI International". It should read "SRI International" and remove reference to Stanford. Stanford has not been affiliated with SRI since 1970, per — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcfriedly (talkcontribs) 15:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)