Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Mention of Australian Deputy PM (Barnaby Joyce)

Should there be some mention of the OpEd by the Australian Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 December 2021 (https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-have-never-met-julian-assange-and-i-presume-i-would-not-like-him-but-he-s-entitled-to-justice-20211212-p59gto.html), wherein the Deputy PM expressed the opinion that Assange should not be extradited, and that extraditing him to the USA was analogous to extraditing a person to Saudi Arabia on a charge of insulting the Koran? This OpEd has been widely commented upon and does seems to represent a growing sense within significant parts of the Australian government that Assange ought not to be extradited. Elsewhere within the article there is reference to the attitude of Australian politicians and the Australian government towards Assange. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. Similar opinions appear in the Assessment section. Burrobert (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We have documented the comments of Australian MPs elsewhere. Joyce seems to have had a consistent attitude since 2019. I don't see a change in government opinion. The question is how many of these opinions can we fit into this article? Are they notable? Have they had any effect over the years?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We really do need to have fewer of these kinds of opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have to say I think that the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange article was set up wrong. It is not a topic, it is two topics and not well enough connected as one. There are no articles on it as a topic. Perhaps if it was cut down to just the indictment that would work okay and could then be referred to from the main article. I think an extradition article should have been left till later to when Assange is either extradited or released in the UK, perhaps it would then be okay to deal with any trial till sentencing separately here if it happens till it ends.

Anyway it is irrelevant to what the Australian Deputy PM said as it does not cover the extradition. NadVolum (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think "arrest" could simply be left out of the title of that article. It has little to do with arrest.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay I've proposed doing that on the talk page there. NadVolum (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Small point. Under the Wikipedia policy on notability, I recall that notability does not attach to the content of any article. In other words, not everything included within an article needs to be meet the criteria for notability. That said, yes, the challenge is where to include information such as this. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I was using "notable" in the ordinary sense of the word, not in terms of Wikipedia policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-state hostile intelligence service

The Yahoo investigation has connected a few of the dots in Julian’s timeline. The following connections come from the Yahoo report and other references in this section:

Release of Vault 7 by Wikileaks --> Designation of Wikileaks as a a “non-state hostile intelligence service” in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 --> CIA plans to kidnap/assassinate Assange + the UC Global surveillance of Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Note that the designation of “WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks” as a “non-state hostile intelligence service” was originally meant to be in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 but did not make the final cut. ‘’The Intercept’’ reported that the designation was “wrapped into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed in December 2019". It is interesting that, by the time Trump signed the designation into law, the CIA had already started making plans. The CIA had also “turned” UC Global into a double agent working on its behalf “to provide live video and audio feeds of Assange from inside its embassy in London. The agency also launched operations to monitor the communications and track the travel of Assange confederates throughout Europe, and engaged in other actions to disrupt WikiLeaks from functioning".

I suggest that we somehow incorporate the connections above into the bio to provide some context for the UC Global surveillance. Any suggestions for how we should approach this? Burrobert (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC has closed, I think we need to drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain the relevance of that comment to this suggestion? Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, lets stick with what we have agreed, rather than dragging this out.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven is correct that the text that has been agreed upon after lengthy discussion is something we should stick to. Even minor, uncontroversial changes should garner consensus before being implemented. We should not add content into the sentences of that text, nor between them.

But the suggestion that this means material cannot be added before, after, or from the same sources as those used in those sentences has no basis in policy, the guidelines on consensus process, or common sense.

Burrobert, could you give some very rough outline of what you think ought to be added, and quote the sentences (preferably from more than one RS), that support it? Cambial — foliar❧ 16:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not proposing changing any of the text approved by the recent RfC. Beyond that, I don't have anything definite in mind. The idea was to provide some context for the UC Global surveillance as well as to indicate the legal significance of Pompeo's "non-state hostile intelligence service" statement. Some points that seem significant are:

• Sources say the release by Wikileaks of Vault 7 prompted action by the CIA
• The designation of Wikileaks (including senior members such as Assange) as a "non-state hostile intelligence service" was incorporated into legislation
• Sources say that the designation of Wikileaks and senior members as a "non-state hostile intelligence service" gave the CIA more legal options in dealing with Assange. These include:

Plans to assassinate/kidnap Assange

Surveillance by UC Global, which was initially employed to provide security at the embassy but was "turned" by the CIA.

"The agency also launched operations to monitor the communications and track the travel of Assange confederates throughout Europe".

• The allegations of kidnapping/assassination/surveillance were raised prior to the Yahoo report. The defence raised these issues in Assange's 2020 extradition hearing. It should be easy to find appropriate references for that. For example, The Guardian covered the story.

Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Vault 7/Pompeo, subsection 4.6 Later years in the embassy begins:

In March 2017, WikiLeaks began releasing the largest leak of CIA documents in history, codenamed Vault 7. The documents included details of the CIA's hacking capabilities and software tools used to break into smartphones, computers and other Internet-connected devices.[236] In April, CIA director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service often often abetted by state actors like Russia".[237] Assange accused the CIA of trying to "subvert" his right to freedom of speech.[238]

Why is that not sufficient? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• The designation of Wikileaks (including senior members such as Assange) as a "non-state hostile intelligence service" was incorporated into legislation.
• Sources say that the designation of Wikileaks and senior members as a "non-state hostile intelligence service" gave the CIA more legal options in dealing with Assange.

Burrobert (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide links to WP:RS for each of incorporated into legislation and gave the CIA more legal options. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The legislation is available here. Here are some references that mention the legislation and the effect it would have on the CIA's options for dealing with Assange. I have highlighted some of the more significant statements in the text.

• The CIA’s fury at WikiLeaks led Pompeo to publicly describe the group in 2017 as a “non-state hostile intelligence service.” More than just a provocative talking point, the designation opened the door for agency operatives to take far more aggressive actions, treating the organization as it does adversary spy services, former intelligence officials told Yahoo News.

• Top intelligence officials lobbied the White House to redefine WikiLeaks — and some high-profile journalists — as “information brokers,” which would have opened up the use of more investigative tools against them, potentially paving the way for their prosecution, according to former officials. It “was a step in the direction of showing a court, if we got that far, that we were dealing with agents of a foreign power,” a former senior counterintelligence official said.

• Citing unnamed former Trump administration officials, Yahoo explained that in using that description Pompeo was “neither speaking off the cuff nor repeating a phrase concocted by a CIA speechwriter.” Instead, he was outlining a pseudo-legal rationale for directing the murderous methods employed by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere against WikiLeaks. In the words of a former CIA official, WikiLeaks would go from a “target of collection to a target of disruption” for the intelligence agencies.

• Michael Isikoff: “I was in the room when Pompeo gave that speech in early April 2017 where he described for the first time WikiLeaks as a “nonstate hostile intelligence service.” I thought and assumed, like many, it was some kind of rhetorical talking point, a grabby line that Pompeo had came up with. In fact, that designation, internally, opened the door for the CIA to launch and plan all sorts of operations that didn’t require a presidential finding and didn’t — and wasn’t going to be briefed to Capitol Hill.”.

• Jennifer Robinson: “Now, this was something that was warned back in 2017, as soon as Mike Pompeo made this announcement that WikiLeaks was going to be considered by the CIA as a hostile nonstate intelligence agency. We were very concerned — and, in fact, I warned immediately — that this would lay the groundwork for unprecedented and unlawful actions by the CIA against WikiLeaks.”.

• Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the only senator to vote against the 2017 intelligence authorization bill in the Intelligence Committee, says his decision was due to concerns about it declaring WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service." 

• The bill, released Friday, contains a final clause stating that the Julian Assange-lead leak purveyor should be considered more like a cyberthreat. "It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States," it reads. In April, CIA head Mike Pompeo used that exact language to describe the group.

• But even the harshest WikiLeaks critics should resist the Senate’s attempt to brand the website a “non-state hostile intelligence service” in the 2018 intelligence authorization bill.

• In order to expand its legal options, the administration moved to designate WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” a label first unveiled by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo at an April 2017 think tank event.

• The creative relabeling was the culmination of an effort that had begun under the Obama administration. In the wake of Edward Snowden’s leak of classified National Security Agency documents, intelligence officials moved to label WikiLeaks an “information broker,” which they distinguished from journalism and publishing. The Obama White House rejected that effort as it related to all three, Yahoo reported, but under Trump, officials successfully applied the “non-state hostile intelligence service” label to WikiLeaks.

• A former official told Yahoo News that the more aggressive label was “chosen advisedly and reflected the view of the administration” and allowed Pompeo and his lieutenants to think more creatively about how to target Assange. Those plans involved both kidnapping and assassination.

• The administration also sought and won legislative language that backed up the claim for the expanded power. As The Intercept reported at the time, a provision in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 stated: “It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.” The drafts never left the committees that year. Instead, the final compromise bill, which included the new identification for WikiLeaks, was wrapped into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed in December 2019. By that time, according to Yahoo News, members of the intelligence panels had already learned about the CIA’s proposals targeting the group. Yet no lawmaker publicly raised concerns about endorsing the “non-state hostile intelligence service” label.

• Just a week before Sessions’s chilling announcement, Pompeo declared during a public address that WikiLeaks was a hostile non-state intelligence agency. Given the public setting, many dismissed the statement as hot air. But it turned out to be part of a much more disturbing legal theory. Eager to evade any oversight, the CIA declared Wikileaks a non-state intelligence agency, thus allowing them to act without presidential approval or congressional notice.

• After Pompeo gave a speech on WikiLeaks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in April 2017, Congress coalesced around a new definition of the organization. The Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 contained a “sense of Congress” resolution stating that “WikiLeaks and its senior leadership resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors, and should be treated as such.”

• The [Vault 7] leak led the CIA to redefine WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” allowing the spy agency to treat the self-described “transparency organization” as it does Hezbollah or China’s Ministry of State Security.

Burrobert (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for a link to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I support including: It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States, provided of course that we cite a non-primary source for that exact wording. However, I oppose including claims sourced to the contentious 26 Sep 2021 Yahoo! News story, to wit:

Still chafing at the limits in place, top intelligence officials lobbied the White House to redefine WikiLeaks—and some high-profile journalists—as "information brokers," which would have opened up the use of more investigative tools against them, potentially paving the way for their prosecution, according to former officials. It "was a step in the direction of showing a court, if we got that far, that we were dealing with agents of a foreign power," a former senior counterintelligence official said.

It has been nearly two years since President Trump signed the NDAA into law. In that time, have WP:RS reported that the fears expressed exclusively to Yahoo! News by anonymous former officials, as contained within the preceding paragraph, actually came to fruition as the result of the NDAA? Bear in mind, correlation ≠ causation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The exact wording of the legislation is quoted in two secondary sources above. A number of sources above describe the significance of the designation "non-state hostile intelligence service" and link the designation with actions taken by the CIA:

• the designation opened the door for agency operatives to take far more aggressive actions,
• that designation, internally, opened the door for the CIA to launch and plan all sorts of operations that didn’t require a presidential finding and didn’t — and wasn’t going to be briefed to Capitol Hill.
• this would lay the groundwork for unprecedented and unlawful actions by the CIA against WikiLeaks.
• In order to expand its legal options, the administration moved to designate WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,”
• the more aggressive label was “chosen advisedly and reflected the view of the administration” and allowed Pompeo and his lieutenants to think more creatively about how to target Assange. Those plans involved both kidnapping and assassination.
• Eager to evade any oversight, the CIA declared Wikileaks a non-state intelligence agency, thus allowing them to act without presidential approval or congressional notice
• the CIA to redefine WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” allowing the spy agency to treat the self-described “transparency organization” as it does Hezbollah or China’s Ministry of State Security.

Burrobert (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This undoubtedly merits inclusion. Propose a text please Burrobert. I've little wp time atm but will be happy to give my thoughts; ce, etc. Thanks. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Rightho. Here is a suggested summary of the sources above. The first sentence is already in the article.

In April, CIA director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia”. The official designation of Wikileaks and Assange as a non-state hostile intelligence service was discussed in mid-2017 during preparation of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. It was eventually incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that became law in December 2019. The Act says “It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.” Various sources have stated that the effect of the designation was to allow the CIA to launch and plan operations that didn’t require presidential approval or congressional notice.

Burrobert (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't all talk at once. Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Attribution of an extraordinary claim to "various sources":is weasel and possibly a BLP issue wrt Pompeo. Not good text. In the US, congress considers tens of thousands of items in committee hearings and incorporates many into the distant corners of legislation. If this language were ever cited in the justification of a specific CIA action, that might be noteworthy, Otherwise not. Generally when editors do not comment on a proposal, that indicates no approval. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I always think back to the words of Chuck Schumer, about the intelligence community's ability to get revenge on people. It went like this - "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you". GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I’ll pass over lightly the usual mix of nonsense, non sequiturs and unfounded opinion. The one piece of useful and constructive commentary was that the proposed text contained weasel words attributing a claim to "various sources". The way to deal with weasel words is to replace them with something non-weasel. In this case that would be the actual sources that made the statement. These are listed in the references above. Burrobert (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We have still not mentioned the National Defense Authorization Act designation that "WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States". It seems noteworthy. Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like that to be mentioned at National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 first befor being here. It should definitely be in the Wikileaks article, but does one of the numerous references below make a definite link to Assange rather than him just being in charge of Wikileaks? NadVolum (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is DUE only for the Wikileaks article, neither of the others. The larger issue of demarcation between Assange the man and Wikileaks has been neglected on this talk page and needs to be resolved so as not to come up repeatedly in discussion of every detail that entails it. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I will add it to the Wikileaks and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 articles and get back to you. It does say ""WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks ", so I would argue it straddles the demarcation boundary (if one exists) between Wikileaks and Assange. Burrobert (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the larger issue of demarcation between Assange the man and Wikileaks, this has been raised several times in the past few years. There seems no doubt that Assange is the founder and ultimate boss of WikiLeaks. I have been unable to find any evidence there is a board of directors or anything else. I don't believe I have ever seen any source that suggested Assange was not in charge of WikiLeaks or suggested that Assange and WikiLeaks are separated in any way. The WikiLeaks website [1]: It was founded by its publisher Julian Assange in 2006... WikiLeaks is entirely funded by its publisher, its publication sales and the general public. I have bolded the word publisher, as this indicates the sole investor in WikiLeaks is Assange. This might not be true, but it is certainly the way the organisation presents itself. Assange even set up a WikiLeaks Party to get himself elected to the Australian Senate. I think the onus is on editors who want to make out there is a separation between Assange and his organisation. The onus is on you. I think the real issue — which has been discussed in various ways over the years — is how to apportion the masses of information about Assange and WikiLeaks over the various articles which deal with this general topic. Earlier we had a discussion about splitting this article, but in fact this general topic is covered by numerous articles — how many, who knows — and the task we have is to decide what information goes where.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that made a very direct connection between Assange and the 2020 Defence act act and it certainly seems an important one so I fully support including it in this article. NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For DUE WEIGHT -- particularly as it relates to interpretation and judgment of a connection and not mere verification of fact -- it should be easy to find multiple and high-quality RS discussions of the matter. One Intercept opinion piece falls far short of that. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should Assange's involvement in the release of unredacted cables in Cablegate be included?

Withdrawn by proposer should have been more extensively discussed before proposing. NadVolum (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

On 2 September 2011 Wikileaks released unredacted diplomatic cables as described in United States diplomatic cables leak#September 2011 release of mostly unredacted cables. The Guardian said that Assange alone was personally responsible for the release and with a number of other newspapers condemned him for it and this assertion has been repeated many times since. There is a debate about this at Talk:Julian Assange#Release of password in Cablegate. Should Assange's involvement be included in his article? NadVolum (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was considering including the following secion just after the Julian Assange#Founding WikiLeaks section (copied from above discussion):

September 2011 release of unredacted cables

Main article: United States diplomatic cables leak § September 2011 release of mostly unredacted cables

In 2011 a series of events compromised the security of a WikiLeaks file containing a leak of classified cables that had been sent to the United States Department of State from around the world. In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full file. In February 2011 David Leigh and Luke Harding of The Guardian published the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy containing the encryption key. Leigh said he was assured the key was a temporary one that would expire within days. Wikileaks inadvertently released the file in a mirror in December 2010 possibly assuming it was safe if the key was safe. On 25 August 2011, the German magazine Der Freitag published an article giving details which would enable people to piece the information together. On 2 September 2011 Wikileaks made the cables public as government intelligence agencies then knew the contents but potential tagets might not. The Guardian wrote that the decision to publish the cables was made by Assange alone, a decision that it, and its four previous media partners, condemned. The unredacted cables were released by Cryptome on 1 September, a day before Wikileaks did.

References

NadVolum (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should cover the episode properly, either here or in a related page. I refer interested editors to Smear 30: "He recklessly published unredacted documents" in Caitlin Johnstone's useful catalogue of stories that have been circulated about Julian. Burrobert (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You want the section United States diplomatic cables leak#September 2011 release of mostly unredacted cables put into a separate article? I don't think it can go here in full as a lot is not about Assange. But surely the basic facts as regards Assange should be summarized here anyway? By the way I see the Gurdian sliming him with this went on till 2019 in an editorial The Guardian view on extraditing Julian Assange: don’t do it which by the title you'd suppose they'd avoid that or might mention their own contribution to it. NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Burro, please don't cite a self-described pillowtalk blog to support WP content. Do you have a more RS-based reason? SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that shows the problem with things like that list of smears, even John Pilger doesn't get syndicated to reliable sources when he reports on Assange. It is worth looking through but at the end of the day we need reliable sources to support what is said in the article and they tend to have an establishment bias. If you just followed the BBC you'd never know the CIA discussed murdering or abducting Assange, though they did mention he got permission to marry Stella Moris in prison! NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"The CIA" was not reported as having discussed those actions. It was agents within the agency. At any large organization, especially a government agency, all kinds of ideas are floated, discussed, and discarded. Also I note that as of the last time I checked, somebody still needs to correct the assertion that Mike Pompeo supported these carrying out such actions. The claim that the weight of mainstream RS embodies "bias" is unintelligible. Perhaps on your user talk page or a WP:ESSAY you could set forth the meaning of that. Maybe it will be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps [2] from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting might help about the bias, it might also explain why the editorial in the Guardian I mentioned above from November 2019 was their last like that. As to the CIA - if you want to complain set up a section on it but the reliable sources say otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum You've just made a serious BLP charge regarding Pompeo. Please cite and quote the RS that states Pompeo advocated kidnapping or killing Assange. As you will recall, it was decided in the discussion preceeding the RfC on the Yahoo! bit to remove the allegation that Pompeo personallyh was suggesting these actions. This is not a complaint, it's a policy violation that you and the other advocates for this content agreed to remove and then failed to remove. Maybe you'd like to correct that oversight now. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop trying to divert this RfC. Set up a separate section about your complaint. NadVolum (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I simply responded to your false assertion above that "the CIA discussed murdering or abducting Assange" -- your statement, SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources matter, especially here. Summoned by bot. This is a perfect case for relying on WP:RS, secondary sources. The Wikileaks saga is a classic place where individuals and institutions (both private and public) will lay out a persuasive timeline and it takes careful fact checking to make sure you aren't hoodwinked. Our readers are relying on us not to let that through. The way we do that is by relying on professional fact checkers. And we do that by relying on our standards for reliable secondary sources. Linking to a non-RS source weakens your argument. Chris vLS (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

*include It has been widely discussed and reported by RS, so I see no reason to exclude it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• exclude: We mention Cablegate; anyone wanting to know more can go to that article. We don't mention how Assange released national security information on AUSTRALIA.[3] And was widely condemned in his native land for doing so. We can't mention every incident in his eccentric life that is as rich as a fruitcake. Any reader will glean a general idea of what he was doing, and can go to the Cablegate article for more information.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Mmm, that might be a good argument to exclude, we cannot have everything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So because the article hasn't got something about a leak from Wikileaks that isn't even listed as notable with him in charge we should exclude stuff that Assange was personally associated with, has been referred to lots of times, and came up again in his extradition? NadVolum (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying I should provide a plethora of sources to support the relevance of something I don't think should be included? But what the hell was going on with the rattlesnakes?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you asking about? The argument you agreed with was

• There is this leak by Wikileaks that is not included in the article. No indication was given of why it related personally to Assange or any other reason it should be considered for inclusion. It's only relevance is that Assange was in charge of Wikileaks at the time.
• Including what the RfC says would imply that the their example of a leak from Wikileaks should be included. The RfC described something Assange has been personally linked to, he has been continually accused of callously releasing the unredacted cables and that came up again at his extradition.

I hope that makes it clear. The RfC was not about some miscellaneous 'everything'. For instance the indictment says he published all the cables in Cablegate whereas legally he did not publish the unredacted cables as they had already been published before Wikileaks put them on its website. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• RfC withdrawn see top. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

While Caitlin Johnstone's article is not a reliable source, the article contains links to reliable sources which editors can use if they are interested. For example, Johnstone links to articles by The Guardian, Techdirt, The New York Times, and Reuters to support her statement that the release of the cables caused no harm. Burrobert (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Assange's reasoning is contained in an interview he gave to New Scientist which is linked in Johnstone's article. He also says "By the time we published the cables, the material was already on dozens of websites, including Cryptome, and were being tweeted everywhere. And even a searchable public interface had been put up on one of them". Burrobert (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why the following has not been mentioned since its significance is obvious: Assange called the US State Department prior to the release to warn it about the risk of publication and ask it for help in harm minimisation. Part of the call appears in the documentary Risk. Burrobert (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Why couldn't you have made your thoughts known in the previous discussion so a basic wording could be agreed before the RfC? And you've contributed to derailing the RfC by making it look as though it was based on a non reliable source. Along with the diversionary comments others have put in I think that has effectively scuppered the RfC. NadVolum (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is obviuous this RfC is going nowhere in its current form. So as proposer I'll withdraw it. NadVolum (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a pity since it is an interesting story. It would require a lot of space to cover properly. Even the long section at United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_mostly_unredacted_cables does not cover all aspects of the story. Anyway, it was a brave attempt to improve the article Nad. Burrobert (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not put in *Include so I don't see why you say that. NadVolum (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me in on it fellas. Is there a comp to have the most RfCs or what???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Snakes on a plane. You don't have to explain.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

With a title like that you don't need to see the movie. Regarding the RfC, It would be good to cover the issue but it would not be possible under the current circumstances. Burrobert (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What current circumstances? NadVolum (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If we all worked together to improve the article then we could do it. But, if we were able to do that, we would also be able to end hunger and achieve world peace. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Amen!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, many things have been explicibly left out of this article. I had to FIGHT to include Assange's hair. (And I think there's more to say about that.) Jemima Goldsmith didn't get a guernsey until I inserted her. The rattlesnake incident will NEVER get a go. I had to insert the fact that Assange had run for the Australian Senate (while in London, natch) and almost won! And he had his own party which had Alison Broinowski! Wow! The fact is Assange is a lege. But he wasn't v pop in Oz when he unleashed the rattlesnake... Etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have certainly added some odd facts to the article. I fought against the hair at the time. Can't recall the rattlesnake incident. Shouldn't be any in oz. Sure it wasn't an Eastern Brown? Burrobert (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong about including something about Assange's hair, It is associated with him personally and seems to have been of continued interest and a couple of different explanations. How was the one in the article about stress decided on instead of others I see on the web like that it was the result of a failed experiment when he was 15 or that he continually dyes it as part of a cult? Was that the source of the fight? By the rattlesnake incident do you mean the leak you referred to? I don't see that it had much to do with him personally, at most it would be listed as another notable leak with him in charge of Wikileaks but I don't see it even in the list of leaks in Information published by WikiLeaks so I don't see why you're going on about it here.

As to this RfC it was about something Assange was involved in personally, and which was noted widely not only at the time but continues to be referred to in a way that involves him centrally. For instance Julian Assange 'put lives at risk' by sharing unredacted files shows the BBC doing this in its headline in 2020. That is quite different from the business you dragged up as your contribution to diverting the RfC rather than addressing the issue. The article doesn't even mention unredacted cables currently. NadVolum (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I live in New South, not "Mexico". The Land Down Under. Oz. Bernard Keane of Crikey (a "Mexican" newsletter) wrote a turgid analysis of the incident. Sum Won said that Julie should be tried for "treason" under the "Criminal Code" (sic). Kevin .07 said blah. Kurrajong Post Office held a forum. But Brother Burro is right. Why rattlesnakes. Why the hell would an AUSTRALIAN company be producing rattlesnake anti-venom? For Steve Irwin? I mean I'm starting to think there should be a whole article on the Rattlesnake Incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to re litigate the hair affair. It isn't worth the effort. Agree that Assange's hair is something to which he has a personal attachment. I can't throw any light on how we chose what to include about his hair, since there were more important things happening at the time. What about the cat? WhoColor says that Jack had something to do with including that in the article - apparently he is responsible for the word "requiring". And DuckDuckGo provided no relevant information under the search "Bernard Keane/ratttlesnake anti-venom" so perhaps Jack could provide more hints. The Idyllwild Towncrier did have an article, in which local resident Kathy Keane is interviewed about a rattlesnake vaccine for dogs. The article says "But the vaccine is controversial. Local resident Kathy Keane’s dog, Lucky, died despite having a vaccination within six months of his death from what she believed was a Southern Pacific rattlesnake along a trail in Idyllwild. He was due to receive the vaccine in June when he was bitten May 30". It seems tangential to Assange's page. Perhaps more relevant is an article about Assange by Ray McGovern. McGovern includes a quote from Kurt Vonnegut: "But if Christ hadn’t delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn’t want to be a human being. I’d just as soon be a rattlesnake". Is this the so-called "Rattlesanke Incident"? Regarding the BBC article you mentioned Nad, the title of the article is a quote from the US government lawyer. Why would the BBC use that as the title for its article rather than, for example, "Assange's prosecution is being pursued for political motives and not in good faith", which is a quote from Assange's lawyer from the same BBC article. With some luck the BBC will disappear down the sink-hole if the BBC licence fee is removed. I fully support your brave attempts to include a full recounting of the story behind the release of the unredacted cables. It is usually easier to put this type of information into an article which has less scrutiny to test the water. The backwater articles provide more scope for adding controversial, but well sourced of course, content. Burrobert (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Walls of irrelevant text like that just drive people away and is what was happening to the RfC above. Don't talk to me about brave attempts when you contributed to scuppering the RfC and never contributed to the previous discussion where you should have brouught up your points. NadVolum (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How about you start developing Wikipedia following its policies and guidelines rather than making up your own about size or following any other sily reason you can for rejecting development of the article? NadVolum (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am merely illustrating why we need MORE (sic) separate articles. I am also following WP:SIZE. This article is going to hit 100k before you can say Donald Trump (fully sic).--Jack Upland (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is not a reason to stop content being added if it should be in. It is a reason to try splitting up and have sub-articles if an article gets large. It is an editing guideline and does not in any way override the content policies and guidelines. NadVolum (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

And there is no guideline, policy, or essay that requires us to add any content. Indeed the opposite is (in fact) the case per WP:ONUS, policy says we do not have to add even verifiable material.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement for anyone to add anything, it is run by volunteers. That does not mean that nothing should be added. And you're simply switching subjects again. NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No I am telling you how your arguments above are flawed. Everyone here was simply asked to remember policy is clear, we comment on content, not users. You have tried to use various arguments to attack me for saying that. Stop using incivility to try and badger users. I am for this whole section to be hatted by an admin as a derail and violation of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you just go and do that then. And WP:BOOMERANG isn't a policy but it happens. NadVolum (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

And both wp:civility and wp:talk are polices.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for annoying you Nad. I didn't notice the previous discussion. Burrobert (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay fair enough thanks. I looked up Crikey about the snakes and I got Bernard Keane saying "The "critical infrastructure" apparently leaked by WikiLeaks is a bureaucratic exercise that tells us nothing. Why is the press overreacting?" in [4]. So even less reason to pay attention to the business. Sounds like something the media puffed up rather than anything to spend more time on. Has some jokes in it. NadVolum (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, have it your way. Let's have an article bigger than Wikipedia itself. Bigger than the universe. Bigger than the amount of fluffy toys made in China...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are getting at. Are you really trying to get those leaks about critical infrastructure into the Julian Assange article? If so please set up a separate section about it. I don't see any relevant reason for bringing it up here. Could you please try explain more straightforwardly why you have done so. NadVolum (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

One more snide, sarky or off-topic comment about users and I will report this page (not a user, just the general tone of this talk page). Stop now and try to act civil. This is not a wp:forum or wp:soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

But Slatersteven it is an option. Let's call it Option Samsonite. In the end — as you probably remember — the Donald Trump size issue never reduced the article much. And we never reached a consensus about what to do. And we don't know — WP:OR — whether Donald Trump will be "remembered" by history as the Emperor Elabogalos [invented the whoopie cushion] or the last Prime Minister of Australia. Historians at the moment are guessing. Reality bites. But our job is to record what Crikey said. Because Mr Assange is an Australia and even ran for the Australian Senate (and you constitutionally can't sit in the... etc).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss problems with WP:SIZE do so on its talk page or on one of the village pump pages. If you actually want something like its recommendations done here then some editor that likes doing things like that needs to come and that won't happen with progress on the aricle stonewalled. NadVolum (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Option Samsonite.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stonewalling_on_Talk:Julian_Assange about how the level of discussion here can be improved. NadVolum (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Good detective work on tracking down the so-called Rattlesnake Incident Nad. The release needs a different name since it has nothing to do with snakes. It created a minor stir at the time and should be included in the article about Wikileaks releases. Regarding the release of unredacted cables, I don't think you will be given enough space here to properly cover this topic. As I mentioned above, why not add a full explanation to one of the tributary articles, such as United States diplomatic cables leak, which has a lot of spare capacity. Some of the points which you should include are:

• The story of the release of the password by Leigh and Harding.
• That Wikileaks was not the first organisation to publish the information. None of the other organisations which have published the information, including Cryptome, have suffered any consequences.
• Wikileaks' stated reason for making the release. Wikileaks was aware of the publication of the password by Leigh and Harding for months but didn’t speak publicly about it to avoid drawing attention to it. Wikileaks only moved once it learned a German weekly called Freitag was preparing a story about it.
• Assange's call to the US State Department to warn it about the situation and request help in minimising harm. The State Department ignored the request.
• The consequences of the release. As I mentioned above there are many sources which support the view that no one was harmed as a result of the release.

Burrobert (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What sources? There can't be a reasoned discussion of that assertion without the sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The points were related to an addition at another page. Burrobert (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't suggest adding content you are not prepared to support with RS references. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we not confuse things by discussing additions to other articles, we need to keep the discussion focused.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

He was discussing inmprovements to a section of that other article which would be summarized in this aricle if something like this RfC passed. But yes that would be better at the other article for now since the RfC has been withdrawn. And yes I'm not particularly enthused by things being suggested without some source being supplied with some sort of reputation even if it wouldn't be quite good enough for a citation. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The Caitlin Johnstone link is useful in the talk page because even though not a reliable source it links to many useful reliable sources and provides some direction. It would be wonderful if there was a list of good sources without selective bias! NadVolum (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Please review WP:NPOV. It is not valid process to take a non-RS personal opinion of a non-notable blogger and use it to cherrypick sources for encyclopedia content. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good attitude Nad. A reliable source is reliable no matter how you came upon it. Let's resist the Authoritarianism that seems to be creeping into this page. Btw it has nothing to do with cherrypicking which is about "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source ". Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cherrypicking: "... closely-related multiple sources, and an editor should be careful in handling that..." I think you'll be well rewarded if you take the time to read and understand the policies and guidelines that other editors cite to explain the problems with many of your edits and talk page contributions. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a quotathon: "If one editor is not familiar with some sources, another editor who is can edit accordingly". Psychedelic man. Burrobert (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got even that wrong. It is neither a policy nor a guideline, it is an essay. NadVolum (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you follow the italics just under the title of the essay you get to Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the use of policies and guidelines. That is an actual guideline and the first item is bad faith wikilawyering. NadVolum (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Release of password in Cablegate

The section of Cablegate in United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_mostly_unredacted_cables relates to quite an extent to Assange himself and seems to have contributed to his troubles. I think a new section should be added to the article at the end of the Julian_Assange#Founding_WikiLeaks section.

In fact it seems very strange that there is no mention of this either here or in the Wikileaks article as I think the contents are more appropriate here or at Wikileaks. Probably the simplest thing is to have a summary here and at Wikileaks and to refer to the United States diplomatic cables leak article for details even though it is less relevant there to the main business even if it is quite important there too.

I was thinking of something like this

September 2011 release of unredacted cables

Main article: United States diplomatic cables leak § September 2011 release of mostly unredacted cables

In 2011 a series of events compromised the security of a WikiLeaks file containing a leak of classified cables that had been sent to the United States Department of State from around the world. In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full file. In February 2011 David Leigh and Luke Harding of The Guardian published the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy containing the encryption key. Leigh said he was assured the key was a temporary one that would expire within days. Wikileaks inadvertently released the file in a mirror in December 2010 possibly assuming it was safe if the key was safe. On 25 August 2011, the German magazine Der Freitag published an article giving details which would enable people to piece the information together. On 2 September 2011 Wikileaks made the cables public as government intelligence agencies then knew the contents but potential tagets might not. The Guardian wrote that the decision to publish the cables was made by Assange alone, a decision that it, and its four previous media partners, condemned. The unredacted cables were released by Cryptome on 1 September, a day before Wikileaks did.

NadVolum (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Greenwald is not a reliable source -- if anything is significant there will be a valid source for the proposed content. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What have you got against Glenn Greenwald or Salon.com, never mind there's a ton of other links at the main article. NadVolum (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We mention Cablegate. I don't think there's a need to elaborate on it here when there is a separate article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes Cablegate is mentioned, but only as one of a list of important leaks released by Wikileaks with Assange in charge. This is different as Assange himself was directly involved. I believe it is important as it was the start of the break between Assange and the Guardian which led to some very biased reporting against him until 2018 which has thankfully ceased since I think looking at their reporting. The perceptions from that have contributed to his present troubles. There's bits which can be added like that Cryptome published the unredacted leaks before Wikileaks which should be in the Cablegate article whereas from what's written above it looks like Wikileaks did it first. NadVolum (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now added about Cyptome releasing the unredacted cables before Wikileaks. NadVolum (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I see Wikileaks has a bit about this but omitting any mention of Assange. So I've struck out the bit above about missing at Wikileaks. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've put in the Guardian article after Wikileaks released the unredacted cables as another cite. It contains some things I believe are wrong but I think essentially for the summary it is about the same. If you see something iffy then please say. NadVolum (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please remove whatever you are saying is incorrect and bring any sources here to the talk page for resolution. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article is in line with and a good citation what I said in the summary above. The summary just deals with the straight facts without going into detail about anything. NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to add the following in the now-withdrawn RfC. Improve the article's current treatment of the topic, but don't use the proposed section or sourcing. This topic is already mentioned in the "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables" section. The topic is notable and belongs in the article, given that all agree Assange was personally involved (though how and why are complicated) and the magnitude of the event. But the current text omits a lot, failing to mention the unredacted nature of the files, the blame game about how they were released, Assange's claim about warning the state department, or any mention about the impact of the release on the confidential sources named. But I think the proposed section goes into too much detail on the password mechanics and not enough into Assange's claims about why he did it and reception. As for sourcing, I would strongly avoid the Guardian, as they are a player in the dispute. I would probably avoid Greenwald in Salon, given it was just a strongly worded essay, not original reporting (and that he has since become so closely associated with similar debates). There are many better sources. Der Spiegel's treatment [5] seems excellent (and seems to be the actual source of the Greenwald article) and in concordance with other sources. And the New Scientist interview [6] provides additional context. Chris vLS (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The proposed placement was immediatly after the Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables section. Did you mean to remove he header "September 2011 release of unredacted cables" which was the first thing you said was missing? I thought I had put in about that again but I see now I hadn't in so many words, yes it should repeat that. It does mention there was falings on both sides but I thought any blame game could be left to where it was dealt with more fully in the referenced article as this would be a summary. As to removing good reliable sources, they've all become polarized and the best we can hope for is that what they present as fact is correct even if many leave out any facts they don't like. As you seeem to have found if we left out all the biased ones we'd have to cite foreign language sources. As for New Scientist WP:RSP says 'Use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims' - and everything is contended here. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also another Salon piece that interviews a reporter who was on the story and deeply into it for a long time. We do have a separate article on the subject. It's quite incomplete. The upshot was that the investigations were again reopened and again nothing came of it, so the damage done by the release was not offset in any way by any establishment of factual information about official or military conduct. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The only real information you gave there was that an interview of a reporter was written up in Salon. Please try and give enough to enable others to figure out what yyou are talking about. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This content is your initiative please read WP:BURDEN -- you can easily google, find, and read the Salon bit. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I was willing to do a search but you've given too few details. If it is so easy for you then give the citation. Then I can look at what you're talking about. NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nad. Have you seen this Salon article about the Ishaqi incident? "That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, "provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi." The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions." Burrobert (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"At the time" was prior to the two subsequent reopenings of the Iraqi and US investigations Greenwald-2022 is not noteworthy opinion. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No I haven't. I don't think that's relevant to this article as Assange was not involved. The article on the Ishaqi incident would be the prime target, and the Cablegate article has a summary of the Ishaqi article. Am I missing something? why did you bring it up here? Do you think SPECIFICO was talking about that? NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Two reasons why I thought it was relevant. Firstly, you were talking about Salon articles about the Diplomatic cables. The reference I gave was an example of those. Secondly, I assumed the phrase "The upshot was that the investigations were again reopened and again nothing came of it" related to the Ishaqi incident. Burrobert (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is for improving the article so please no more examples unless you can see a good reason why it is relevant to the topic or can help in some other way in improving the article thanks. And I'm sure SPECIFICO can explain without us running around trying to figure out their cryptic comments and putting words into their mouth. NadVolum (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyway back to what this section is all about. What do you think ios missing or should be added to the summary I gave or how would you phrase it better? If there is another RfC what should it be about? something more general? I'm not totally sure why people went off at a tangent and didn't actually talk about the topic of the RfC. NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Getting $56 million for defence not significant to Assange?

As usual @SPECIFICO: has removed [7] an addition I made to the article and we're stuck with this busines about getting a clear consensus. On 9th February an auction raised $56 million for Assange's defence - do you agree that this is not a significant factor in Assange's life? I certainly think it would be in mine if I was charged with something but very possibly SPECIFICO or Assange live in a totally different plane from me. Anyway say if you think this should be included in he article. NadVolum (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC) p.s. SPECIFICO say if you'll keep objecting and removing unless an RfC is raised and I can do that instead. thanks. NadVolum (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsure, what does it tell us about him, or his (alleged) crimes?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay it looks like an RfC is needed then. I'll raise one. after I come back from a bit of normal life. NadVolum (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What, after just 1 reply over a whole day?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You'd prefer I waste time arguing with you when you make statements like that and it is obvious from previous statements from you where it is going? You're not going to change you mind and neither is SPECIFICO. NadVolum (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

$52 million for Assange's defence not significant??? This page is being edited by plutocrats. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I asked what is its significance, what does it tell us, that 52 million people donated a dollar to his defense? What does it tell us, the question is simple. And PA's and snidyness are not answers.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

And with the above I am out of here, if you cant be arsed to actually discuss edits, then I will not bother to say anything more than Oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nad: Please present your argument as to why this is a significant fact about Assange's life and work. RfC should be the last, not the first, resort. Only if other engagement achieves no result. SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Does the significance of gaining $52 million to help your defence need arguing? You either get it or, ...... for some unknown reason, you don't. Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

1) That's not a constructive argument if your hope is to convince others of your view. 2) The NFT thing has received scant attention in mainstream press or from other mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

-- There is no need to convince anyone. Reasonably confident that a large majority of rational people would consider $52 million a significant boost to Assange's defence.

-- Put "Assange NFT DAO" into the duck.

-- "The non-fungible token, titled “Clock,” is a joint creation by Assange and digital artist Pak. It displays a digital counter of the days Assange has spent behind bars at London’s Belmarsh Prison, where he’s being held awaiting extradition to the US". Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't mix bullets and indents in ordinary talk threads. See this explanatory essay. Consensus, persuasion, convincing, all birds of a feather. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, rational people will. Look forward to the RfC. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks Burrobert I should probably have mention those points. NadVolum (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Release of unredacted cables

The section of Cablegate in United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_mostly_unredacted_cables relates to quite an extent to Assange himself, it has been referred to numerous times since and seems to have contributed to his indictment. As far as I can make out the biography now otherwise covers all the really major points but this is a really critical missing part. I think a new section should be added to the end of the Julian_Assange#Founding_WikiLeaks section with a link to and summary of that section of the Cablegate article.. The fact that Cablegate is referred to as one of the major leaks from Wikileaks under Assange does not indicate that there is something there other than just another big leak of documents and in no way adaquately covers this incdent.

I started a discussion and raised an RfC about this before but it quickly got sidetraced with various things which had no relation to the issue so hopefully we can figure out here what are the actual issues about putting a summary of that section of the other article here thanks. NadVolum (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this is adequately covered by "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That just covers the release of the cables with Assange in charge of Wikileaks. It doesn't mention or indicate anything about unredacted cables. This ia a biography and that is a thing he was personally involved with and has affected his life quite considerably since. That is the section after which I propose to put a small section about the unredacted cables and link to where it is covered more fully in the article about the diplomatic cables, if you read what is there you wouldn't know that it had anything in particular to do with his treatment in the press for the last ten years or the charges against him. NadVolum (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly a wikilink is DUE. Probably not a large section on it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You can see in The Guardian's David Leigh Talks About Julian Assange and Wikileaks about David Leigh's opinion of Assange, his newspaper the Guardian conducted a 9 year campaign villifying Assange - and his assertions have had a large effect in turning public opinion against him and was even raised at his extradition hearing. By the way the one in that interview about that Assange didn’t care if Wikileaks caused informants to be killed has been rebuffed with a sworn affadavit by a Der Spiegel journalist who was at the dinner and no one else has substantiated it. The unredacted cables incident is covered well at the Cablegate article so a one paragraph summary is quite enough in this article. NadVolum (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That comment is unintlligible. Please, no weasels. Please provide links for each assertion and instead of referring to this and "that" please specify whatever it is you reference. Then we can have a discussion that might reach a constructive conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The interview refers to ther interview of David Leigh for which a link is provided in the first line of what I said and in which he asserted Assange said he didn't care if informants were killed. This was contradicted in court under oath by Johm Gortz of Der Spiegel and he has written an affadavit to that effect, see for instance Assange’s Seventh Day At The Old Bailey: Diligent Redactions And Avoiding Harm. NadVolum (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

John Pilger says David Leigh wasn't actually at the dinner where he asserted that happened! JOHN PILGER: Eyewitness to the agony of Julian Assange. NadVolum (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Techcrunch is not a good source. Pilger is a bad source. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to use them in the section about the redacted cables, I was just showing there was bad blood between the Guardian and Assange. I might have a go later since the prosecution referred to that allegation so they must consider it important. Do you have evidence that anything I've said is wrong or think it has been unduly slanted in any way? And back to the main question, have you any thoughts about or particular problems with including a one paragraph summary of the section in the Cablegate article? NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion can only begin when there is a documented narrative in mainstream reliable sources so that we can evaluate what they report and its significance. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is about putting a summary of the bits relatng to Assange which are at United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_mostly_unredacted_cables into this article. I don't see the point in a separate documented narrative because we're not talking about saying anything different. Do you mean you'd like the actual words to be decided before deciding on the question of whether there should be a summary here or not? Does that mean you do on principle agree to the inclusion of a summary? NadVolum (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You will not achieve consensus for inclusion without demonstrating that your proposed content meets DUE WEIGHT in Reliable Sources. It's up to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NadVolum: I think you'd need to draft a few relevant sentences, with sources, before we can evaluate what would go into this article. It is evident that the history of the disclosure of the password and Assange's decision to publish afterwards - arguing that sources should also be able to identify whether they were exposed to danger by the password release - is highly relevant to Assange's biography from 2010 to the present day. -Darouet (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I had been thinking of just a summary of the section but a bit on why it is of continuing great relevance to Assange probably is in order. I think due weight is established by [8] in the opening for the prosecution 'Mr Lewis said the dissemination of specific classified documents unredacted put dissidents in Afghanistan and Iraq at "risk of serious harm, torture or even death".' There's lots more referring to the incident at various times in the past but if that's not enough I don't know what is. NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the sources to use probably are:

• Link to main article - United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#September_2011_release_of_mostly_unredacted_cables]
• The basic facts - Stöcker, Christian (1 September 2011). "Leak at WikiLeaks: A Dispatch Disaster in Six Acts". Der Spiegel.
• Guardian condemns Assange - Ball, James (2 September 2011). "WikiLeaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables". the Guardian.
• Analysis - Greenwald, Glenn (2 September 2011). "Facts and myths in the WikiLeaks/Guardian saga". Salon.
• Weight, use in prosecution - "Julian Assange 'put lives at risk' by sharing unredacted files". BBC News. 24 February 2020.
• Cryptome published first - Quinn, Ben (24 September 2020). "US has never asked WikiLeaks rival to remove leaked cables, court told". the Guardian.
• Rebuttal of case - "Julian Assange 'phoned White House to warn of risk to lives'". BBC News. 25 February 2020.
• Rbuttal of lack of care - Goodwyn, Bill. "Julian Assange held back 15,000 documents to prevent harm to US government". ComputerWeekly.com.
• Rebuttal of lack of care - MacAskill, Andrew (16 September 2020). "WikiLeaks' Assange was careful to protect informants, court hears". Reuters.

NadVolum (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

By this time I'd hope we don't get sidetracked with Greenwald and that we rely on better sources than Guardian and a computer trade publication. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly what is your problem with any of them? NadVolum (talk)

I have read ComputerWeekly myself and think it has a valid professional interest in the case but I can see others not seeing the link. So I'll put in a Reuters link instead. I see one of the other links went wrong too. NadVolum (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article mention Assange getting $52m for defence from a NFT sale organised by him and Pak?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Disclosure: I have Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Stellar cryptocurrency addresses, but have not used them in the past ~4 months, and have had no activity with NFTs in that time period either. I consider myself to have no conflict of interest in this area that would affect my close statement.

(Responding to the request for closure at WP:CR.) The result of this discussion was that there appears to be a slight consensus in support of mentioning the non-fungible token auction in the Julian Assange article.

First, there is a relatively strong consensus that the occurrence of the auction is reliably sourced. Four articles from separate reliable sources specifically covering the auction were linked in the discussion.

The main reason for opposing this additon was its lack of relevance to the article subject. Discussion resulted in a weak consensus that the information is relevant because of its connection to Assange's case against the U.S. government and the large number of contributors to the auction.

Another reason in opposition of the addition was whether NFTs are "scammy." This was discussed, and it was determined that this is not a valid argument for or against inclusion.

While there is only a weak consensus against the main opposition for this addition, the arguments in support appear greater. (non-admin closure) Bsoyka (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

---

{{rfc|bio|pol|media|rfcid=43189C6}}

On 9 February a non-fungible token auction organized by Julian Assange and cryptocurrency artist Pak raised more than $52m for Assange's defence. Should Assange's article mention this? See

• Reuters (9 February 2022). "'Cypherpunks have rallied to Assange': NFT auction raises $52m for WikiLeaks founder". the Guardian. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

NadVolum (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I think this is definitely significant for Assange in providing him with good funding for a defence against the case brought against him by the American government. Besides which he was invoved in setting it up. I think it is also notable in that more than 10,000 people joined in buying the centrepiece item. NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as not only are NFTs a hot topic right now (whether scammy pyramid scheme or not), but this would be useful contextual information for his defense against the government. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for the claim his legal bill is $52 Million? SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be some controversy about this. see Yahoo!. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing by finding that. I don't see anything personally related to Assange but if it gets anywhere it could well be worth putting in some NFT related article and then I think it could be referenced from here. Amazing what people think sometimes! NadVolum (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the information is accurate, as The Guardian source states, An online auction of digital art raised more than $52m worth of cryptocurrency to help fund Julian Assange’s legal defense. The Guardian describes a number of aspects of the auction that are significant enough that the newspaper's journalists and editors decided to print it. For instance the article notes that the money was raised by a group of more than 10,000 Assange supporters called AssangeDao - quite a large number of people to contribute funds. We might also consider mentioning that an additional $2 million were raised to support pro-freedom organisations. The funds being raised are widely reported - for instance by Reuters [9], Business Insider [10], Wired [11], and throughout the international press. SPECIFICO's source is interesting - too much detail for this article for now, but worth keeping an eye on the topic. -Darouet (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - see comments in previous section. Reliable sources are available. We should also provide details about the NFT artwork that the DAO is based around. Burrobert (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As it is just a random factoid that tells us nothing of relevance. How does this add to our understanding of him or his case?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha. No wonder you don't seem to find anything is worth putting into articles! NadVolum (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have had the courtesy to not mock your comments, or even reply to them in this RFC, I would request you do the same. You could try actually saying what this tells us about HIM or HIS CASE.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If I start doing things you think are ridiculous you have my full permission to make fun of it. I am quite happy to be told so I might learn from it. NadVolum (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No, Nad. Never on an article talk page. Take it to user talk or a site-wide complaint. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Try reading wp:npa and wp:soap. All this does is cause a distraction that will drive other user's way. This is supposed to be about attracting new voices, not going over old ground.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

How about you reading the lead of Biography to see what a biography is about instead of objecting that it gives no insight into his personality or his case? NadVolum (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This tells us nothing about Assange and it has received only passing and fleeting mention in relatively few mainstream media. This might be of interest to an article about the NFT fad, but it is not significant wrt Assange himself. The suggestion that his legal bills come anywhere close to $52MM is ridiculous on its face, and the more pertinent question as to how Assange finances his lifestyle and family from confinement is not addressed. That information might be noteworthy, but it's not addressed. We can't use WP articles, especially BLPs to include fan cruft trivia day by day. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources do indicate the NFT is meant to cover his legal bills and don't cast doubt on the credibility of that. Whether or not the legal bills do now or will at some point equal $ 52 million isn't relevant - the funds were raised for his defense and that's what matters. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

On what authority do they say that? There are barely any respected sources covering this thing at all. His height might grow to 8 feet some day, too. That's about as likely as $52 million in legal fees. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I certainly would hope it does not cost that much! However who knows how much the American government has already spent? [12] is an awful example of what can happen when the state feels it needs to prosecute. Defending against that sort of money also requires money. Maybe something like 20% of plea bargains are by people who are innocent of the crime they're accused of. NadVolum (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Opppose barely relevant and NFTs are scammy. LondonIP (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Not certain what you look for in relevancy. He helped orgainse it, the main item was about him and sold for an incredible amount, and the money will be for his defence. But also what is this bit about being scammy? Whether NFTs are scammy or not this is supposed to be an ordinary biography, not a hagiography, if it does come out he was involved in a scam somehow I'd have thought that would be another reason for inclusion. NadVolum (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not known where the cash will go. Is it cash, or is it still crypto that may end up worthless? Millions already are reported to have been donated to Ukraine relief funds, not Assange. "Incredible" -- I presume that's not really the meaning you intend to support article content? SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well here's an article about it Ukraine Receives $4 Million In Crypto Donations Within Hours—Including $1.9 Million Tied To Pak, Julian Assange NFT Collection. Seems all above board but not exactly what I'd have imagined as happening to the bit reserved for helping with human rights. NadVolum (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

An excellent example of the inadvisability of rush inclusion of dubious, uncontextualized, or trivial news into the article. We don't see Melania Trump's NFT going into her BLP, and that one was actually sold by her, if I recall correctly. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please include a citation when you start giving your interpretation of things so people can judge the relevance or total lack of it for themselves. NadVolum (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe its time we let others chip in without our commentary, they already know what we think? User's need to stop wp:bludgeoning this RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Support if the sources are reliable, and the funds are to cover the expenses of Assange's defense, then I don't see what's wrong with mentioning this briefly on the person's article. The NFTs being possibly scammy, or the Assange's legal defense costs being lower than the NFT sale amount, are not valid arguments here. Its not uncommon for fundraisings and auctions/sales to cover legal expenditures. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of this reliably sourced material pertaining to the subject and presented in a neutral narrative. Removal of such material has long been regarded as disruptive. A couple of editors have complained that this tells us nothing about Assange, or nothing about his case. The former is clearly, as a matter of simple fact, inaccurate. The proposed content tells us he was involved in raising funds for his defence in a court case through sale of an NFT. Whether it tells us anything about the extradition case is of precisely zero relevance to the question of inclusion: though some editors appear to believe or to wish otherwise, this is a biography of Assange, not a precis of a legal trial.

The claim that the notion of London, Virginia (and likely Strasbourg) legal bills running into the tens of millions is "ridiculous" shows a near-total lack of familiarity with complex legal cases and their attendant costs. Nevertheless, given that no-one other than Specifico himself has made such a claim, nor proposed its inclusion, this attempted rebuttal of a point no-one has argued is both irrelevant and pointless.

No policy-based arguments attendant to the actual facts have been raised against inclusion. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Surely upon reflection you will understand that you have presented a circular argument that begs the question on the table -- if it is UNDUE, as has been said, then this is not a "neutral narrative". And BRD, common practice on WP with subsequent evaluation of DUE WEIGHT is the opposite of disruptive in any sense. At any rate, now that the RfC has been launched, even if prematurely, it will run its course to a conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting that even in replying to others' comments you neglect to pay attention to the facts. Nowhere in the discussion or RFC above has anyone referred to due or undue weight. Had they done so, nothing in my comment would constitute a circular argument; a quite fanciful notion that I presume you selected at random from a list of formal fallacies you managed to find. You have evidently not understood what begging the question actually is; try again. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of neutral and reliably sourced information. It's a relevant point for his bio that anonymous crypto groups are supporting him. 12:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Covered by reliable sources. And it's a lot of money. If a better source supports that it was kinda scammy, include that too. Chris vLS (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deadnaming Chelsea Manning

Hi all! I searched the archives but the last time this came up it seems like it was 2019? But, I digress: I really think we should footnote Chelsea Manning's deadname, per WP:DEADNAME:

In articles on works or other activities of such a person, use their current name by default, and give another name associated with that context in a parenthetical or footnote, only if they were notable under that name. In other articles, do not go into detail about such a person's name or gender except when directly relevant to the context.

I know right now it exists as a parenthetical, but it's still overtly deadnaming in an article not explicitly about her, and particularly because it's in the lede, I think a footnote would be more appropriate, a la Juno & Elliot Page.

I don't think it's super controversial to move from a parenthetical to a footnote, but I wanted to be a good egg and build consensus first. Thoughts? ɯɐɔ 💬 20:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the parenthetical, you won't receive any objections from me. The only reason I chose parenthetical over a footnote was simply because I've rarely (if at all, I can't remember) used a footnote, so parenthetical was the easy choice. But per the guideline, both are acceptable. – ².O.^Boxing 21:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on a footnote in the lead and a parenthetical on the first mention in the prose? I'm just thinking from previous experience; before becoming an editor I never used to click on citations, so in this instance (without clicking on the link to Chelsea's article) it would cause confusion. – ².O.^Boxing 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A footnote is fine by me but I think the footnote should say she was Bradley Manning at the time she provided the leaks. Reading the citations could be a bit confusing otherwise! I wouldn't even have the footnote if it was after she became Chelsea Manning. NadVolum (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it to a footnote. ––FormalDude talk 04:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with moving Bradley to the footnote. Several of the articles cited in this section have "Bradley Manning" in the title - that is a clear indication that Manning was notable as Bradley, and limiting "Bradley" to a footnote increases the chances that readers may be confused by a discussion about Chelsea Manning that includes references to Bradley Manning. Rks13 (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the footnote from the lead of Assange because it is simply unnecessary, as the hyperlinked article of Chelsea Manning already mentions her deadname in the lead sentence. Most people know that Chelsea was formerly Bradley- I think it makes sense. shanghai^{talk (they/them)} 12:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can just ignore the name as it is used in citations and we can't assume people who come to this article know that. As WP:DEADNAME says "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent." The note is as small as we can get to not discussing it in detail. NadVolum (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

But Chelsea Manning's article is already wikilinked in the lead anyways, and most people are able to infer that she transitioned after her heroic leaks. It is so unnecessary to include her deadname in a footnote. Again, the wikilinked Chelsea Manning article that is already in Assange's lead states that she was born Bradley Manning and leaked as Bradley Manning before transitioning to Chelsea. That already serves the purpose of the footnote and more because it is giving more relevant information and more context; so it would be very redunant per (MOS:REDUNDANCY) to keep a footnote that doesn't really do much. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 05:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly redundant; a link to Manning's article doesn't clarify anything on this article, a footnote does. – ².O.^Boxing 06:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Per dead name "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.", its not so we should not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Her name at the time is pertinent as citations for the time give the name at the time. It isn't discussed in detail, the very minimum necessary for understanding the article with its citations is given. As it says "If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion." NadVolum (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

AssangeDAO‎ nominated for deletion

The page AssangeDAO‎ has been nominated for deletion. Since that organization is mentioned (and internally linked to) in this BLP, editors may wish to discuss its notability. Rinpoach (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The defence gave evidence that Assange was careful to protect lives

@SPECIFICO: objected to

The defence gave evidence that Assange was careful to protect lives.

References

in [13] with edit comment "Objection, hearsay your honor". So anyone else able to point out exactly what is wrong with it or are we really stuck with doing an RfC for this? Interesting they saw nothing wrong with "The release was cited in the opening of US extradition case against Assange saying he put lives at risk" given we've only got United States diplomatic cables leak#Consequences of the release after a hundred people were assigned to try and substantiate that. NadVolum (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not jump to an RfC on every topic of discussion over a revert of misleading wording. The problem is that the claims of a defence attorney's witness should not be called evidence that the claims are true. You could propose alternative wording to convey that the defence presented testimony in support of its claim that XYZ or something similar that does not suggest the claim is true. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, change the wording so it is more neutral. But I support inclusion of the content generally speaking. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the wording. It just seems factual.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, neutral to the sources and factual wording already in place after Jack's edit. Agreed no need for an RFC as it’s already right. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary says of evidence "(law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial". There's nothing misleading about calling it evidence. Also the US prosecutor did not as far as I can see bother contending anything said in the evidence, so why should we try implying that what was said was false rather than just calling it evidence like everything else said by a witness is? NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The text in question is accurate. Assange's lawyers did present such evidence. Not only that, but it's just simply a fact that WikiLeaks redacted documents in order to protect people named in them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, and it's off-topic. Be that as it may, redaction also protects the publisher from liability. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What I wrote is neither OR nor off-topic. Please don't just cite random policies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We lowly editors do not speculate on the state of mind of an article subject. As I said, his actions protected himself as well. We do not know what motivated him. Our policy to confine article text to the weight of mainstream RS is not "random". SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reuters said "WikiLeaks' Assange was careful to protect informants, court hears", you are speculating here about other reasons but not producing any source to back up what you say. Not that we should spout out our own thoughts and then try to find sources anyway, that is not NPOV. NadVolum (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please. <<"Prosecution said A" and "Defense said not A">> is NPOV, as reported by the RS coverage. That should not be a difficult issue. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

To really get parity like that perhaps we should put in the evidence the prosecution gave which was to quote the Guardian denouncing Assange for releasing the unredacted cables? NadVolum (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No. This article needs less contemporaneous news-bittiies and more perspective on the outcomes. Wait till the current(added)18:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC) hearing reaches a conclusion and see whether there is any detail that will be long term noteworthy other than the outcome up or down. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds sensible. Is there an usable RS for that NadVolum? The hearing has concluded btw, do try to keep up everyone. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was clear from the context I was referring to his current efforts. Once he's resituated in the USA, there will be lots of new content to consider. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What "current" hearing? No point discussing imaginary events on this page. Back in reality there is no current hearing, in boldface or no, and every reason to include this proposed content. @NadVolum: please post what you know of source-wise. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I've no source that's good enough for Wikipedia, the only ones I've seen are marked as opinion plus a primary source. If you look at Judge Baraitser's summary the contribution of the papers is a major part. Points 132 to 134 are about the papers denouncing Assange. By the way you might find [14] interesting if you can stomch its 'anti-imperialist' rhetoric. NadVolum (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

AssangeDAO

Do editors know whether there is RS coverage of the effect of the collapse in cryptocurrencies on the AssangeDAO. Is the defence fund diminished? If there's RS coverage it should be added, if the DAO bit is to remain in the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

iIf Google search hasn't found you anything it is unlikely to be in a reliable source you can cite on Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked. But if they are holding crypto, Assange is going to come up short for cash by the time his US case rounds the first bend. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I can see how doing nothing yourself and expecting others to check out your breakfast ideas is good for you but other editors also value their time. I don't know how many watch this page but I would guess you've wasted quite enough of that by now. NadVolum (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I have said it before, but I am unsure if any of this is really relevant. But (as others have said) we need RS to make this particular point. But it was (I think I even said it when this was first added) that any value will only be the value on the day it was sold. Maybe we need to make that clear. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest whether they were sold or not. I very much suppose they would have been as it would not have been for speculative purposes, but I guess it is possible they weren't. In any case I see no reason toview an absence of reliable sources as a reason to delete something that was put in after an RfC only a short while ago. I see that as disruptive. NadVolum (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim of sale is sourced. The issue is what is its current value. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sale of what? The defence team would have got some bitcoin, SPECIFICO seems to have been going on about what their value would be if they were not cashed in and turned into securities. And anyway the value would still be quite large enough to be notable even if they hadn't! NadVolum (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The sale of the NFT. And yes I can see why we might need to say the value then, rather than imply it is still worth that much. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing anyone saying whether the defence kept the bitcoin or converted it to securities. i think you need a bit more RS before putting in some interpretation over an above what the RS there already say. As you seemed to think getting the money was of no importance to Assange's defence ('just some random factor') I'm rather unsure why you'd bother trying to expand the section with this sort of stuff about the actual current amount of either the NFT's or what the Assange team has. NadVolum (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it is reflective of exactly why I objected to the content in the first place, it may not have been worth 50 odd million 1 hour after the auction ended. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is trivial to look up from the transaction logs. About 10% was moved to other wallets (probably sold) and the remainder is still together in a single wallet. The value has declined significantly. I imagine some reliable outlet will mention this at some point, but there is no usable source that I can see so far. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know it was like that. So much for being private! NadVolum (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that RS rarely follow up on tidbits that are insignificant beyond the day's news. They are not going to publish an article that says "remember that AssangeDAO thing? Well it turned out to be a flash in the pan, but here's the current value." Just like physics books don't recite pre-Newtonian speculation, etc. That is why so much WP:FRINGE and cherrypicked non-WP:NPOV content remains in WP articles, particularly those frequented mainly by a small band of enthusiasts of the subject. Per WP:ONUS this encyclopedia is not intended to be a compendium of every fact that can be referenced in a small number of contemporaneous sources. We routinely go back to trim that kind of chatter from articles to focus them on the significant events and facts discussed in mainstream narratives. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Try to check your facts first, you didn't even try and you asserted things which might be important but were not true. NadVolum (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This DAO bit fails long term significance in Assange's life story. I removed it per WP:NOTNEWS but it has now been reinstated. I am amazed that editors who dispute this content do not even know which crypto was used -- not Bitcoin -- and other details about the incident. The value of the crypto is now down about 95% I believe, so it may not be relevant to funding Assange's legal bills either. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

An RFC said we have this, so we have it, that does not mean we can't re-write it to reflect this was only the valued in a cryptocurrency at the time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That RfC was when it was fresh and had the usual news flash coverage. That doesn't mean that the RfC could foretell future significance when it turned out to be one tiny bit of the now-busted crypto bubble that sucked in millions of dupes while burning untold tonnes of coal to generate electricity for computer mining farms. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually I couldn't care less that it was Etherium rather than Bitcoin. And the article doesn't say. Find some relevant RS about what's eating you before wasting peoples' time here. If the defence did keep it as crypto currency rather than cashing in I guess a RS will surface at some time about the loss. NadVolum (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is still consensus, to overturn it you need a new RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the event there is objection to a bold edit that changes it. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

One answer would be to change its values from dollars to its actual currently, its what we usualy do. 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's about $2.4 million. but because the whole thing was what Americans call a nothingburger, I doubt we'll see secondary RS coverage. We don't see coverage of the bank accounts of other accused criminals, except where fraud or other noteworthy misconduct is involved. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That is OR, we go by what RS say. 13:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Jeez do you never look anything up? The value if they kept it in Etherium cryptocurrency woould be about 40% perhaps of what it was on February 8th. Not 5%. Do you just say things and depend on others to find the facts? NadVolum (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The extent to which this did or not contribute to fulfilling Assange’s financial obligations to his legal team remains irrelevant. This is a biography of Assange, not an article about a trial. Specifico is welcome to post his original thoughts about crypto volatility or whatever, but should keep in mind this is not a forum. There is a clear and unambiguous formally established consensus, based on the existing available sources, to include the content. Unless reliable sources report developments there is little further to discuss on the issue. Unless it can be demonstrated that the consensus has changed, editors are free to avoid wasting their own time, by ignoring original research posted here that does not contribute to establishing what content is appropriate to the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the closer's remarks on the RfC I see you're quite right as far as that's concerned. The actual amont of money or even whether it was large were not mentioned at all in the reason for the close even though it was mentioned in the discussion. The whole basis of this discussion is rather moot. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually the non-admin close repetedly says "weak" and "slight" consensus. Thanks for the link. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And you contributed to it. Abide by it. NadVolum (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The defence gave evidence it said would show ..?

The text at the end of the section Julian Assange#Release of unredacted cables said

"The defence gave evidence it said would demonstrate that Assange was careful to protect lives"

that seemed clunky to me so I changed it to

"The defence gave evidence it said showed that Assange was careful to protect lives"

and then it was changed to

"The defence gave evidence it said would show that Assange was careful to protect lives"

with the comment "Don't reword in a way that changes the meaning."

Would someone please explain to me how "would" is supposed to fix a meaning here? There is no condition as in "It would be great if you gave a party" or possible future in the sense of reporting of the past as in "he said he would take the train". The defence have presented their evidence and that's what they said it shows. They didn't stop and not give evidence after saying they would or anything like that. Actually I think now the sentence should really be continuous present for the "shows", the past part is the "was careful".

"The defence gave evidence that it said shows Assange was careful to protect lives"

Actually I think even the "it said shows" is superfluous, they gave evidence is quite enough, it is up to the court to evaluate it NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Are either of these the best way to percent this information? While reading through the sources cited for this sentence, to me it seems that the source is talking about the evidence given, not what they intended to do with that evidence. Where as I interpreted the sentence as what they intended to do with the evidence, in which case would not match my interpretation of the source. Tepkunset (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Tepkunset:. The whole sentence should be removed until a proper survey of the available sources can be completed. Then NPOV text reflecting the mainstream narrative can be used in the artilce. The versions thus far have not been informative for our readers. Somebody should remove the sentence and gather additional RS, including the Guardian, Spiegel, and NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You agree with what exactly SPECIFICO? I didn't see anything from Tepkunset about removing what was said in the article. Yes I agree with Tepkunset that the sources talked about the evidence given and no there was nothing about some intention to do something with the evidence - they just presented it in court to counter what the prosecution said. @Tepkunset: is this bit about intentions to do something about the word "would" which SPECIFICO wants to put in and which I can't see the purpose of? NadVolum (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We've moved beyond correcting your old wording. I suggested removing the entire sentence and starting over -- this time with better sourcing to determine broad mainstream narratives. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with what is there? And why do you want the word 'would' in, what is it supposed to convey because I think it makes no sense in the sentence. And I've not moved beyond correcting - who else are you including in the 'we'? NadVolum (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To answer the original question: to me the difference is "would show" is hopeful, they hoped it would show Assange was careful. Whereas "showed" portrays that it did show Assange was careful.

The greater problem is that the sources do not support either way of saying this. I believe this sentence falls under WP:SYNTH and, as SPECIFICO suggested, should be removed until a reliable source is found that actually states what the defense was intending to do. Or the sentence needs to be reworded to state what the sources say. (i.e. what the defense said without implying the outcome they hoped for.) Tepkunset (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The bit about that the defence would show was put in because there were objections to just saying "The defence gave evidence that Assange was careful to protect lives" which is what I wanted to put in originally and I think perfectl;y well reprersents what the Reuters report "WikiLeaks' Assange was careful to protect informants, court hears" says, and the other said Goetz told the court. Assange was concerned that the media should take measures “so no one would be harmed”. I feel the "it said showed" is unnecessaryu as that is what evidence is. I think youtr interpretation of "would show" is not part of the normal meaning of would and there is no reason to imply hopefulness or its absence anyway. If evidence is presented in court it is normally presented by the team that hopes it will support their case. NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And while we are at it, we should survey many more RS to get a balanced view. The two sources are OK but rather random. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You're free to go and find other sources if you want to. Nothing is stopping you. If you think it is unbalanced in summarizing what was said in the articles then say what you think they said. NadVolum (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I googled "evidence they said would show" and in the large majority of vccase it was in a context where the defence or prosecution were prevented from presenting evidence as in for example "Her lawyers also lost a battle to introduce evidence they said would show that...". Occassionally there are instances like "His shock eleventh-hour confession came after prosecutors produced fresh forensic evidence they said would show his footprint on the door of ...", I don't think that is quite right but the implication is still conditional as in if the trial had continued the evidence would show. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are examples of the usage of 'wold' from the Cambridge Dictionary [15]. The Oxford dictionary does have a meaning of would as wish in for example "I would that I could", but that is marked as archaic or literary. NadVolum (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

From reading the section above where this was originally disputed it appears to me that majority agreed that it should be kept. The original sentence reflects what the sources say. I would consider it NPOV in contexts with the sentence before it, as that sentence gives the opposite point of view, both sides of the argument of if Assange protected lives or not are presented. To make this even more NPOV I would suggest creating a structure such as: 'A presented__, whereas B presented___, the outcome of the trial is___'. Presenting the information in this fashion would clearly show both points of view and the actually outcome therefore making it NPOV and factual.Tepkunset (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be unambiguously NPOV insofar as it is currently sourced. However for real NPOV it is necessary to survey all of the RS discussion of the topic. So far, none of the supporters of this content have made an effort to do that. NPOV means we reflect the WP:WEIGHT of all mainstream RS narratives, not just what an editor googled on the quick and easy to put this bit in the article. I hope that those who feel this content is important will do such a survey so that we avoid false balance with "he said she said" text. Thanks for your comment, Tepkunset. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Which sentence is the original one that reflects the sources according to you? It was an extradition rather than a trial, the prosecution didn't have to prove their case just show grounds for extradition, which in the case of UK to US is a low bar. They did not have to show Assange was negligent about lives or that anyone was actually endangered, and if you read the artice the section refers to you'll see they never did establish anyone was endangered despite a big effort to do so. What the defence said was ignored and no counter was given. So overall the statements just stand as they do, the prosecution said that as a basis for prosecution but didn't have to prove anything and the defence presented its evidence but it had no effect in the case, I guess it was just establishing its position for the world but for the extrdition it was irrelevant. Until someone produces further RS which say something different there is no good reason to dispute the RfC that I can see. I hope SPECIFICO does what they say and goes off and collects all the reliable sources on the topic even those that can't be found by googling and establishes beyond doubt that every last one of them has been found! NadVolum (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So are you telling us that because this was merely an extradition hearing, therefore this content about Assange's "good intentions" was irrelevant and is UNDUE? Not clear if that were the case why his attorneys would attempt to make that argument. But if you are correct, it would certainly make the content UNDUE in this section of the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the extradition hearing are two different things. Just because what they said were unlikely to have any effect on the extradition doesn't mean they are undue in Wikipedia. This is a biography of Assange and they most definitely have weight in that.. NadVolum (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)