User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jimbo)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Could you help me help Assange?[edit]

Jimbo, could you please try to get this info to Assange's lawyer?

In the CNN interview linked to here, at the 1 minute 8 second mark, Senator Hatch says;

"you can make anything a crime under the current laws, if you want to, you can blow it out of proportion, you can do a lot of things."

A Canadian lawyer told me that Magna Carta rights and British law should prevent Britain, in keeping with her commitment to the principles of fundamental justice, from extraditing anyone to any country where "you can make anything a crime". It would be no different from extraditing someone to North Korea.

I tried unsuccessfully to reach Jennifer Robinson, his lawyer, so I'm hoping you have some contacts who could get this video in her hands. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Magna Carta rights" - good grief. Anyway, the relevant law here is of course the European Convention on Human Rights. However, what Orrin Hatch thinks is irrelevant, because as long as the basic tenets of the American judicial system meet the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, then lawfully there's no issue with Assange being extradited. And the UK has extradited people to the US before. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
That's very interesting about Article 6 because it says there must be a presumption of innocence, which there surely is not. As far as others being extradited, perhaps they had a chance at a presumption of innocence, but not so with Assange, if we're honest we all know that, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Orinn Hatch is neither sitting on any jury, nor is he the presiding judge, over any case involving Mr. Assange. What he says means diddly squat. Politicians stay stupid stuff all the time. It means nothing in this regard. Pay it no mind. --Jayron32 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, but the "presumption of innocence" that Article 6, above, mandates (in order to be extradited), is certainly not present in the USA regarding Assange. You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think he's presumed innocent there. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Jimbo is not a fan of Assange. In any case I doubt if he has any contacts with Assange's lawyer. Have you tried the Yellow Pages under "L"? :-) Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that it is appropriate for Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo acting in his official capacity to get involved with political issues that do not threaten the existence or functioning of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
He's a criminal whose organization colluded with the Russian government to influence the U.S. election. Let him make his defense in court instead of finding a closet to hide in. It's not Wikimedia's role to get involved with international espionage. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: How is he a criminal? He hasn't been convicted of any crimes so your assertion is clearly false, and worse, attacking a living person with false statements, see WP:BLP. I'm sure you wouldn't wasnt to be called a criminal without having been convicted of anything. Show some respect for living people. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I just read the indictment and he is only accused of trying to figure out a password which he never did figure out. Wow, what a huge crime...trying to figure out someone's password. Its shameful how our main stream media is misleading most of us into thinking he's accused of actually having "hacked" into secret computers....its the difference between wanting to commit a crime and actually doing it, but like Senator Hatch said; ""you can make anything a crime under the current(USA) laws, if you want to, you can blow it out of proportion".
Actually this indictment is a perfect example of the habitual fraud perpetuated by the USA justice(lol) system that Hatch exposes.
You'd think after the "Iraq has WMDs" scam they would not get such almost universal acceptance of their lying accusations and conspiracy theories; but then, as I learned in business school (paraphrasing) "Its all about the branding, baby"....or as P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute", and one thing American big business/federal government is good at, its branding aka bullshit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
WikiMedia should speak out against the serious human rights violations against Assange for his role in disclosing the truth the US and other governments wanted to hide. Statement by Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, Agnes Callamard: "in “expelling Assange from the Embassy” and allowing his arrest, it had taken Mr. Assange “one step closer to extradition”. She added that the UK had now arbitrarily-detained the controversial anti-secrecy journalist and campaigner, “possibly endangering his life”." We can also read there: "In a statement last Friday, Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, said he was alarmed by reports that an arrest was imminent, and that if extradited, Mr. Assange could be exposed to “a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Late last year UN experts urged the UK to honour rights obligations and let Mr. Julian Assange leave Ecuador embassy in London freely "“The United Kingdom has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has a responsibility to honour its commitment, by respecting its provisions in all cases,” the experts said.
“As the High Commissioner for human rights said several years ago, human rights treaty law is binding law, it is not discretionary law. It is not some passing fancy that a state can apply sometimes and not in the other,” the experts recalled.
“In addition, the recommendations of the WGAD Opinions are expected to be implemented by all States, including those which have not been a party in the case concerning Mr. Assange,” said the experts." Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
No. It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to speak out against human rights violations. Pick an organization that is working towards your political goals and support that organization. Wikipedia is not a political advocacy group. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Assange is being targeted because of WikiLeaks disclosures, this is something that should make WikiMedia concerned. If a WikiMedia site were to publish information that the US doesn't want to be disclosed, WikiMedia may also be targeted. Nebulous charges like "conspiracy to engage in computer hacking", or if that doesn't work it may be "conspiracy to engage in a conspiracy to engage in computer hacking" will be issued. Count Iblis (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Slippery slope arguments aren't always invalid. but the are not sufficient reason to change Wikipedia into a political advocacy group. The reason they are not sufficient is that pretty much any political POV pusher can put together a slippery slope argument. Be careful what you wish for; in your imagination if you were to actually succeed at turning Wikipedia into a political advocacy group the WMF would only advocate for the same things you advocate for. In reality if we make Wikipedia into a political advocacy group it may very well end up advocating things you despise. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Count Iblis' point is profound, imo. Here we see that publishing the Pentagon Papers or any of the Snowden info is already a crime. Our U.S. Justice masters just haven't felt like charging us yet. "18 U.S. Code § 798.Disclosure of classified information: (a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—..(3)concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government;...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Heads in the sand never helps. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Assange's lawyers would find a quote from a Senator particularly relevant or meaningful in this context. I further think that what Senator Hatch was saying is in one sense not accurate at all but in another sense true of pretty much every country. There are enough complex and ambiguous laws everywhere to mean that a sufficiently motivated bad faith prosecutor can cause a lot of headache for someone. But I agree with Black Kite - it is unlikely that me contacting someone with this quote would be helpful. I am sure his lawyers will be making a variety of arguments as to why the UK shouldn't extradite him.
I also don't have any real contact with anyone in Assange's organization. I know some people who know him or knew him - he has a consistent pattern of falling out with people - but I can't think at the moment of any direct way of getting in touch.
I am a big supporter of freedom of expression, and that support doesn't hinge on whether or not I like the person, so I'm not sure why that's even being raised as a question here. I think that the core of what Assange has done (publishing documents) is fully protected by the First Amendment and there is basically zero chance that any direct attack on that would get anywhere with the US Federal court system. What he is being accused of is a different matter, and I have no opinion whatsoever about whether his is innocent or guilty of those charges. But I am quite sure that the relevant court will stick straight to that - remember that whatever faults the US has (and of course there are many), it does have a very independent Federal judiciary (despite Trump's occasional ranting).
Just for completeness, I don't completely agree with Guy Macon's view on what the WMF or I should speak about, although my view is not far from his. I think it a mistake to define the parameters so narrowly as "the existence or functioning of Wikipedia" - such a remit would, for example, require the WMF to act far too timidly and "corporate" in the sense of looking after it's own narrow interests even when at the expense of the broader movement and the ecosystem that we are trying to achieve. Article 13 of the new European Copyright Directive has an explicit exemption for Wikipedia, so Guy's view as stated here is that we should stay silent (giving therefore our implicit consent) to something that is bad for a free and open Internet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Your support of freedom of expression is precious, and I have confidence that you will find ways to make some difference against the injustices some desire to commit against Assange and independent journalism. What is happening here is that the original sin of the internet has come home to roost. Prohibiting "hacking" was always a violation of freedom of expression, and many of us knew it. At first, the prohibition only meant that teenage hackers were hit with threats of jail instead of good paying jobs securing computers. Then we lost Aaron Swartz. North Korea and China (oh, and Russia also) became Internet superpowers, using their right to do to our computers what our kids and activists did not dare to. Now we see an Australian working in Europe who dared publish something supposedly he had a right to, being prosecuted for it based on United States "law", using the argument that saying you tried to understand a math problem constitutes conspiracy. Predicate logic tells us that "false proves anything", but it was hard to believe we'd see it done in practice. Everything built on the rotten foundations of copyright and legal privilege for at least the past half century may collapse into nothing.
We should begin to contemplate how to make Wikipedia relevant to a post-computing era where delvers of forbidden knowledge need to work in conditions of absolute secrecy. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The Federal judiciary are not independent and they are stupid as well.Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Defining moment of non-reaction[edit]

Here, with Wikipedia's (and others') help, Assange and Chelsea Manning showed the free world how reporters were gunned down while their killers laughed: "Collateral Murder, showed that the crew encountered a firefight and laughed at some of the casualties, some of which were civilians and reporters." The world would not even know about this horrific exposure of evil were it not for Assange's activities.

I heard several commentators on main stream media yesterday, including the CBC, take the position that Assange did some good deeds in the past and then they pivoted to an assumption of guilt of a "shame"ful crime re: the current indictment..it was if they were all reading the same script, e.g. one American commentator on CBC said exactly "Shame on him for doing this (attempt to figure out a password)".

We Wikipedians all know that "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing" So, I still think...no, I know...Jimbo, you can do something to help Assange. Heck, you are even in the neighbourhood where he's jailed. Maybe some of us think its ok if we do not have access to knowing about war crimes perpetuated by the USA as shown in "Collateral Murder"...its certainly easier to just become "yes" men for the obvious bullies of this world, or at least not get in their way; they always provide some kind of twisted justification for the masses of people to go along with their twisted rationales. Jimbo, if you are feeling impotent about this because, as you say, "he has a consistent pattern of falling out with people", I'd suggest just standing out side his jail with a sign giving the URL to July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike and thanking Assange for releasing that shocking bit of truth for the whole world to see and read about on Wikipedia....and I'm not suggesting you do anything more risky or time consuming than things I've done myself to fight the tendency to look on and do nothing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing", Are you saying that the WMF should speak out on the topics of prison rape, the war on drugs, asset forfeiture, the US government budget, the UK government budget, nuclear proliferation, climate change, gay marriage, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the India-Pakistan conflict, free trade, farm subsidies, drug prices, labor conditions at Apple, gun control, abortion, student loans, smoking, inflation in Venezuela, and the baggage retrieval system at heathrow? There are already hundreds of political advocacy websites, but only one viable online encyclopedia. Aren't those hundreds of political advocacy websites enough? Do you have to try to make Wikipedia into one as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Guy, what I am saying is Assange caused important information to become part of the encyclopedia and available to the world's people and that its a threat to freedom of the press the way he has been demonized by the USA government. Ron Paul spoke into the Congressional Record some 8 years ago about the stupidity of Assange being "an enemy of the state". Paul backed up his opinion by explaining the extreme importance of a Wikileaks leak of a diplomatic cable showing that the Gulf War was caused by a trap that GHW Bush set for Saddam, and that trick led to, according to Paul, 9/11 and everything since then....and most relevantly, Paul says;
"Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves. But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government's lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society." Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't right every wrong, but we surely could do more to defend "WP:BLP" in regard to the article on Jeremy Corbyn, who has expressed some opposition to the notion of an extraordinary rendition to the United States [1] and represents a hope for a political solution to stop Assange's persecution. I don't know a lot of British politics, but the article has long showcased, for example, allegations by the impeccable Daily Mail that focus on the fact that Corbyn attended a conference event that was held at a pavilion in a cemetery that happened to be close to some terrorists' graves. In section after section the article keelhauls him for make-believe offenses like being reluctant to censor a mural or to deport someone for pro-Palestinian activism. Surely there is some way Wikipedia could do better there. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it accurate to characterize Corbyn's position as mere "opposition to the notion of an extraordinary rendition". He opposes any extradition to the United States. There has been no suggestion and there is no genuine possibility of Assange being transferred to the US without a legal process, so it would be odd for Corbyn to be opposed to that. Please stay clearly factual, as hysteria doesn't help fight injustice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of clarity and perhaps hyperbole. What I meant was that Corbyn does not oppose proper extradition of Assange to Sweden, the country which originally made the request for extradition. However, according to the letter signed by over 70 Labour MPs ([2]) the U.S. Department of Justice had been tipped off that asylum would be revoked, and was ready with a case, while Sweden has had to scramble to get ready, and now it is by no means clear that Britain will send Assange to Sweden at all, let alone with any precondition against his extradition to the U.S. Simply put, the ordinary process of extradition appears at risk of being defeated, while the extraordinary process of extraditing Assange to face a political charge, in contradiction to the extradition treaty, appears to take priority. In my mind, I did not think that 'extraordinary rendition' was inappropriate to use for such a back-room maneuver, even if Assange is not actually bundled onto a plane in secret. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the phrase "'extraordinary rendition" to mean something other than extraordinary rendition, it hinders communication when you redefine words or phrases like that. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
To me it seems the criteria have at least technically been met. Assange, an Ecuadorian citizen, was dragged from the country's territory in a way that was not supposed to happen, no matter what connivance was procured from a dishonest official, for purposes of an illegitimate extradition for political ends, and to our great shame we cannot even say that torture is an unlikely outcome at this point. Wnt (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Please use the same meanings for words and phrases that other people use. "The Ecuadorean government suspended the citizenship it had granted Mr. Assange and evicted him on Thursday, clearing the way for his arrest."[3] "[British] police said they arrested Assange, 47, after being invited into the embassy following Ecuador’s withdrawal of asylum."[4] Nothing illegal happened, and thus it was not an extraordinary rendition. Blorgkity-blorgk. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of citizenship being "suspended" before??? What does it mean to have citizenship "suspended"? A right to citizenship is one of the more fundamental bureaucratic principles of international law, and this 'suspension' came in the form, as far as I can tell, of an announcement by the Foreign Minister. [5] There was no due process involved there.
Let's take a parallel example and see what you say about it. Suppose Erdogan visits Washington and his security guards start another fracas with demonstrators, like last time. This time, instead of merely pardoning all the attackers, suppose the U.S. government decides to send a message and tells Erdogan's thugs "OK boys, go ahead and grab half a dozen of those troublemakers and take them on the plane back to Istanbul to talk about FETO conspiracies." And they go on and explain themselves "look, they abused their welcome here, they were on visas, some of them were skateboarding on our sidewalks!" The demonstrators protest that at least they ought to get deported back to Canada or Iran or wherever they came from instead, but instead they get 'deported' to Turkey. Would you call that extraordinary rendition? Wnt (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States Bitter Oil (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Note the references in that article to U.S. District Court, even the Supreme Court, or agreements made, or deportations never performed. Revoking citizenship in the U.S. (not 'suspending' it, whatever that means!) is a big deal, and even the Trump administration is stopped in many cases by "a very high bar" which may not be met even by outright lies during the application itself. [6] Now any defender of Assange should say that Ecuador does not have to slavishly copy U.S. law in every niggling detail ... that is, after all, a major point of objecting to his prosecution ... but the right to citizenship in international law would not appear to condone random revocations without any legal process at all. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Felony disenfranchisement Bitter Oil (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW Vijay Prashad (in an editorial about Ola Bini) called Assange's arrest "an act of extraordinary rendition in plain sight". [7] Wnt (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(Topic) bans and Jimbo's talk page[edit]

  • I'm new here, so perhaps it isn't my place to say anything, but it looks like User:Nocturnalnow is banned from discussing American politics (since 1932) "on all pages of Wikipedia". Of course, the ramblings here hardly amount to a discussion, but the subject does seem to relate to American politics. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I also have topic bans, including for economics, because my opinions about productivity and growth were considered unacceptable by the community. I occasionally disregard that ban here on Jimbo's talk page as a limited act of civil disobedience, under the implied permission of Jimbo's statement that he wants open communications from banned editors, presumably so that his nominal right to grant appeals from ArbCom decisions (which he apparently never uses) is not foreclosed. Note that Jimbo occasionally rescinds such permission on a case-by-case basis, and in any case I would not presume to speak for him. I would, however, like to provide another data point in Nocturnalnow's defense. I was also topic banned three years ago from discussing the activities of organizations associated with insecticides, and abided my that restriction absolutely, without any civil disobedience here or elsewhere, until very recently, when I had so completely forgotten about that topic ban I made some comments I was forced to strike after I earnestly brought them directly to the attention of ArbCom in a clarification request. I honestly had completely forgotten I was under that restriction. Anyway, I know that reasonable people have reasonable differences of opinion about whether Jimbo has discretion to allow the banned to speak here, but I'm glad he does. I intend to appeal both of my topic bans and I think Nocturnalnow should appeal his, too.
As for my opinion of Assange, it is very similar to that of The Intercept, both very strongly in his favor and very strongly opposed. And while former Wikimedia Foundation spokesman User:David Gerard has closer ties to Assange than Jimbo ever had or ever will, and the chance that Jimbo wants to get involved is minuscule, I would more prefer these discussions occurring than not. I am sure that reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree.
@Bitter Oil: you say you are "new here" and your contribution history stretches back a whole week. I would like to know more about the circumstances under which you learned about Nocturnalnow's topic ban, although if you want to keep that to yourself, that is fine with me, too. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think your opinion of Assange is relevant to a discussion of someone's (topic) ban, but thanks for letting us know. If Jimbo considers this page to be a special case, then I suppose Nocturnalnow's comments here aren't a violation. But how about this edit to QAnon. It specifically mentions politicians in regard to a crackpot theory about pedophiles. Or this edit to Illegal immigration to the United States where Nocturnalnow adds a link to a CNN townhall featuring Nancy Pelosi? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, you're quite welcome, and let's get back on topic. For what reason are you asking that Nocturnalnow's topic ban be observed? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
If you tell some ill-informed conspiracy nut with poor reasoning skills and no understanding of legal systems to stay away from politics because they've spent months injecting nonsense into articles about living people, I would think you'd want to "observe" that topic ban. Just as a hypothetical example. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the great things about getting old is mosquitoes don't bother me anymore...its nice to still be of some use. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What? "If Jimbo considers this page to be a special case, then I suppose Nocturnalnow's comments here aren't a violation"? Wrong. Nobody, and this includes Jimbo, is allowed to say that their talk page is a place where one can freely violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is a good argument that this isn't post-1932 US politics, but if it is, the topic ban applies to all pages on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Basically it is Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeal_to_Jimbo_Wales. Specifically A topic banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Julian Assange is an Australian, in Britain, fighting extradition to Sweden. Meanwhile, neither American party (including the chief beneficiaries of the information he helped to report to the public) is speaking up on his behalf. If this is American politics, it is the kind that has no political issue conceivably coming up for vote in the U.S. and which is being applied entirely outside its borders ... at least for now. If a topic ban on "American politics" affects that, what doesn't it affect? I should add that I just recently got a boilerplate notice on my talk page about "American politics" over a browser plug-in that lets people post to a would-be social media competitor. My feeling is that this "post-1932" decision has become an interstate commerce clause allowing AE authority over anything and everything on Wikipedia. I imagine if you post about a species of frog, it might be evaluated by the EPA or its import regulated by Customs, so it's post-1932 American politics! Wnt (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
😂 how true!! Atsme Talk 📧 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nocturnalnow is talking about extradition to the US and specifically references both the "USA (sic) justice system" and US laws. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia ----> Real World
Nocturnalnow ----> Assange
Topic ban violations ------> WikiLeaks' activities that the US objects to
ArbCom ------> Court
Count Iblis (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you know about this? Re: Assange's future contributions to Wikipedia content[edit]

Prevented by treaty from invading the Holy See's embassy, U.S. soldiers from Delta Force erected a perimeter around the Nunciature. Psychological warfare specialists were brought in to attempt to dislodge him, including blaring rock music, and turning a nearby field into a helicopter landing zone. After ten days, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990.[2][130] He was detained as a prisoner of war, and later taken to the United States.[1][22]''

Jimbo, did you know that this actually happened?

I did not. Only by hearing something yesterday on CNN about Barr having redacted important info for congress in 1989 and then looking at links in the William Barr article did I come upon this.

The sources for that content are 2012 and 2017. My point is, if Assange had been around in 1989/1990 more of the world's peoples, and politicians, would have likely known about this psychological attack upon an embassy of the Pope way back then and been able to incorporate that knowledge over the past 30 years.

For me, this proves the worth of Assange to Wikipedia going forward as well as his use to all of the reliable media of the world....and more relevantly, it proves to me that Assange is an ALLY of Wikipedia's mission statement, and that WMF should treat him as an important ally in any way we can. What do you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Operation Nifty Package was an article created in 2005. Nocturnalnow for your reading pleasure. Not sure Assange contributed to it. 2600:8800:1300:A2E:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Everyone in the entire world knew about that—it was the lead news story worldwide for a week, and there were camera crews camped out outside the embassy for the duration. You've not stumbled across some kind of conspiracy. ‑ Iridescent 14:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree. Nonetheless, the way that the public swallowed the idea of invading a country and deposing its dictator based on some allegations of involvement with drugs was somewhat remarkable. That is more about media bias and control than secrecy. On the other hand, the lack of protest also had something to do with that it was the 1990s, End of History, when dictators seemed like they were on the way out and people actually believed they could be replaced by democracy. As it happens, Panama, whatever its crooked or even colonialist politics may be, still counts now as a country with transitions of power, and few in the rest of the world actually know who Juan Carlos Varela is because (unusually for leaders nowadays) he doesn't brag about torture or death squads or rounding up political prisoners.
The problem we have going forward is that constant pressure to censor 'mainstream' sites like Facebook and even Wikipedia of unpopular opinions (like racism) is dumping all of that opinion into a shrinking pool of free-thinking sites, which are being degraded by all the ideological waste. The next step of course is to declare those to be "toxic cesspools" where bad ideas could turn violent, and act to censor them and give an oligarchy of corporations a government mandated monopoly. And the invasions they will have people not thinking about will be nothing so kind as the disposal of Noriega. Wnt (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, you are 100 % wrong about this. If "the entire world knew about this", why was the US Military Operation Just Cause: Panama Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff our only source regarding the capture as late as 2011. Also, just to be clear, are you saying there was news coverage in the USA showing the psychological warfare/blasting noise aimed at the Holy See's embassy? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it was all over the place when it happened. Late-night talk shows were suggesting songs that should be played. This really was all over the place back then. That may be the only source used in the article, but assuming that means it's the only source available is pretty sad. Ravensfire (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Even by the standards of this talk page, this is weapons-grade, molecularly distilled ignorance. Yes, of course there was contemporaneous US news coverage of the use of loud music as a psychological weapon against Noriega. For instance, Tom Friedman wrote in the New York Times on December 28, 1989: "For now the only assault on the Nunciature appears by in the form of rock music being blasted at the Vatican Embassy at a very loud volume over speakers by United States Army troops ringing the building in the seaside Paitilla district of Panama City." On the following day (December 30, 1989), the Times noted complaints from the Vatican on its front page: "When Mr. Navarro (a Vatican spokesman) was asked about the blockade of the Papal Nunciature in Panama City by American troops and their practice of blasting the building with rock music, he said it was 'a very serious matter,' unacceptable under international law because it interfered with diplomatic activity." The Times reiterated the issue several days later, on January 5, 1990: "(A Vatican spokesman) also criticized Washington's decision to install a powerful sound system outside the Vatican embassy and blast loud rock music at the building in an apparent attempt to exasperate General Noriega. The music was suspended 24 hours later." Hey, if only Julian Assange had been around in the 1970's, then the public would have heard about the Watergate break-in! My unsolicited advice to you (Nocturnalnow) is that 10 seconds of critical thinking and assumption-checking can spare you a lifetime of looking like a fool. MastCell Talk 00:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, but I am not assuming that was the only source but that there wasn't any more unbiased source, because if there was a less biased source than the US military, why would that unbiased alternative not have been used? I guess I was wrong, obviously, about the level of media exposure of the event; I was working pretty hard in 1990. But I still have to wonder whether Assange's Wikileaks, had they existed, might have received some evidence as to exactly what the rationale for this invasion was, especially given all the history of cooperation between Noriega and Bush. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
God only knows what I was doing in 1990. The point is that I'm capable of spending 30 seconds on Google right now to check my assumptions. As are you, in theory. MastCell Talk 00:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
You're right; absolutely; I should have done that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
But good grief, can't we all agree that the Pentagon Papers and Snowden and Assange have been allies of Wikipedia's level of comprehensiveness? And if so, then shouldn't WMF do what it can to fight against such aggressive demonization of these sources? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it was everywhere at the time. I remember suggesting really twee pop music rather than heavy metal, but whatever. Anyway, here's [the BBC, and the BBC again, Telegraph, NPR, Guardian, etc. There's even a playlist on YouTube of what they used ... Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I had new found respect for "Welcome to the Jungle" after watching it live from speaker trucks. Would have been funny as hell to watch the Brits SAS Squads play Monty Python or Benny Hill themes while driving around the Ecuadoran embassy for 10 years. Sad they let a rape accusation go unanswered for that long. 2600:8800:1300:A2E:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess this would be my song suggestion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Assange is being demonized by some and abandoned by others, I just think WMF should support him. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
WMF can and must support Assange, but this has been a very long term battle and will remain so. Assange may be taking a detour to Sweden where WMF can't support him, because rape is an extremely serious allegation and WMF can't be dismissive of the complainants. The way in which they have been dismissed in the press is essentially a conspiracy theory -- even if conspiracies are extraordinarily likely where international spy powers are concerned. If he ends up in the United States, the question then is what charges exist and how unconstitutional they are. WMF will absolutely need to monitor and respond to that as part of its core mission because there is no obvious ideological boundary between Assange publishing a document he reads after a leaker sends it to him and a Wikipedian summarizing it after Wikileaks publishes it or even after the New York Times writes about it.
In the meanwhile, Wikipedians can do a lot. There is a strong odor of rank bullshit about such movement for freedom, transparency, democracy, privacy etc. where a person would doubt it exists at all, and it would be pleasant if someone could start to make the case. I mean, if Assange were from a real movement like ISIS or Al Qaida they would have dug a tunnel and fetched him out of that embassy in a year if they had to use a spoon, or had half a dozen people blow themselves up and stormed it with machine guns. By contrast.... well, many of the newspaper articles have attributed Assange's arrest to Lenin Moreno's angry response to the INA Papers, even if Wikileaks didn't publish them, and the present investigation into the INA Papers offers a chance that the Ecuadorians will be able to push him out of office, which could be good for Ola Bini. But that is a red link, just like INA Investment Corporation. So I mean the difference between a real movement and our movement is the difference between a movement with large numbers of people willing to blow themselves up or dig a tunnel for half a mile to break someone out of jail, versus having literally not one person in the entire world who can be bothered to write up half a page about one of the major background stories that might help to 'punish' Assange's persecutor or free his ally. Also notice that the above-mentioned commitment of ISIS members still was not enough to save their movement from defeat. Basically, you look up bullshit in the dictionary and that's us, right next to the idea of computer libertarianism to uphold our right to freedom and privacy while in reality they are all conniving to sell data to the NSA and hide wearable cameras in your underwear. But if you want, please, by all means, let's get started on the INA Papers. It's the least we can do... literally. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Nope. In fact for Wikipedia to become embroiled in defending an admitted "computer hacker" who sought to violate both US and International Law, would ill-suit Wikipedia as a completely neutral recorder of facts, and present Wikipedia as an active participant in such issues. Court matters should be left to those who properly are before the courts. Collect (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

WMF has made many amicus curiae ("friend of the court") representations [8][9] and has even been a plaintiff in similar cases [10][11]. (These are not a complete list) It should most certainly continue to do so. When you pay for a commercial product, any commercial product, a significant fraction of the money you pay goes for the company's efforts to lobby, sue, threaten, and bribe officials in order to oppose the many usually nefarious forces that would ban or severely restrict their operations. Otherwise anything from natural gas to diet soda would end up illegal, because in this sorry world you only have the rights you pay for. Wikimedia may not have all the options of a private company (I don't see them out with bags full of $1000 single-use credit cards from a thousand small money donors), but they most certainly should not hesitate to use the tools they have to defend our right to use the information we can find in our research. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry That WMF has filed court briefs in other cases does not mean that it should do so here. And I note that hyperbole from others rarely makes me change my opinion. My opinion remains as written. Collect (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to say conclusively that the WMF should file a brief in a case for which the charges have not been filed, and hopefully never will be, and the lower court has not made the wrong decision, and hopefully never will. But it should be just as hard to say conclusively that it should not. If the push for an unconstitutional interpretation of the Espionage Act moves toward the point where the Pentagon Papers would have been illegal, where Nixon would have started his third term in office triumphally recounting the hundred-year sentences of Deep Throat (Watergate) and the reporters who collaborated with him, then certainly anyone who does not stand up that day will not matter afterward. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
You appear to have a strongly political point of view. My opinion is that "strong political views" make ofttimes for very poor judgement. Sorry, but that is where we appear to differ. Wikipedia as a political entity would be short-lived. Collect (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so I have a strongly political point of view, whereas you express only the neutral point of view embedded in the natural fabric of the universe as You created it. WMF's propensity to file court briefs on behalf of the right of people to compile online encyclopedias was clearly an aberration from their True Future Policy, for which Your revelations are the needed corrective measure. Yeah, right. I may be guilty of a bit of the same thinking myself, but at least I wasn't personally the one who first said that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, or put freedom of expression first on the (more specific) list. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
?. I have no "revelations". All I am going by is the stated policies of Wikipedia. I do not who came up with them, but I didn't. Collect (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
If hacking, violations of US laws etc. was necessary to get to what is now considered to be reliable information on certain topics that would never have been uncovered in a legal way, then that implies that news from conventional sources about such topics is in general not all that reliable. Therefore Wikipedia should take note of such potential unreliability. Count Iblis (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Assange vs. Propaganda & Brainwashing[edit]

Daniel Ellsberg sees Assange arrest as the beginning of the end for press freedom. Jimbo, as we look at the wide assortment of whistleblowing facts provided by Assange we must admit that he has helped provide a lot of good content for Wikipedia. However, in his role as whistleblowing facilitator, I think he has provided the much more important function of thrusting reality into mainstream discussion within societies where continual governmental propaganda, to the point of brainwashing, is prevalent. This congressional entry is one example of Assange releasing historically defining information (according to the Congressman) which main stream media never had access to and which directly contradicts all of the propaganda which provided justification for American intervention in the Gulf War. In addition, many reliable media have been able to report events, such as July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike, which led to important Wikipedia articles. That particular event was shocking to many who had been brainwashed into believing that only our enemies, and not ourselves, are out there committing war crimes with abandon. I believe that brainwashing is the ultimate enemy of unbiased knowledge and education, both of which I think are integral objectives of Wikipedia's mission, and that all brainwashing, whether it be from N.Korea or wherever, can be so pervasive that its victims do not even know they have been/are brainwashed and that it takes a shocking revelation, such as the Pentagon Papers, to get some people to wake up to reality. I myself grew up in a totally brainwashed society and did not realize it. I proudly recited every day in school from age 5 the Pledge of Allegiance which ends with "liberty and justice for all". This was in 1951, in Georgia, where half my city's population were segregated from many liberties and much justice. Many adult black men referred to me as "master", when I was still a young boy, but I was so brainwashed, I still believed the words of my daily pledge. Then one day I saw another Julian Assange type rabble rouser on T.V.. A man who also had been thrown in jail for arcane crimes like "inciting a riot" and "disobeying a police officer", in his case, arrested 39 times. Back then, just like today, most people accepted the government propaganda that the target was just a low life criminal with sexual perversions. But when I heard King speak, I realized that when I had been saying "liberty and justice for all", I had, myself, become a part of the ongoing propaganda machine. I say ongoing because in 2019 a poor man in America can stay in jail waiting for trial years longer than a rich man, just because he can't come up with the bail money. And the kids are still saying "liberty and justice for all". So, maybe one day there will be an international holiday for Assange, just as there is a national holiday for MLK, when the government's spin is in line with reality. But the important support for a good cause or movement doesn't come 30 years after its needed, the important support comes at the time its needed, when the opposition is a big fat government with lots of money and even more power. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JimmyWales[edit]

I made a mistake trying to manually access your userpage on the URL by forgetting to add the _. Since I might not be the only one to do accidently do this, should User:JimmyWales redirect to your userpage? Clovermoss (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources[edit]

Hi Jimbo, this is to let you know that the two citations your recently added to Waqar Zaka are unreliable. --Saqib (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Best form is to discuss on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for a draft page review[edit]

Hi, am new to wikipedia and i created a draft page and its waiting for review. it would be great if someone would review my draft page. The page is "Draft:Kavin Raj" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavinrj (talkcontribs) 05:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the "Review waiting" template at the top of the page Draft:Kavin Raj "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2899 pending submissions waiting for review". On the basis of this evidence, the system for reviewing draft articles is flawed because there is a very long backlog. Although a person does not have to submit a draft article for review before creating it, it is useful to get feedback from other users.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I've responded to their request - the page has already been deleted twice. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a possible COI here. On a more general note, the backlog for the review of draft pages is considerable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst[edit]

Hello! Can you explain why the original Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is in the List of music considered the worst? Thanks. 2600:8800:5A80:1394:78FF:1C1D:ACE1:877A (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

[12]. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Wish I could have that sentiment. But seriously, the people behind this list have been extremely obtuse towards anyone requesting its removal. 2600:8800:5A80:1394:78FF:1C1D:ACE1:877A (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
...Because it’s actively being discussed at an RFC. (90% sure this is the editor who was just blocked for removing it five times in a row while being told not to do that during RFCs too.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So when the RFC going to end? 2600:8800:5A80:1394:78FF:1C1D:ACE1:877A (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It appeared to be vandalism, reverting it due to anonymous concerns. --182.239.160.245 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you believe our article includes Sgt Peppers, but not THIS fine old song? Wnt (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)