Talk:Julian Assange

Odd wording?

Does anyone else think this wording is odd?

"Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material".

• "continued to deny" and "even though" sound pointy.
• "continued to deny": The word "continued" suggests that Assange denied something, then Rich died and he talked to Russian hackers, then he resumed his denying.
• "he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers": this should be attributed as a finding of the Mueller report rather than written in Wiki voice.
• "... even though ...": let's for the moment assume the Mueller report is correct on these points. The phrase "even though" suggests that receiving the emails after Rich's death should have led Assange to somehow realise that Russia was responsible. I can't see the connection and the source does not say that. It also assumes that Assange was aware that he was talking to Russian hackers. Assange has said the source of the emails was not Russia so presumably he knows, or thinks he knows, who sent the emails. Does any source actually say he was talking to Russian hackers and knew they were Russian hackers?
• the source for the quote actually says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement" and "the report ... showed that WikiLeaks corresponded with the true source of the leaked emails — Russian hackers — after Mr. Rich’s death".

The previous version of this said "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". This is a better phrasing, except that the claims should be attributed to the Mueller report. Burrobert (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes – there are some unsound conclusions here – Starting with the most controversial point – there is on this page (and on Wiki generally) a strong tendency to treat the Muller report as though it where gospel instead of the politically motivated and contested enterprise that it was - I’m not saying anything in the Muller report is wrong - just that it should not be treated as a gold standard, totally unbiased, source. The wiki page that deals with the DNC leaks comes down strongly on the “Russian hackers did it” side but a perusal of the talk page reveals a little more uncertainty and frankly in this world of information warfare we can’t be absolutely certain of anything eg it’s not impossible the hackers where not working for the Russian state but some other interested party (there’s some very rich oligarchs who had indirect links with Trump for instance) - anyway I’ll leave that can of worms alone and just say we really don’t know for sure exactly what information Assange had at what time – and we can’t even infer with certainty that Assange knew Seth Rich wasn’t involved –if he thought Rich wasn’t working alone there’s no reason the e mails wouldn’t keep coming after Rich’s death (I realise there are some who have absolutely made up their minds on this – to the point where casting the merest shred of doubt at their version of events is tantamount to blasphemy). I think a wording which reflects these doubts would be in order. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) PS Just to be cleare I’m not saying that Seth Rich was involved in any way – just that we can’t be sure Assange knew that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is all very problematical. It seems to be assuming that Assange knew the Russians were the source and lied. In a bio unless we have good evidence otherwise ee should be cautious. Assange said it wasn't the Russians so we have to assume he thought he knew who the source was and was convinced they weren't the Russians. And why should Assange think the American's knew the Wikileaks source better than him? And why should Rich's death necessarily have stopped the leaks within a short time? We'd have to see the actual emails to know about that but I'm sure the Russians could make up a good story. I think all the facts and citations can be kept but it should be written without the loaded style. NadVolum (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and here is why "why should Rich's death necessarily have stopped the leaks within a short time?", because dead people do not send out e-mails, they stop immediately they are dead, as (generally) the dead are not very good are using the internet (at least In my experience).Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If Wikileaks was supposed to be in direct contact with him, we simply don't know the story from inside Wikileaks or how the link was supposed to work. Hopefully that will come out some day. I think the Russians are perfectly capable of fooling people with some made up story. NadVolum (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think some form of Hanlon's razor may apply here. NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to take that up with the RS, not with us. We go with the RS. I find it impossible that...but that would be OR, and neither mine (or yours) is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's why I said the facts and citations could all be kept, just it seemed written up in a biased way and it should be done without the loaded style - which comes from Wikipedia editors not the sources and doesn't seem consistent with WP:BLPSTYLE. As it says there 'Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.' And WP:OR "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." NadVolum (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And we do just that, we do not add alter or embellish a single thing the sources say. We (in fact) virtually quote them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite true. For instance "Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material" That's just sticking bits which are alleged into a whole OR statement as if it is established truth. It assumes Assange had said Rich was the source and it implies he knew the people who sent the files were Russian. The sources say allegation that Rich was the leaker was started by right wing conservatives not Assange. What we do know is he offered a reward for information about the killer and that led to more speculation. There's no indication whether he thought he really was the informant or not. According to a source tht the chronology was damning was said by a lawyer for Rich, it showed that Rich was not the person who did the leaking and that the people who said that should stop. The ones who come out of this bad are Fox News and the Washington Times who did 'original research' rather than following the known facts. And anyway where did this 'conferring to coordinate the release of the material' come from? NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We now have a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A source for what? If anything it seems to be a source showing that Wikileaks wouldn't have known it was talking to the Russians. And they said 'we' so that makes it more possible Assange could reconcile the rumours about Rich with the data was still coming. We'd need more to be sure about that. Do we mention the Russians using fronts to fool Assange? NadVolum (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A source for both the claim that both he implied rich was the source, and that he was receiving the email after rich had died.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have wandered off from the original points so I will condense and rephrase them to try to focus editors’ attention:

• "continued to deny" and "even though" sound pointy. See MOS:EDITORIAL "Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ..."
• "continued to deny": The word "continued" suggests that Assange’s denials preceded Rich’s death and then restarted after Rich’s death. No source says that because it makes no sense.
• "he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers": this should be attributed as a finding of the Mueller report rather than written in Wiki voice.
• the source for the quote actually says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement".

Burrobert (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hardly an announcement of fact. The intelligence agencies said "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." I certainly thought Russia was behind them. But how convincing would thatbe to someone who thought he had inside information and knew better? NadVolum (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, WE do not try and guess what someone might have known.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

But WIkipedia editors do choose things and stick them together. I think it would be even worse to go find some Trump follower RS saying the Russians didn't do it but that seems to be the level of argument. I really would like a bit more though put in to whether what was being stuck in really was backed up by the known facts. NadVolum (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What "known facts"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm complaining about the pushing of assumptions and bias when some RS has got things wrong. If people know that the RS has put in their own thoughts or in Wikipedia terms done OR rather than accurately reporting on what's happened they should be careful about including the opinion bit even if it is in an RS. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Then complain to the RS if you think they are inaccurate, not to us. Also how do you know they are wrong? How do you know this man was not an associate of Assange?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have wandered off from the original points again. Let's take baby steps:

• "continued to deny" and "even though" sound pointy. See MOS:EDITORIAL "Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ..."

Burrobert (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The sentence we are discussing is problematic. It says: “Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material” however as far as I can see the closest any of the sources comes to saying this is the New York Times piece: “Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement and told a congressman that the D.N.C. hack was an “inside job,” ....” Assange saying that the “D.N.C. hack was an “inside job,”” is not the same as him continuing to say Seth Rich was the leaker, as our wording implies. Also note that there is still doubt about what Assange knew, and when, about who exactly was behind Guccifer 2.0 thus, saying Assange “was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material” is misleading. I suggest this sentence needs a re-write (or scrapping). Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not those words but "As Isikoff’s reporting makes obvious, it’s in fact much more accurate to pin the broad embrace of Seth Rich conspiracies on WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange " "The TEN_GOP tweet was also more than a week after WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange implied in an interview on Dutch television both that Rich’s killing was suspect and that he might be the source of the material stolen from the DNC that WikiLeaks had published the prior month. " "Mueller’s report suggests Assange hoped to “obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing” by blaming Rich.", so yes at least one source does discuss the idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course, we could change it to "Assange continued to imply that Rich was the source..." in accordance with what the sources seem to be saying.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous version of this said ""Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". This is a more neutral wording. It should still be attributed to the Mueller report. If you want to say something about Assange continuing to do something, the source says "Even after intelligence officials announced that Russia was behind the email hacking, Mr. Assange continued to deny Russian involvement". We shouldn't use phrases like "even after", "even though" or "continued to deny" due to pointedness. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed -“Imply” might be slightly better but the “continued” I find rather misleading – how many times did Assange actually imply Seth was the leaker after the events already discussed in the article? “continued” placed in a sentence at the end of the section does imply he carried on implying Rich was the leaker after the events already discussed in the article- yet the source only says he carried on denying the Russians where the leakers (not the same thing). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would add I find the “continued to confer with the Russian hackers” problematic because – unless I’m missing something - it is not proven that Assange knew who was behind Guccifer 2. at the time so that “continued to confer with Guccifer 2.” would be better. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your quote says nothing about what he knew, and there is nothing wrong with the larger wording under diiscussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording does imply something which simply is not supported by the facts as reported. The reasonng against changing here seems to be that Wikipedia should follow the exact wording rather than commonsense. There is WP:COMMON but I'm afraid WP:NOCOMMON which closely follows it is the rule here so you'll need actual citations policies or guidelines to counter this sort of thing. WP:BLPCRIME says we should not assume something criminal has actually been done unless a conviction has been got. An assumption by some newspaper is not a conviction yet except in the public court as far as I'm aware. NadVolum (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

For someone like Assange I guess WP:BLPPUBLIC applies so if multiple independent RS can be found saying it in the biased way rather than saying something like he continued to talk to Guccifer2 and denied he was Russian we'd have to accept that. NadVolum (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW on how to act I see Wikipedia has an article on Tit for tat but doesn't cover generous tit for tat which might be a good addition. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

OK so do we have consent to change continued to implied?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Something like that would be better I think. NadVolum (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No. It could be changed to "continually", but the current wording is OK. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SlaterSteven If you wish to swap “continued for implied that would be fine by me (an improvement) but we will still need to deal with the other issues – simply asserting that: “nothing wrong with the larger wording under discussion” as stated by another editor - without addressing the issues raised is not I believe satisfactory. My suggested text would go with Burrobert but substitute Russian hackers for Guccifer 2 as follows:

“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Guccifer 2 to coordinate the release of the material"

This accords with the sources and known facts Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Excpety ity does not as Muller said that the persona is operated by Russian military intelligence agency GRU, so Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be phrased as if Assange knew that at the time. The security services had already issued a statement saying they believed the source was Russian and yet Assange continued saying the source wasn't Russian. Either a fool or a liar but saying he continued talking to the Russians denies a theory of mind in the act of talking or discussing. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Since we don’t have the space to give full context in our article (unlike the full Muller report or W.P. article) we should be careful not to give misleading implications - to say that Assange was in communication with the Russians leaves the impression he knew at the time who was behind front man Guccifer 2. We simply don’t know that to be true and should not even indirectly imply it. If you want to expand my suggested version to include mention of the Russian hackers I suggest the following “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with Guccifer 2 (who acted as a front man to Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material". Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/ "in a December interview on Hannity’s radio show, he left open the possibility that Guccifer 2.0’s activities were linked to the Russians. “Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”", so yes he did seem to have an idea it might be the Russians.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but “he did seem to have an idea it might be the Russians” is not the same as knowing it was the Russians, and we should not imply he did – we could go on to include the “December interview on Hannity’s radio show” and explain all it’s possible interpretations – explaining that some people have interpreted his words as meaning Assange may possibly have had a suspicion that the Russians where behind the leaks - but frankly we already give three paragraphs to the Seth Rich issue – that’s more than enough. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is simply nonsense. He is a competent businessman. Sources are clear. Drop the stick. We need to stay NPOV. We have RS telling us it was the Russians and Assange knew the source. He didn't say that he releases explosive data without knowing the source. That would certainly fly in the face of various editors' insistence that Assange is a good-faith journalist. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsence? Really that's a bit rich SPECIFICO. To the best of my knowledge Assange never claimed to know the source of every leak that Wikileaks published and since the Wikileaks model was somewhat deferent from other news/information outlets that seems reasonable – in this instance the leak was coming from someone calling themselves “Guccifer 2.” Whether Assange knew more than that we may never know and we can’t just assume and imply otherwise – the RSs we use gives enough detail to explaining the “Guccifer 2.” Middle man aspect, so readers understand that Assange did not necessarily know he was dealing with the Russians - we need to explain that too (if we feel it necessary to mention the Russia/Russians yet again - they come up 22 time in the article at present). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

PS SPECIFICO – You say you are concerned about sticking with the RS - well if you can demonstrate that my wording contradicts RS, or contains information that is not in our existing citations I will concede (I’m pretty sure you can’t) otherwise I think you are the one who should drop the stick - in this instance clinging to a wording which is clearly misleading. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The article just needs to follow what RS say. The best of your knowledge isn't at issue. This is longstanding consensus text and the onus is on you to demonstrate any need to change it. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we still talking about this sentence: ""Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material"? It dates from 13 September 2021. The long-standing version before that was "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". Apart from making little sense and being pointy, the current version does not follow what reliable sources say. Burrobert (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert Yes same sentence – and yes: the current version is at least misleading. Little progress is made because what we see as the problems with the current version are not currently being acknowledged. Additionally I would like the sentence to acknowledge that Assange conferred with Guccifer 2. who was front man for the hackers (as noted in the RSs). Would an RFC be helpful here? Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it may be time for an RFC, as this is going nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be easier than this. If it is necessary to have an RfC to decide the issue then I believe the policy is that the long-standing version should remain until a decision is reached. Thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is how it works, we stick with the version that had consensus before, the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The long-standing version is "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material". Who will be brave enough to make the change? Burrobert (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it Version of 30 July 2021 "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. as it is for 31 August 2021. and for 29 June 2021 its "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.". It seems to ber that is the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is worse than I thought. Yes that version could be considered the longest standing version but it is arguably even worse than the current version. It was in effect for months before Basketcase2022 introduced a more reasonable version on 13 September.[1] The edit summary for Basketcase2022’s change is “Stating what "Assange must have known" in Wikipedia's voice is conjecture”, which makes good sense. The current version was introduced later on 13 September. Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So we rest to the last stable version and then launch an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is the standard operating procedure even if it will degrade the article's quality. The RfC should be interesting with at least three versions to choose from, ranging in standard from atrocious to almost acceptable. Burrobert (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC now up, lets let others have a say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: With your consent, I'd like to insert a tag into the disputed sentence:

Assange must have known {{According to whom|date=September 2021}} that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.

This will not materially alter what you have identified as the last stable version, but it will assist the RfC by focusing editors' attention on an especially problematic point. However, if you object, I will not tamper. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC, how should we word the material about Assange and Seth Rich?

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.

In this rfc, the community discusses how to treat a sentence in our article on Julian Assange. The matter relates to US politics, and is, therefore, contentious and fraught. The community does not reach consensus about how to word the disputed sentence --- but the discussion has nevertheless been useful, and considerable progress towards a consensus has been made. From the discussion below, it is possible to put some constraints about how the disputed sentence should read, and I hope that these constraints can inform a subsequent talk page discussion that might reach consensus --- or if not, it could help to shape a subsequent, simpler, rfc with fewer options.

The current wording, with the phrase "must have known", does not enjoy consensus support. The community wants to replace it, and it should be replaced.

The options that enjoy the most support at the moment are C and F. Using Wikipedia's model of rough consensus for decision making, it is not possible for a closer to choose between C and F; but C and F have some common features that help us shape what the article should say. We know that the final sentence should begin with the words: "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead... because these words are common to C and F. And we know that it should end with the words: ...to coordinate the release of the material. because these words are also common to C and F. All that remains is for editors to refine the words in the middle.

I hope this close is helpful, and I do hope that editors will be able to do this without the need for a further RfC.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Should we say

A "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material"

B. "Assange continued to deny Russian involvement even though he had received the emails after Rich's death and was conferring with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."

C. "Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."

D. “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and continued to confer with the Guccifer 2 to coordinate the release of the material"

E. Exclude.

F. “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

Note sources are currently in the article or the talk page section titled Odd wording?Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTE To assist editors who are coming here via a notification, the text is at the end of the following passage at the end of the article section 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In a July 2016 interview, Assange implied falsely that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. Seeking clarification, the interviewer asked Assange whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder," to which Assange answered, "No. There’s no finding. So, I’m suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."[291] WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder and wrote,[292]

We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications.

Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[293][292][294] and set off a spike in attention to the murder. Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet.[295] According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.[296][297][298] Assange must have known[according to whom?] that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.[296][273]

SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added an option “F” which was a wording I suggested a couple of days ago. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualor and Slatersteven: Prunes, you can't just add your personal preference to an RfC underway. That is how these things end up failiung. Please strike that and !vote and comment within the framework provided. It already was perhaps too diffuse. RfC's work best when they are the closest to a binary choice. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO It is not reasonable for an interested party to word a RFC and to have sole ownership of which options can be chosen from. In this instance I am very happy to give Slatersteven the benefit of the doubt and assume that when compiling the list of choices he accidently overlooked the option I had suggested on the previous day | here. As for a binary choice – that would be nice but, unfortunately, IMO not at this stage appropriate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. I could not give every single option as there were so many variants, and all F is is a variant of D.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Prunesqualer, the creator of an RfC does have a sort of ownership, so others must use persuasions to get them to alter it. If others are still verydissatisfied, they can !vote in a way that causes the RfC to fail and/or implode. An RfC doesn't always provide a final solution. Later RfCs may seek to modify previous results, so see an RfC as a step toward improvement. -- Valjean (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There is concern that there are too many options for a clear result – could I suggest we can now drop all but two options:

• Drop A and E since there are no takers
• Drop B with only one taker (who shares their vote with C)
• Drop D since everyone who voted for D also voted for F (so F can represent that camp)

Leaving a binary C or F vote. Might I suggest that votes already registered for C or F still stand unless the person who voted explicitly changes their vote. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC) PS If agreed we could simply strike through options A B D and E and their accompanying text for clarity. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Leave it, we need to make sure that no ones "choice" is railroaded, which is why E is there at all (and as can be seen below is one of only two that have been explicitly rejected, along with A).Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

In acknowledgment of a valid point raised by Geogene I would like to alter the wording of option F to the following:

“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

Please note the term “persona” is the one used in both the Muller report and our RS. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Could editors please note I have updated the text in option ‘’’F’’’ (after consulting and with the express approval of each editor who has so far voted F) to correct a fault spotted by Geogene re. Guccifer 2.0’s identity, and simplify “continued to confer” to “conferred”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone actually going to act on this RFC? Slatersteven opened this RFC is it his job to bring in and admin? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now asked for it to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, does this mean we're closing an RfC without resolving the problem? The offending wording "Assange must have known" is still in the article, so we shouldn't close the RfC. I even created a "Reboot" subsection below, but no one commented. Maybe we should close this an immediagtely make that Reboot a new RfC. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No it means I am asking an uninvolved editor to assess consensus and make a decision on what it is. But if you oppose the close say so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Voting

• Option C: I presume the choice should be based on the two sources that have been provided on the article page. The ‘’Washington Post’’’ article does not mention Rich so is not relevant. The word “continued” is inappropriate in all options. It implies Assange was doing something before Rich’s death which he resumed after Rich’s death. This makes no sense and is not in the source. The phrases “Assange must have known”, “continued to deny” and “even though” are not appropriate due to pointiness. Each of the options should contain a phrase attributing its statements to the Mueller report. This attribution appears in the New York Times article - “according to the report” appears four times in the article. Taking these shortcomings into account, the least objectionable version is option C, with the following changes:
  • change “continued to confer” to “conferred”
  • Attribute the statement to the Mueller report by saying at the start of the sentence “According to the Mueller report … “

Burrobert (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option F: This option covers the facts but does not misleadingly imply that Assange knew he was conferring with Russian hackers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option B' Or C This seems to afford the best coverage of what the RS say, and we should use all of them if needed, not cherry pick.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option D or F This describes what happened without making an unwarranted implication that Assange knew the person he was talking to was a Russian hacker. We shouldn't be implying things like that in a Biography of a living person. We can also say he continued denying Russian involvement. What's in D and F also assumes he thought or asserted he was communicating with Rich but I think the wording will just about pass. NadVolum (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  And I'm Still with that after lots of discussion, probably F preferred. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• D or F, per above. A is pure OR, and B and C strongly imply guilty knowledge. E is a no-go, since there's no reason to suppress the information, only to write it properly. Agree with "conferred" edit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option F. Option C implies that Assange knew it was Russians which I don't see in the cited sources. Alaexis_¿question? 11:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I'm fine with the new wording ("a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers") too. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option E We cannot draw conclusions not stated in sources, per synthesis. Furthermore, we cannot state as facts information that is reported as allegations in sources, per biographies of living persons. I suggest that we only report conclusions that have been reported in reliable sources and report allegations as allegations. TFD (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• C is neutrally worded and meets the objections of editors who feel that A includes speculation as to Assange's thinking. A is also supported by RS reporting, however, and is acceptable as an alternative. Option F insinuates that Guccifer 2 was not part of the Russian operation, contrary to all RS narratives and the Mueller report. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here are some additional references regarding Assange's relationship with the Russians and his lie about Rich.
  • Charges undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins
  • Julian Assange’s claim that there was no Russian involvement in WikiLeaks emails
  • Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians
  • What the Latest Mueller Indictment Reveals About WikiLeaks’ Ties to Russia—and What It Doesn’t

For background on Guccifer 2.0 according to RS, see our article. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Your first link says "Whether Assange knew that those behind Guccifer 2.0 were Russian agents is not addressed in the indictment. But it seems unlikely that Assange, a former hacker who once boasted of having compromised U.S. military networks himself, could have missed the extensive coverage blaming the Kremlin for the DNC hack." The second sentence is AP's opinion, which while possibly being notable, isn't enough to say it in wikivoice. Alaexis_¿question? 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option E Are we really having an RFC to argue for the inclusion of WP:SYNTH? Even local consensus here by a few politically-minded editors that are interested in this subject (one way or the other) cannot overrule wikipedia policy. The entire proposed sentence should be struck, leaving only the position of the muller report, as that is due and readers can make up their own mind. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or F "Guccifer 2.0" is a nom de guerre used by the Russian hackers, whether Assange knew it or not. Using it in place of "Russian hackers" is obfuscation. F needs editing though because the (who acted as a front man to Russian hackers) implies that the G2.0 online persona was a natural person, which it was not. Revised F has addressed that Geogene (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Somewhere in here, Prunesqualor's suggested tweaking that to read "(a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers)". Something like that would work. We need to keep in mind that none of the proposed text in the options above is immutable forever; we need to be looking at the general "shape" and intent of it, and not get hung up on a particular word here or there. The goal is to produce encyclopedic text, not for a particular proponent of one particular exact wording above to "WP:WIN".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that it works. Geogene (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• None of the above: the single-minded obsession with Assange's involvement with the USA is a monumental obstacle in this article. It is trivial in the extreme whether Assange was misleading in an interview or knew this or knew that or had dealings with Russian agents or drank his tea with lemon or milk. We know that Assange runs a secretive organisation connected to dubious people, and we know that he publishes a wide range of highly confidential information which come from a wide range of sources. I don't see the relevance whether he obtained his information from a Russian minx, a Canadian muskrat, or a Swedish beaver. This is a global encyclopedia. This article should not obsess with tawdry American politics, any more than it should obsess with the politics of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Australia. I fully understand that American editors are hyperventilating about what Assange said about the chipmunk, the bison, or the black squirrel. But, hang on a minute, people in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Australia might equally be salivating at the bit, wanting to vent their spleen. Globally, who cares? Did the woodchuck chuck wood? Did the bear defecate in the national park? Is the moose really an elk? Questions of this ilk have little relevance here. I think attention here should principally — if not solely — be given to the sacrosanct Wikiwhatever principles of WP:UNDUE, WP:GLOBAL, and WP:NPOV — and all the other crap I haven't mentioned. In short, this is not all about the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice imagery Jack. This is our version of the mediaeval question How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Burrobert (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Utterly vacuous. OJ Simpson -- Sports hero. Benedict Arnold -- Revolutionary war hero. Rudy Giuliani -- Respected attorney. Jack, things change and the most noteworhty events of a person's life are not always the ones for which they were first known. Also, the creative writing expeditions are best done elsewhere, not on a WP article talk page. They weaken whatever message you have. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Jack, it would be more helpful if you focused more on adding views from other regions than on implying we should suppress what RS say about Assange's USA-related activities. Make a constructive suggestion. Would an article split help solve your issues with this article? -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Unseemly diatribe, Jack. When Slatersteven opened this RfC, Assange's BLP devoted 3 paragraphs, comprising 232 words, to Seth Rich; that has now grown to 4 paragraphs, comprising 313 words. I agree that this is too much. It could easily be reduced to a single paragraph, comprising 115 words:

    In a July 2016 interview on Dutch television, Assange hinted that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder but wrote, "This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications." Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet. According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.

  However, I dispute your larger point that editors' "single-minded obsession with Assange's involvement with the USA is a monumental obstacle in this article." Under Julian Assange's direction, WikiLeaks' most prominent target since November 2007 has been the United States. If there's a single-minded obsession here, it's Assange's self-declared 14-year war against America's national security and its domestic politics. For Wikipedia to minimize that involvement would do history a glaring disservice. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  It has to be said that this debate, if nothing else, has at least resulted in some editors being more open about their P.O.V.s re. Assange. They are pretty well as I would have predicted, but nice to have it in slightly plainer speech rather than having to judge by editing trends - It’s a shame that Wikipedia has no mechanism for ensuring an even balance, in terms of the numbers of editors contributing on each side of a controversial subject. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  With regard to Valjean's comment, we do have other articles which deal with this topic, including 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak and Murder of Seth Rich. I don't think a split would really make sense. In addition, bulking up the article with information about other countries is impractical, as this article is already oversized. Can I also take this opportunity to apologise for the animal motif? It did have a point, but in the cold light of day, I have forgotten what it was.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option E or F. Tracing this back to the GRU is something that piqued the interests of Muller's witnesses, not Assange. Implying that Assange looked into Guccifer 2.0's identity rather than respecting the anonymity wishes of his soruce would require much more than the assertions currently available. Connor Behan (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option D is factual and does not draw inferences on who is a Russian hacker and who is not and whether Assange knew they were Russian hackers. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (II)

I could only access the WaPo article and I could not find where it concludes that Assange must have known the Rich was not the source because he was dead. I notice too the use of the qualification "allegedly" in the WaPo article. "Allegedly" means an assertion has not been proved, although it does not exclude that there is a high probability of it being true. Also, since this is a biography of a living person, we should not make allegations of dishonesty as fact unless reliable sources report them as facts. TFD (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

We also could use this [[2]].

This Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The article in the Sidney Morning Herals does not say that Assange must have known the Rich was not the source because he was dead. I can't access the other two. Can you quote what they say about that? TFD (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can make out no credible source is saying that Assange knew he was conferring with Russian hackers whilst “coordinat[ing] the release of the [DNC] material” as the current wording implies. Some clearly believe he did, some don’t - it’s boils down to speculation/opinion and shouldn’t be implied as fact in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Observation: The RfC in this matter refers to the talk page section above titled Odd wording? Between its creation on 13 Sep 2021 and RfC opening on 17 Sep 2021, that section attracted 51 comments from four editors totaling 3,692 words (not counting signatures and time/date stamps). That strikes me as an inefficient process to reach an impasse over a single sentence, the last stable version of which comprises just 40 words. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the article should include a misleadingly worded sentence even if getting it changed does take a lot of time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The role of argumentation for its own sake should not be discounted here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot speak for others – but can assure you that my concerns re. the sentence in question are sincere. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It was clear to me it was not going anwhere fast. As such I thought OUTSIDE input was needed, fresh opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment with -six- options? the chances of reaching a consensus in this RFC? isn't likely. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as we already seem to have consensus heading towards D or F.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

And maybe C (one less "vote").Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I have suggested similar (a bit tucked away above) – suggested striking through all the options except C and F (explanation above). Since you opened the RFC if you’re in agreement perhaps you could do the honours? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

See my response above.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

OK Just so long as we go along with an option that has some support and a reasonable rationale after waiting a few more days I’m fine - it seems clear, on both those grounds, the current wording is not acceptable. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already stated we seem to be heading for consensus. But I seem to recall the usual time for an RFC is about a week.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ok, thanks (I guess I’ve become a little too mistrustful and defensive in my old age) Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC's remain open for a month, not a week. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO The guidance says: “An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration;”. Since quite a bit of time and effort has already gone into dealing with the issue in hand I’m sure most editors would welcome a reasonably timely conclusion without unnecessary delays - and a common sense acceptance of an option that is not misleading or inaccurate (nearly everyone so far involved, accepts that the current wording is, at least, misleading). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not going to rely on your opinion to shorten this RfC. It needs to run its month. There is no emergency. The purpose of an RfC is to get uninvolved editors to examine the issue. So far we have barely scratched the surface and several views have ignored or contradicted the sources. I will solicit some participation on related article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to address those issues.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we please put out posts above the reflist? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, while I agreed that A is synthesis, so is C: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It implies that Assange was aware Rich was not the source because he knew Rich was dead when the files were received by Wikileaks. I don't think that so little has been published about Assange that we need to add our own opinions. `TFD (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Not following that. I think it's well-sourced Assange knew Rich was dead and not his source. He amplified the nascent dark-web Rich conspiracy theory to broadcast it worldwide. See the section of our Murder of Seth Rich article SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Just to stick to the logical, Assange, if he really believed Rich to be involved in the leaks, may have believed other actors to be involved also (the supposedly “true” Russian hackers account certainly involved several players) so from Assange’s POV the e-mails may not necessarily have dried up on Rich’s death under such circumstances. The “amplified the nascent dark-web Rich conspiracy theory” point is already abundantly dealt with in the article and does not need yet another iteration in the currently contended sentence. IMO though, most pertinent and compelling: no reliable source (to the best of my knowledge) claims that Assange knew he was dealing with “Russian hackers” when “[coordinating] the release of the material” – we just don’t know - and should not misleadingly imply he do know (whatever our personal opinions on the subject). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently you have not read the sources I provided with my !vote above. Assange was promoting Russian disinformation and went out of his way to do so. We need to reflect the weight of RS, not what an editor may feel is "logical". SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself but it has never been established that Assange knew he was dealing with the “Russians”. When you use phrases like “Assange was promoting Russian disinformation” you imply he did know. This is misleading. If the RSs do use similar phrases it is because they have explained the background so the reader knows that Assange was actually dealing with Guccifer 2. acting on behalf of Russian hackers. Option F makes this clear. Perhaps you could reconsider option F, or explain why you think it not acceptable? Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

To say that Assange knew that Seth Rich was not the source because Assange knew Rich was dead is a "conclusion." A conclusion is defined as "the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises." (Merriam Webster.)[3] And that is specifically prohibited by policy. If we had a source that reported this conclusion, then we might be able to include it. TFD (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to the sources I gave with my !vote and to our WP Seth Rich article. There's plenty of sourcing Assange knew and was promoting Russian disinformation. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You stated next to your vote “Option F insinuates that Guccifer 2 was not part of the Russian operation”. Sorry but that doesn’t add up to me: Option F explicitly says “Guccifer 2 ... acted as a front man to Russian hackers” surly a front man is usually part of an operation – only his job is to not be seen as such by the outsiders he interacts with. Regarding the four articles you shared – I should point out not one of them definitively claims that Assange knew at the time he was dealing with Russian Hackers – there is just speculation.

• Your first Source (A.P.) it says: “... But it seems unlikely that Assange, a former hacker who once boasted of having compromised U.S. military networks himself, could have missed the extensive coverage blaming the Kremlin for the DNC hack.” That is not at all conclusive and even if he knew that the Russians where being blamed in some quarters it does not follow he believed the Russian connection himself let alone knew it to be true.
• Your second Source (W.P.) it says: “While Assange... appears to claim that Russia is 1,000 percent certain not to be the source of the documents published on WikiLeaks,’’’ the facts are not nearly as certain’’’ “ Again there is plenty of speculation and theorising but it remains inconclusive.
• Regarding your third Source (The Daily Beast) it is not considered a sound source. Also then I didn’t spot any definitive statement that Assange knew he was dealing with Russian Hackers – in the article.
• Your fourth Source (The New Yorker) adds nothing relevant to the issue and is equally inconclusive just dealing with ifs and maybes.

Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note it has been suggested we change option F, I have suggested rather add a new option.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify – I’ve suggested a slightly altered wording for F which reads:

 “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

This newer version substitutes: “continued to confer” with the less pointy: “Conferred” (a change already agreed on by several editors), and also swaps: “who acted as a front man to Russian hackers” for: “a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers” (as pointed out by Geogene - Guccifer 2.0 is not generally thought to be a single individual, and “a persona” is the term used in the Muller report and our RS). I’m hoping that those who voted F will be just as happy (or more so) with the tweaked version and that the altered version can keep the votes given to the older version (so far the front runner). I’ve contacted and asked for explicit agreement to the change from editors who voted for the old F - hopefully they will all respond Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC) (all did respond in the positive, and the wording is now changed accordingly) Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• There's nothing pointy about "continued". It's common English usage. Have you read our Guccifer article and its sources, including the Mueller Report? If not, I think it's reasonable to expect you would do that now, given the level of control you apparently wish to assert over this wording. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Continued" means "to begin again or return to after an interruption". If you say X continued to do something after Y happened, then you are implying that X had been doing that thing prior to Y. I think we can all agree that Assange was not conferring with Guccifer 2.0 prior to Rich's death. Burrobert (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  No. And anyway, he got the emails before Rich's murder. Lots of conferring going on. Read the Mueller report. Read our Guccifer 2.0 article. Read the sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. I have tweaked the Guccifer 2.0 article to include that info. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sends Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirms that he received it. WikiLeaks publishes the file's contents on July 22. The Mueller report asserts that Assange was "working to shift blame onto [Seth Rich] to obscure the source of the materials he was releasing". -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Valjean Just to be clear – the article already talks at length about Assange’s roll in the DNC leaks, gives three paragraphs to the Seth Rich side of the story and already says (just before the sentence we are discussing) “According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.” Seems to me there is no need to keep repeating ourselves on that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  PS on reflection the preceding sentence probably needs altering to avoid the misleading impression that Assange knew his source was Russian (as explained repeatedly, that has never been proven). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  What needs to be clarified is Assange's willingness to insinuate to the world, wink wink, that murder victim Seth Rich was a criminal turncoat. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well I think you've established clearly that you think whistleblowers are criminals. Deep throat should have been jailed for his bit in the Nixon saga. People who tell about their company dumping toxic waste in rivers are turncoats who should be made to suffer for the rest of their lives. NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Dumping poison is a crime, reporting that to the authorities is a duty, not a crime. As you would know if you were familiar with the Mueller Report, theft of a campaign's internal emails is a crime. Please be more careful not to misrepresent or disparage other editors. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  In what way am I disparaging or misrepresenting? The Mueller report calls it theft and leaves it at that unless you can point to a place that says more. The emails were damaging to Clinton, and they say that too. Whistleblowing very often involves tradeoffs, and a person showing their company doing polluting very possibly will have to have corroborating internal emails or other documents. NadVolum (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"No. And anyway, he got the emails before Rich's murder".

From our article on our hero:

"Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead ..."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Burrobert (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It has to be a typo made by SPECIFICO. -- Valjean (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Since you sidelined into labels of “criminal turncoat”: just for a little perspective: The act of revealing to the world that the Democratic Party may have cheated Bernie Sanders out of a chance to stand for President is not necessarily viewed as a bad thing by everyone - perhaps if more such disreputable behaviour was uncovered on political circles we would have a less corrupt and dysfunctional leadership. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the take-home point is that Assange's intervention might have been traumatic for certain persons of a US of A persuasion but equally could be "Snoresville" for denizens in a functioning polity. The reality is that Assange's leak (which could have come from a Russia barely disguised source) was ostensibly favourable to Sanders but could have in reality favoured Trump. Or been irrelevant. So I suggest all the US citixens involved in this discussion take a moment to adjust their underpants in private, in the comfort of their own homes or something similar, and not come to this page to screech about the irritation in their nether regions concerning a concocted issue that is trivial in the extreme. Sure, Assange shouldn't made his stupid comment about Rich — or any of the myriad of stupid comments that have pockmarked his stupid career. But honestly give it a rest. How many pages do we need to take mulling the Mueller Report? To we have to analyse all the crap that Assange said in an interview with someone from the Low Countries? Do we have to crawl deeper and deeper into the possible implications of his asinine and obviously self-serving remarks? No, no, no, we don't. And we shouldn't. If we have to include information about this non-event, it should be short, factual, and should exclude silly speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am rewording a point I made earlier to avoid accusations of “NOTFORUM”: I seems to me WP|SYNTH has been used to imply Assange in some way characterised Seth Rich as a “criminal turncoat”. I think it reasonable to point out that: Democratic Party officials behaved badly, and may well have cheated Bernie Sanders out of a chance to stand for President. The act of revealing such to the world has not been viewed as a bad thing by everyone (some see such whistle-blowing activity as constructive, democratic and brave) it would certainly not necessarily earn the label “criminal turncoat” in everyone’s eyes. It’s extremely likely that Assange saw the whistle-blower/s in this case in a positive light and possibly could not see misleading hints re. Seth Rich possible involvement as harmful (if so, given Rich’s family’s later reaction, he badly miscalculated) that much may be speculation but my point is: we cannot assume malice, and we certainly cannot imply that Assange wanted anyone labelled with pejorative terms like “criminal turncoat”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I calmly and politely denounce your petty broadside fired at "certain persons of a US of A persuasion." As proclaimed at my user page, I am a proud resident native citizen of the United States. Since 5 August 2021, I have made 160 edits of Julian Assange—33.1% being minor. (Admittedly, this pales compared to your own 604 edits over the past two years.) I have also made more than 10% of total edits to this talk page since 15 August 2021. None of my contributions can reasonably be construed as "screeching about the irritation in my nether regions" or as demonstrating that my underpants require adjustment. I find your anti-American vulgarism offensive and ask you to, in your own words, honestly give it a rest. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022:I won’t defend vulgarity but I think Jack has a point saying the DNC leak scandal has taken too much prominence in the article – Assange may have backed a horse in 2016 and published information damaging to the Clinton Campaign – but exactly the same can be said about the New York Times, Washington Post and others. Seems to me the Clinton Campaign got caught behaving badly and then they, and their supporters in the MSM, whipped up hysteria about the messengers as a distraction from their own shortcomings. Seems our article has been sucked into that vortex – Sure the issue must be covered but not given 13 paragraphs and well over a thousand words. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t look as though we are going to get an explanation Valjean. I would like to use your defence in any murder trial I am involved in: "Your honour, it was a simple spelling mistake. I swung the axe before the victim moved their head when I actually meant to swing it after they moved their head. Burrobert (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Per a suggestion below, I am proposing an alternate version here

Current: "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."

My version: "Kevin Poulson, writing for The Daily Beast wrote: "Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death." Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead and Assange continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sent Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirmed that he received it. WikiLeaks published the file's contents on July 22."

I would like you to consider the merits of my version and discuss it. The matter of what Rich knew or didn't know is sufficiently complex to not be solvable with a simple sentence, and we are not allowed to SYNTHesize the answer that really covers it, but we are allowed to cite, with attribution, those RS which do that. -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Reboot

We seem to have stalled. The offending wording "Assange must have known" is still in the article, and my proposed edit (immediately above) has not received comment. It solves several problems and provides more information and how RS interpreted the situation. That information is important to include. Please comment. We need to resolve this. -- Valjean (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Current: "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."

My version: "Kevin Poulson, writing for The Daily Beast wrote: "Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death." Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead and Assange continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sent Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirmed that he received it. WikiLeaks published the file's contents on July 22."

I would like you to consider the merits of my version and discuss it. The matter of what Rich knew or didn't know is sufficiently complex to not be solvable with a simple sentence, and we are not allowed to SYNTHesize the answer that really covers it, but we are allowed to cite, with attribution, those RS which do that. -- Valjean (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Yahoo News investigation

Yahoo! News has just published the results of an investigation into how the US state apparatus worked to neutralise Assange and Wikileaks. The breathless title is a good introduction to the article. There is enough information in the article for a separate Wikipedia page on attempts by the US regime to counteract the threat of Assange and Wikileaks. I will mention a few items here.

• The release of Vault 7 made a big difference to the way the US state apparatus behaved towards Wikileaks and Assange ("After Vault 7, Pompeo and [Deputy CIA Director Gina] Haspel wanted vengeance on Assange"). We only mention Vault 7 once in Assange’s bio.
• One hilarious idea, which indicates the level of Pompeo’s madness, was to “violat[e] the sanctity of the Ecuadorian Embassy before kidnapping the citizen of a critical U.S. partner — Australia — in the capital of the United Kingdom, the United States’ closest ally". Apparently Britain, in a rare show of independence, was not interested. Australia's reaction isn't mentioned but has always been "All the way with whoever is charge over there".
• Trump denied that he ever considered having Assange assassinated and said "I think [Assange]’s been treated very badly". Any of that noteworthy?
• For the Russophobes, a Russian plan to whisk Assange out of the embassy and on to Russia is mentioned. This plan involved Russian spies. Russia.

Burrobert (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well Trump says a lot, so unsure if this is really that significant. At best all of this would need atrbutation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you think he actually did consider assassinating Assange? I don't think we can say that without more evidence. The article does say that Pompeo considered assassination. Anyway there is a lot more in the article. I picked out a few dot points and Trump only received passing mention. Burrobert (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what he might have thought, but given past (public) behavior I think he could have said 15 contradictory things in as many sentences in one conversation (some without thinking at all). As I implied, we need to ber care (if) how we use this. So I would like to see some suggested text here first.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

LOL! That sums up Trump's mentality very well. We certainly do need some concrete wording of what to report. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't we take care with all changes to the page? The writers consulted over 30 former intelligence functionaries, most of whom are anonymous. There were two named sources, one of whom, William Evanina, was a highly placed official. Usually this type of information is released to shape public opinion toward some end. The information does demonstrate the homicidal nature of the previous regime but it also works against the US prosecution of Assange, so it is hard to know how to interpret it. Burrobert (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "the homicidal nature of the previous regime " sums up nicely why I would want to see what we say before we add it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Assassination is an example of homicide. The discussion in relation to Assange led nowhere in the end, but the article indicates this was not from lack of will on the part of the Trump regime.

• "Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request “sketches” or “options” for how to assassinate him. Discussions over kidnapping or killing Assange occurred “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration".
• "[T]he agency’s WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting".
• "In response, the CIA and the White House began preparing for a number of scenarios to foil Assange’s Russian departure plans, according to three former officials. Those included potential gun battles with Kremlin operatives on the streets of London, crashing a car into a Russian diplomatic vehicle transporting Assange and then grabbing him, and shooting out the tires of a Russian plane carrying Assange before it could take off for Moscow".
• " "That the CIA also conspired to seek the rendition and extrajudicial assassination of Julian Assange is a state-sponsored crime against the press,” [Poitras] added".
• "One of those officials said he was briefed on a spring 2017 meeting in which the president asked whether the CIA could assassinate Assange and provide him “options” for how to do so".
• "[A]gency executives requested and received “sketches” of plans for killing Assange and other Europe-based WikiLeaks members who had access to Vault 7 materials".
• "In testimony first reported in the Guardian, another idea also took shape. “Even the possibility of poisoning Mr. Assange was discussed,” the employee said his boss told him". (This story was published in The Guardian last year).

Burrobert (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"In response" to WHAT? It was "in response" to the Ecuadorian's plans to allow "Russian intelligence operatives... to sneak Assange out of the United Kingdom and spirit him away to Moscow," where he would work in the Ecuadorian embassy's "Russian mission.... The intrigue over a potential Assange escape set off a wild scramble among rival spy services in London. American, British and Russian agencies, among others, stationed undercover operatives .... to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services — whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards.”

It's too bad that Assange never ended up in Russia, where he would have felt most comfortable. He was, after all, the next most important Russian asset in the western world, second only to Trump, who is still finishing Putin's assigned task for him, destabilizing American democracy. According to the former GOP Attorney General of Arizona,"Trump 'Succeeded' Where Russia Failed With Attacks on Election Integrity." So yes, that failed Russian/Ecuadorian plot should be mentioned. -- Valjean (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

But the Russians made me do it. Burrobert (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

What do editors think of the following text, sourced from the Yahoo article:

"In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the wake of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," journalist Glenn Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists." " Burrobert (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That paragraph does not belong in this Assange BLP. WikiLeaks and Greenwald each have their own Wikipedia pages, where the content has already been added. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see it in the Wikileaks article. There was something about Wikileaks associates that referenced the Yahoo story. Btw, Laura Poitras thought Assange was included in this action: "Poitras said reported attempts to classify herself, Greenwald and Assange as “information brokers” rather than journalists are “bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide". "

We seem to have kept Pompeo's name out of the story.

• "At meetings between senior Trump administration officials after WikiLeaks started publishing the Vault 7 materials, Pompeo began discussing kidnapping Assange, according to four former officials. While the notion of kidnapping Assange preceded Pompeo’s arrival at Langley, the new director championed the proposals, according to former officials".
• "Pompeo and others at the agency proposed abducting Assange from the embassy and surreptitiously bringing him back to the United States via a third country — a process known as rendition".

Burrobert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, if your position is that material about Wikileaks shouldn't be in Assange's bio, you have a big job ahead of you. Most of the material in the "2016 U.S. presidential election", "Founding WikiLeaks" and "WikiLeaks publishing" sections is about Wikileaks. There are many other sentences that are only about Wikileaks:

• After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.
• During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries.
• In April, CIA director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia".

Interestingly, there is an item in the current article that is very similar to a part of the Yahoo story:

• In the same documents, there was a proposal by the National Security Agency (NSA) to designate WikiLeaks a "malicious foreign actor", thus increasing the surveillance against it.

Burrobert (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Observation: The Yahoo! News article contains 7,177 words and is rated as a 39-minute read. This talk page section contains more than 1,500 words and is clearly just getting started. I predict that in no time flat this section will dwarf the Yahoo! News article, and probably require more than an hour to read—if anyone can bear to do so. What's most remarkable about this phenomenon is that Talk:Julian Assange is the preserve not of dozens of editors, but a mere handful, who belabor one point after another at endless length without nary a consensus in sight. Is this any way to run a BLP? Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll condense the points for those with short attention spans:

• Should Laura Poitras' reaction be mentioned?
• Should we mention Pompeo's role?
• Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?
• Someone else said those dastardly Russians need to be mentioned.

Burrobert (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I did not suggest that we should remove items from the page which are only about WikiLeaks. I said your proposed paragraph headed What do editors think of the following text, sourced from the Yahoo article does not belong in this Assange BLP because WikiLeaks and Greenwald each have their own Wikipedia pages. Please don't twist my words in your effort to further elongate an already bloated talk page section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary for removal of text " remove WikiLeaks-related sentence, which is present at WikiLeaks#2017; this BLP should be limited to Assange ".

Other points?

Burrobert (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The sentence I removed with that edit summary was CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices. It did not mention Assange. By "this BLP should be limited to Assange" I meant only that we should restrict ourselves to WikiLeaks-related content that directly involves Assange's role in that organization. WikiLeaks exists apart from Assange, and for us to force-feed extraneous material about WikiLeaks into an already gorged BLP does not well serve this encyclopedia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

We are back to the original question "Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?" Anyway, other points? Burrobert (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's your question, not mine. Your attempt to pin it on me is repugnant. Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Early on in the discussion, one of our more cautious editors wanted to see some suggestions. I picked up a number of points that had been raised in the discussion so far. I don't know what "pinning a question onto someone" means. You don't have to participate in the discussion if you don't want to. I'll repost the questions here in case editors have lost the thread of the discussion:

• Should Laura Poitras' reaction be mentioned?
• Should we mention Pompeo's role?
• Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks?
• Someone else said those dastardly Russians need to be mentioned.

Burrobert (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

And for editors who have lost the thread of the discussion, please be aware that the bullet point Should we remove items from the page which are only about Wikileaks? was not proposed by me, and I repudiate it as being ludicrous on its face. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 As Bur. Pointed out in your edit summary where you justify removing material, you said: “remove WikiLeaks-related sentence, which is present at WikiLeaks#2017; this BLP should be limited to Assange” This could be interpreted as precedent for removing all information that is not solely about Assange (eg anything about Wikileaks in general) that is already covered in other articles. I think such a precedent would be too constrictive for the good of the article and that such calls should be made on a case by case basis and labelled as such when editing. In this particular case it seems to me that the information that “[The] CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.” Reveals something about the climate surrounding Assange – and is noteworthy enough to include. I hope on reflection you may agree (and hope even more we don’t end up with another blasted RfC dealing with a single sentence). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. How many times do I have to say it? I have not proposed removing all information that is not solely about Assange (e.g., anything about WikiLeaks in general) that is already covered in other articles, and I categorically reject Burrobert's bullet point suggesting such a dopey thing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

V. Sorry - I really have no wish to be tiresome (this page turns us all into grumps and pedants at times) but: do you not see how your edit summary may be interpreted as a general judgement on information that is not solely about Assange and that is already covered in other articles? I agree (of course) that relevance to Assange is a valid consideration when we decide what info to include in his BLP, but I think the edit summary should have addressed that in a case specific way eg “Removing sentence as this information is not sufficiently relevant to Assange’s life” Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Mea máxima culpa. I renounce my edit summary and will strive to the best of my meager abilities to do better. Now, please, I beg you, can we move on to something else? Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sufficiently relevant to Assange sounds a good summary to me. I think that can be judged by the source, if it only mentions Assange as heading Wikileaks for instance it very probably is not relevant to this article. NadVolum (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The first five paragraphs in the article begin as follows:

• “In 2017, as Julian Assange began his fifth year holed up in...”
• ”Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange...”
• ”The conversations were part of an unprecedented CIA campaign directed against WikiLeaks and its founder.”
• ”While Assange had been on the radar of U.S. intelligence agencies...”
• ”President Trump’s newly installed CIA director, Mike Pompeo, was seeking revenge on WikiLeaks and Assange...”

Yes Assange does not appear in the title of the piece but if you read through it you will find he is the key figure linking the piece together. More to the point if my colleagues where being manipulated to make them fall out with each other or being bugged partly in an attempt to find out more about myself I would say that would affect my life profoundly and tell me something about my relationship with the power structure around me. People around Assange where targeted/manipulated/spied on at least in part to find out more about Assange and to undermine the organisation that he still played a key role in running. It’s not a particularly long sentence, the information is interesting, the overlap with Assange’s life is significant – I’d say this sentence defiantly earns a place in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll remove that point from the list based on the above discussion. There seems to be consensus that items should not be removed from the article on the grounds that they only relate to Wikileaks. Items should be assessed on a case by case basis to determine whether their content is sufficiently significant to Assange to warrant inclusion here. If those items are not suitable for inclusion here, it may be appropriate to send them over to the Wikileaks article.

The Yahoo story should provide us with an interesting social experiment. It has now appeared in a number of sources, including Murdoch's Times, which seems surprising based on what we know about that outlet and its owner. Interestingly, the story has not made it as far as the The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post or major oz newspapers. Given that Murdoch owns Australia, it is even stranger that The Times would mention it.

The story points that remain are below - feel free to add others:

• Should Laura Poitras' reaction be mentioned?
• Should we mention Pompeo's role?
• What are we going to do with those dastardly Russians?

Burrobert (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Re. Poitras’s reaction: I think attempts by some in the US security services to redefine WikiLeaks and various journalists as “information brokers” “which would have opened up the use of more investigative tools against them...” is certainly interesting, but if the information that “[The] CIA also planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.” Is considered insufficiently centred on Assange (a view I differ with) then I’m guessing the “Poitras said reported attempts to classify herself, Greenwald and Assange as “information brokers” rather than journalists are “bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide.”” probably won’t be accepted. Re. Pompeo’ role: we have: “Pompeo began discussing kidnapping Assange, according to four former officials” and “Pompeo is advocating things that are not likely to be legal,” including “rendition-type activity,” said a former national security official.” And : “Pompeo took over, he cut the lawyers out of a lot of things” These clearly deal with Assange, and I would like to see some of this mentioned. Re. the dastardly Russians: Seems to me they are already colonising half of Assange’s page and need no further shout outs – the Russia mentions in the article seem a bit hysterical – the idea that “The Russians” would really launch a major operation to smuggle Assange out of an embassy under the noses of the UK security services/police in the middle of London seems far-fetched – I guess the CIA folks earn their living planning for all sorts of bizarre contingencies – not sure we need to mention this pipe dream. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been outside the capabilities of the Russians to smuggle him out of the embassy. But the idea just doesn't pass the smell test for me. They owe him nothing, and I can't see any way in which saving him would be an advantage to them. In fact I think it is very much to Russia's advantageto let the saga continue. Yes I agree it is very probably the CIA scenario people just doing what they do. NadVolum (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see the Russians letting the US think they might try to do something like that though! NadVolum (talk)

NadVolum, you may have missed this from the discussion above:

"In response" to WHAT? It was "in response" to the Ecuadorian's plans to allow "Russian intelligence operatives... to sneak Assange out of the United Kingdom and spirit him away to Moscow," where he would work in the Ecuadorian embassy's "Russian mission.... The intrigue over a potential Assange escape set off a wild scramble among rival spy services in London. American, British and Russian agencies, among others, stationed undercover operatives .... to the point where every human being in a three-block radius was working for one of the intelligence services — whether they were street sweepers or police officers or security guards.”
It's too bad that Assange never ended up in Russia, where he would have felt most comfortable. He was, after all, the next most important Russian asset in the western world, second only to Trump, who is still finishing Putin's assigned task for him, destabilizing American democracy. According to the former GOP Attorney General of Arizona,"Trump 'Succeeded' Where Russia Failed With Attacks on Election Integrity." So yes, that failed Russian/Ecuadorian plot should be mentioned.

The Russians owe Assange a whole lot. In April 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo stated: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Pompeo said that the US Intelligence Community had concluded that Russia's "primary propaganda outlet," RT had "actively collaborated" with WikiLeaks. -- Valjean (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Yes the Russians have gained from him. But he is not an operative of Russia and they have no duty to protect him so other operatives feel safe any more than they have a duty to Trump. The whole Trump era cold be wiped away as a bad memory if Trump could be identified as actually working for Russia, so it would not be in Russia's interest to give any credence to such a supposition by spiriting Trump away if he was about to be stuck in jail for treason. The same reasoning applies to Assange and the US is currently digging itself a bigger hole with its actions against him. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum, you make a good point. I think that's one of the differences between an "asset" and an actual "agent". Assange, Wikileaks, and Trump have been, and are, very valuable and willing Russian "assets" (useful idiots) that Russia would abandon in a heartbeat. They are not activated "agents" Russia would want to protect, so the common joke encouraging Trump and his family to seek asylum at the nearest Russian embassy might have a different outcome than some might expect. It's not certain that Putin would want to host Trump. He might be too big a liability. He also serves Putin's purposes better by remaining in America. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just saw in consortiumnews "What the Yahoo! Assange Report Got Wrong" which also debunks the bit about a Russian plot. Though one has to look at all these stories with a jaundiced eye so I read that bit with a definite "why are they saying this" sort of attitude even if they corroborate what I think ;-) It's very hard to come out of any of these things with a well established truth. NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: Please, what are we to make of this? Consortium News is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yet as your linked story shows, Joe Lauria writes that The Yahoo! News report that is mistakenly being credited for breaking the story of a CIA plot to assassinate or kidnap WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is filled with crucial errors…. On its face, that would seem to debunk the source that launched both this talk page section and an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Yet you conclude, "It's very hard to come out of any of these things with a well established truth." Evidently you apprised of this in order to discredit Joe Lauria's piece, but I'm not persuaded that you have done so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Needs to stay out of the artilce until and unless valid sourcing develops. This is a BLP violation as it currently stands and must be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It really, really isn't. But if you genuinely think it is, well, you've been around a few years, you know where to go. I look forward to the (short) conversation there. Cambial foliage❧ 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: The reporting in consortium news identifies what it says are some errors, but none of them relate to the content that is actually in the article. More importantly, while not listed at perennial sources, it has been discussed on numerous occasions at RSN and the consensus is not a positive one for its reliability. Cambial foliage❧ 21:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused (not for the first time, of course). Joe Lauria writes that The Yahoo! News report … is filled with crucial errors. Yet you say the errors identified by Consortium News do not relate to "the content that is actually in the article." Surely if Yahoo! News makes crucial errors in an article, it calls into question the reliability of the entire article, not just certain passages. I don't see how Wikipedia editors can be selective in relying on such a conflicted source. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that consortium news is not considered a reliable source by consensus, there is no surely about real or imagined "crucial errors" in the article. The discussions on RSN suggest consortium news is considered a fringe organisation, not to be taken seriously. Are the supposed, but quite possibly imaginary, errors described by this fringe organization crucial? They don't relate to the fundamental assertions that have been picked up on and further looked into by other media organizations. They don't relate to the headline. They don't relate to the content that has been used in this WP article. But fundamentally the issue is: there's no reliable source stating that they exist at all. Cambial foliage❧ 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe I understand now. We are meant to completely ignore Joe Lauria's Consortium News article, which seems to have been introduced into this talk page discussion as a red herring. I'm sorry I bit on that. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes basically. I think the Russian plot is the only thing which it was proposed to include which is contradicted by the consortium news article but that hasn't been included luckily so no real problem. NadVolum (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The great Connor_Behan has stepped in and solved the discussion points related to Poitras and Pompeo. Thanks Connor. Btw, relevant to the Yahoo investigation, Assange wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in 2017 about Pompeo's "war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks". Burrobert (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A few more articles about the investigation. The story did reach one of Australia's major papers.Burrobert (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we mention the Yahoo! news report in JA's bio? Some disagreement seems to have arisen. What are the reasons for excluding details of the investigation? Burrobert (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A few more articles covering the assassination/rendition story. Burrobert (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sentences, with numbers, that have been removed from the article

• 1. According to former intelligence officials, in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA plotted to kidnap Assange from Ecuador's London embassy, and some senior officials discussed his potential assassination.
• 2. These discussions also explored a possible means of prosecuting Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras.
• 3. Yahoo! News found "no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved."
• 4. Some of its sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting.

What do editors think of each of these sentences? Can they be improved? Are any unnecessary? Have we missed something from the various sources? Burrobert (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A few more sources:

• A brief mention at Politico.
• The Australian state-funded news agency ABC had a radio segment on the story. It discussed the story and provided a profile of one of the authors of the investigation, Michael Isikoff. It included an excerpt of Isikoff speaking to WBIA radio about the story. It raised the question of whether Australia was notified and, if so, what was Australia’s response.
• According to the SMH article, Michael Isikoff was interviewed by MSNBC about the investigation.
• The Democracy Now! article is a transcript of an interview with Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson and Michael Isikoff about the Yahoo investigation.

Burrobert (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• The story is starting to filter into oz based media. The Australian published a story but then removed it. Odd.
• The Morning Star Online has done a follow up investigation with UK intelligence services but got nowhere. "BRITISH spooks remained tight-lipped today after questions posed by the Morning Star over an alleged CIA plot to kidnap and assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. MI5 did not respond when asked what it knew about the plans to kill Mr Assange on British soil reportedly discussed by the US spy agency and former US president Donald Trump at the White House in 2017".

Burrobert (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, I searched The Australian website and found the missing article here, but it's behind a paywall. -- Valjean (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Valjean. That article is dated 30 September 2020 and is about the evidence that was given at Assange's extradition trial. It begins "Two witnesses who fear for their lives and those of their families have been granted anonymity in the Old Bailey to give testimony about assassination plans made against Julian Assange". It might be worth looking to see if the missing Australian article has been archived somewhere. Burrobert (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, this is not the first time that the kidnapping/poisoning plan has been mentioned in the media. It was raised at Assange’s extradition trial in October 2020. The information at the trial came from a former employee of UC Global. We have a section in JA's bio about the embassy surveillance of Assange by UC Global. Some points from the trial that relate to the Yahoo News investigation:

• "Plans to poison or kidnap Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy were discussed between sources in US intelligence and a private security firm that spied extensively on the WikiLeaks co-founder, a court has been told".
• "An increasingly sophisticated operation to monitor Assange was launched and would accelerate after Trump assumed office in 2017".
• "On one occasion in 2017, they also recalled Morales saying that his American contacts had suggested that “more extreme measures” should be deployed against visitors to Assange. “There was a suggestion that the door of the embassy would be left open allowing people to enter from the outside and kidnap or poison Assange,” the court was told. The witness alleged Morales said these suggestions were under consideration with his contacts in the US".

Burrobert (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Together with that court testimony, this seems to be worth including, of course with proper attribution. I'll mention this below. -- Valjean (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll keeep using this sub-section to update editors on developments. Pompeo appeared on the Megyn Kelly Show where he was asked about the Yahoo report. Some of Pompeo's responses:

• "[T]hose 30 people who allegedly spoke to one of these [Yahoo News] reporters — they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency".
• He "declined to respond to many of the details in the Yahoo News account and confirmed that “pieces of it are true".

Jack and Steven will be annoyed that the ubiquitous Nils Melzer was mentioned in the Yahoo News story about Pompeo's response. I found this quote interesting:

• "... although former officials said the idea of killing Assange was not taken seriously. But when White House lawyers learned about some of the agency’s plans targeting Assange, particularly Pompeo’s rendition proposals, they raised objections, resulting in one of the most contentious intelligence debates of the Trump presidency".

The assessment of Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was that "Pompeo’s comments effectively “just verified the truth of the [Yahoo News] story. Because the only reason to prosecute someone is that they revealed legitimate classified information". Burrobert (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian has been in contact with Oz parliamentarians about the Yahoo report. Significantly, the Oz Prime Minister at the time that the US government and intelligence agencies were conducting the discussions around rendition/assassination, told The Guardian that "The first I heard about this was in today’s media". Presumably that means the US did not brief the Oz government on what actions it was considering. "Guardian Australia also asked DFAT whether the US had ever briefed or consulted the Australian government on the reported option of the CIA kidnapping or killing Assange, but it did not answer that question". Burrobert (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence “Some of Yahoo! News’s sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was allegedly suggesting.” - Why are we using the word “allegedly” here? The source says: “WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting.” No “allegedly” there. We are dealing with a pretty good source here ie Three journalists have conducted a major investigation into US policy and contingency planning regarding Wikileaks and Julian Assange; they interviewed “more than 30 former U.S. officials”; there work has been reviewed and considered worthy of publication by numerous mainstream news outlets. Our wording already hedges by saying: “Some of Yahoo! News’s sources stated...” We don’t need “allegedly” as well. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it does appear to be double-counting. If we have attributed the claim then allegedly is unnecessary. Burrobert (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "allegedly" is unnecessary. -- Valjean (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And now for something completely different ... If you search the British state broadcaster's site you won't find an article about the Yahoo investigation. However, someone has pointed out that the BBC did publish an article about the report ... in the Somali language. Burrobert (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Oz state broadcaster has reported that "A group of prominent Australians have written to the Prime Minister, asking what the government knew about an alleged CIA plot to kill or kidnap WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London". The group, all of whom visted Assange in the embassy, includes Julian Burnside, Melbourne lawyer Lizzie O'Shea, Jennifer Robinson, Scott Ludlam, Mary Kostakidis and Kathy Lette. The group has "also demanded the government reveal whether they were caught up in the US plot and if their lives, too, were ever at risk". Burrobert (talk) 08:59, October 1, 2021‎ (UTC)

Ryan Grim and Sara Sirota have published an article in The Intercept which connects the Yahoo! News investigation with events within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and other areas of the US legislature. It also mentions an interesting item which was not raised by Yahoo News: "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a “grab team” waiting outside the embassy". Burrobert (talk) 09:19, October 1, 2021‎ (UTC)

While on the subject of Ryan Grim, he and Robby Soave interviewed managing editor of Shadowproof, Kevin Gosztola, about the Yahoo report, on The Hill's programme Rising. The Hill made a brief reference to the Yahoo report in its Morning Report on 27 September and had a more detailed article about the Yahoo report on the same day. Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears the English language version of the British state broadcaster has in fact mentioned the plan to kidnap/assassinate our protagonist. The reference is in the 28 September episode of its Newsday radio programme. The introductory text states: "And we hear about an investigation into an alleged plot to kidnap or potentially assassinate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange". Burrobert (talk) 12:06, October 1, 2021‎ (UTC)

There has been some concern from editors that the Washington Post was out of the loop on the Yahoo investigation. Joseph Marks wrote an article titled "The Trump administration considered a cyberattack against WikiLeaks after it published CIA hacking tools" under The Cybersecurity 202 newsletter column. Marks' first concern is the cybersecurity elements of the Yahoo report but he also references the kidnapping/assassination plot. The article is hard to find because it is buried under another article about Maricopa County, Arizona. Ironically, the Washington Post 's motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness". Burrobert (talk) 12:35, October 1, 2021‎ (UTC)

Patrick Cockburn in The Independent connects the assassination/rendition plot against Julian with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a team of Saudi officials in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. He also sees a similarity between "Pompeo’s determination to conflate journalistic enquiry with espionage" and the proposal by the British home secretary, Priti Patel, to "update the Official Secrets Act so that journalists, whistle-blowers and leakers could face sentences of up to 14 years in prison". Burrobert (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Today's theme will be organisations which protect Freedom of information. Reporters sans frontières has already been mentioned. Freedom of the Press Foundation issued a statement in response to the Yahoo report. I won't link to the ACLU statement which is on Twitter. Afaict, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has not issued a statement. The issue may be outside their ambit. The following link to a The Listening Post video story about the Yahoo investigation comes from ZScarpia. It asks the question "Why isn’t the CIA’s plan to kidnap Julian Assange making more headlines?" Presumably the programme has an answer. Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

CNN has mentioned the Yahoo report a few times. Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin magazine published an article which provides some background for the Yahoo report. It assesses the intentions of Jeff Sessions ("attorney general Jeff Sessions, a longtime surveillance hawk and First Amendment foe who made targeting “leaks” a top prosecutorial priority") and Pompeo ("Pompeo had repeatedly attacked whistleblower Edward Snowden, at one point calling for him to be executed"). It also links the Yahoo story with other items related to Assange, such as the Stundin article and the revelation by "Declassified UK" that the UK Foreign Office ran a programme code-named Operation Pelican to remove Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy. We have discussed Pelican here sometime in the last year and the programme is referenced in In the Thick of It, the diary of UK Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, Alan Duncan ("Duncan went to the House of Commons to meet the new Ecuadorian Ambassador Jaime Marchán-Romero. “His principal mission is to get Assange out of the embassy — it has been six years — and although he had been aiming for tomorrow, as I’d just learnt it’s going to take longer. A tad frustrating, but we’ll get there”, Duncan wrote".)Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As a follow up to yesterday's episode, here are some reactions from other media organisations: Defending Rights & Dissent, International Federation of Journalists, National Union of Journalists and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Time for some videos. Michael Isikoff has been doing the rounds of the media discussing the story. He has been interviewed by radio host Randy Credico on his show “Live on the fly” on WBAI . Fittingly, Credico’s show uses the theme from The Third Man as its introduction. Ayman Mohyeldin interviewed Isikoff for MSNBC. The interview is on Twitter so I won't provide the link. Isikoff says that requests for sketches of assassination plans came from the CIA Director but didn’t get to the White House as it was quickly realised that it couldn’t be done. However, the kidnapping plans did get to the White House according to Isikoff. Aaron Mate interviewed Isikoff on the "PushBack Show". The interview gets fiery towards the end. Isikoff and his colleague Zach Dorfman discuss their story on the Yahoo News podcast "Skullduggery". Nils Melzer was also interviewed about the Yahoo report by Randy Credico on “Live on the Fly”. Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo published a follow up article by two of the authors of the original report.

• The article provides an answer to one of the questions some editors have asked: what steps, apart from planning, did the CIA actually taken? The article says the assassination plans went nowhere and "the plans to abduct Assange prompted objections from White House lawyers and other national security officials and were never approved". However, it then says, in reference to the UC Global surveillance:

  "But the CIA did institute other aggressive measures to conduct surveillance and disrupt the activities of Assange and his associates. A Spanish security firm that had been hired by the Ecuadorian government was, according to testimony in a Spanish court case, “turned” by the CIA and used 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".

• The article discusses the role of the House and Senate intelligence committees in the "Pompeo-era proposals regarding Assange and WikiLeaks". The following is of interest because it explains the significance of Pompeo's statement about Wikileaks being a "non-state hostile intelligence service". We have included Pompeo's statement in Julian's bio but have not indicated how it connects with the Intelligence Authorization Act and how it affects the actions the CIA is allowed to conduct.

  "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". "

Burrobert (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The Yahoo investigation is discussed on Graham Cluley's podcast "Smashing Security". Burrobert (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A blog article by Marcy Wheeler, who was not impressed with the Yahoo report. Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo published another follow up article written by Zach Dorfman. It covered responses by Pompeo and others to the initial Yahoo report.

• It says "Pompeo declined to deny the individual allegations in the story, saying only that Yahoo News’ "sources didn’t know what we were doing" ". The Yahoo team tried for months to ask Pompeo about the allegations but he refused requests for an interview. Separate statements made by Pompeo effectively confirm the accuracy of the Yahoo report. Pompeo told Megyn Kelly "There’s pieces of [the report] that are true" and "Whoever those 30 people who allegedly spoke with one of these reporters, they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency."
• “White House spokesperson Jen Psaki also declined to comment Tuesday on the Trump-era discussions about kidnapping Assange, referring questions to the Justice Department and CIA”.
• Pompeo spoke about the allegations on Glenn Beck’s programme and at Hillsdale College.

Burrobert (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In this article, Zach Dorfman sees some parallels between the stories of Assange and Joshua Schulte. Schultze is on trial for leaking Vault 7. His first trial resulted in a hung jury but the prosecution hasn't given up. Dorfman provides some further quotes from former CIA officials about the CIA operations against Assange: "It’s not like Assange is an employee of the SVR [Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service] and they tell him what to do and he does it". Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Bernard Keane connects the Yahoo report with surveillance of Assnage by UC Global. "Assange was also the subject of intense surveillance within the Ecuadorian embassy, with even toilets bugged by UC Global, the firm ostensibly charged with providing security for the embassy". Keane provides responses from people who visited Assange in the Embassy and who were therefore targets of surveillance and/or worse. This includes former Greens senator Scott Ludlam, former Greens staffer Felicity Ruby, academic and technology researcher Suelette Dreyfus who said she was "censored from speaking at a conference — here in Australia — by Australian Signals Directorate". Assange's legal adviser Jen Robinson also wants answers from the Australian government. "I have serious questions for the Morrison government: (1) What did you know and when about US plans to abduct and assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen? (2) What action will the Australian government now take in response to these revelations? (3) What more will it take for our government to act to protect this Australian citizen?". Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Colin Murray interviewed Kristinn Hrafnsson on BBC Radio 5 Live about Wikileaks 15th birthday and the Yahoo report. The interview starts around 1:3:40 into the programme. Burrobert (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A few references from various incarnations of The Times - Murdoch, Tehran and Arab.

Here is an article from The Australian which is still available. The title was provided by Ian Fleming. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting assessed the media’s performance. It noted that many journalists who had previously mocked Assange were silent about the Yahoo report. "It’s important to remember those journalists who watched on, pointing, laughing, comfortable in the knowledge that their work would never produce the impact nor risk of WikiLeaks—and then said nothing as the right to a free press was removed in broad daylight". There are probably many citations from non-English sources - like the Somali article from BBC. Here is one from Der Spiegel. Burrobert (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Another from Der Spiegel. This one is paywalled. Burrobert (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Weasel, "there is evidence Pompeo wanted him killed" and then the article provides no such evidence. Is this supposed to be reporting or opinion? Not a good WP source for anything. Please scrutinize and evaluated these links before piling them on the talk page. This one is useless. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is paywalled so I can't read beyond the introduction. The writer must have had something in mind. You may have missed it. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So you just Google and post random links with no idea what's in them? Wow. Please don't. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian seems to have the same sort story and subheading but it's not supported by the Yahoo article, in Yahoo one source said Trump asked for options to assassinate Assange. It never says Pompeo wanted to do that. I'm afraid every newspaper seems to have stupid mistakes you have to be careful of - a problem with RS as Wikipedia treats them. NadVolum (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the first article out of 60 or so that I have not been able to access. As you can see above I have been providing context for most of the articles linked. Did you end up finding the information you were looking for? Burrobert (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"not at all" what? You found 60 articles using a search engine to give you biased and apparently unreliable therefore useless results? Really? Your search input is the bias, and not to belabor it, but please don't offer us sources you have not read and evaluated. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And BTW, seasoned politicians and civil servants are generally well aware of the law and even the most agenda-driven irresponsible of them will stop short of pursuing illegal actions. Not only is the Pompeo bit unsourced, but any suggestion that he would have promoted that idea shouldn't pass the sniff test for experienced readers. Assange's candidate Trump (like some of his close entourage) is another matter, but we have no sources that fully discuss Trump's positionsin this matter. It wouldn't have been the best judgment on Assange's part to promote Trump only to have the guy win the election and kill him. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Greg Barns, who is barrister and advisor to Julian Assange, discussed the Yahoo report with Brisbane radio station Bay FM. Some of his responses are contained in this article. It mentions that, after Pompeo made his "non-state hostile Intelligence service" speech, Julian Assange responded to Pompeo’s threat in an interview with Jeremy Scahill via The Intercept in 2017. Assange's response is significant in light of the information provided by the Yahoo report. He said: "Pompeo has stated that this is the end of WikiLeaks and its publications. So how does he propose to conduct this ending? He didn't say, but the CIA is only in the business of collecting information, kidnapping people and assassinating people. So it's quite a menacing statement that he does need to clarify". Given that a source has made the connection between Assange's assessment and what the CIA was up to as reported by Yahoo, perhaps we could consider adding Assange's comment along with the mention of the Yahoo report. Burrobert (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"Pompeo has stated," you quote Assange, "that this is the end of WikiLeaks and its publications." Yet nowhere does that statement occur in Pompeo's April 13, 2017 remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Unless you can provide WP:RS reporting that Assange had inside information in April 2017 that the CIA was planning to kidnap and/or assassinate him, it's just standard Assange paranoia and adds nothing meaningful to the September 2021 Yahoo! News story. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a Consortium News interview between Australian journalist and former news anchor Mary Kostakidis and Federal Labor Opposition parliamentarian Julian Hill about the Yahoo report and the Assange case. The Yahoo report comes up about 4 minutes into the interview. Mary notes that the oz government has not responded to the Yahoo report about plans to kidnap or assassinate an oz citizen. Hill said the oz govt should have a formal discussion with the US govt about the allegations in the report. The Italian daily newspaper la Repubblica also covered the Yahoo report. The Star Tribune is the largest newspaper in Minnesota and seemingly unrelated to the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia. It placed the Yahoo report in its historical context in relation to other elements of Julian’s journey. It links the Yahoo allegations with the UCGlobal surveillance. It mentions Pompeo’s virtual confirmation of the allegations and discusses the indictment and the role of Sigurdur Thoradson. A number of sources have now connected the allegations in the Yahoo report with the UCGlobal surveilance, which suggests it might be worth somehow connecting the two items in our bio. No clear path to doing this is apparent at the moment though. A number of sources have also noted Pompeo's virtual confirmation of the allegations in his various responses to the report. Given he was CIA director at the time, this seems significant and could perhaps be added to the statement of the allegations once the RfC has concluded. Burrobert (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless you provide Reliable Sourced references that link Pompeo to the purported plot, this firehose of unsubstantiated allegations about him is a BLP and DS violation and will be reported. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The original Yahoo News article not only links Pompeo to the plot, but says that Pompeo spearheaded it: It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo. The follow-up article by Der Spiegel says the same thing: Es gibt Evidenz, dass CIA-Direktor Mike Pompeo den WikiLeaks-Gründer umbringen lassen wollte (rough translation: "There is evidence that CIA Director Mike Pompeo wanted to have the WikiLeaks founder killed"). Please: anyone participating in these conversations and making claims about sources should read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Since the Der Spiegel (online) webpage that you quote is behind a paywall, I cannot view it to see the context for Es gibt Evidenz, dass CIA-Direktor Mike Pompeo den WikiLeaks-Gründer umbringen lassen wollte. Please, to which "evidence" is Der Spiegel alluding? If it's merely circular to Yahoo! News with no independent verification, then it's unhelpful to our discussion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please quote the words in the Yahoo! piece that you are claiming provide verification that Pompeo spearheaded the purported murder plot. Otherwise, same as above, it's a BLP violation. Spiegel is no good for reasons already stated w/o objection. Please review the previous discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I just quoted it for you above: It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo. Please take the time to read comments before responding to them. Beyond that, Der Spiegel is perfectly acceptable as a source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Please take the time to answer my question. To which "evidence" is Der Spiegel alluding? Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Basket. I went to a local library where I was able to read the entire Spiegel piece. There's nothing there but a claim that the Yahoo! article said something that appears nowhere in the Yahoo article. Thuc has declined to reply to my question above, but the answer is clear. There is nothing in the Yahoo article that supports the Spiegel claim. Clearly, if there were even the hint of such a connection, Thuc and several others would simply have cited the words rather than deflect and ignore the question. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A few articles related to the Morning Star newspaper. There is an analysis of the response of the British media and human rights group to the Yahoo report. The upcoming Belmarsh Tribunal is also mentioned. It takes its inspiration from the Russell Tribunal which was set up in 1966 as a people's tribunal to hold the US government accountable for its escalating war crimes. Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Corriere della Sera published this piece by Roberto Saviano, who interviewed Stella Moris and Stefania Maurizi. The interview touches on many Assange-related subjects, including the Yahoo report. Maurizi, who has been heavily involved in the Assange case for a while, has just published "Il potere segreto". Burrobert (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Another article which assesses the mainstream media's coverage of the Yahoo report. Burrobert (talk) 16:00, October 18, 2021 (UTC)

Another follow up article by Yahoo! News about some fallout from its story.

"A group of civil liberties and human rights organizations are making an urgent appeal to Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the criminal prosecution of Julian Assange in light of what it called a “shocking” Yahoo News story recounting how in 2017 senior CIA officials plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder and even discussed possibly assassinating him".

Burrobert (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

More fallout from the Yahoo report. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee has asked the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for information about the Yahoo allegations. Schiff was on the committee in 2017 when the events were happening but said he was not briefed about the CIA’s plans to target Assange. Significantly, the article says that Assange's lawyers will raise the issue of the "CIA’s misconduct" in the appeal hearing next week. For future reference. the article says:

"White House lawyers also managed to scuttle the kidnapping plan pushed by Pompeo, but other CIA operations went forward, including monitoring the communications and travel of WikiLeaks associates throughout Europe. That surveillance also covered Assange himself, including audio and visual feeds from inside the Ecuadorean Embassy showing the WikiLeaks founder talking to friends and associates. (Assange’s lawyers have claimed these included confidential conversations that Assange had with his lawyers and doctors").

Burrobert (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A Salon article which reported that a "coalition of more than two dozen press freedom groups on Monday intensified an earlier call demanding the Department of Justice drop its charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying the demand is now even more urgent due to recent reports that the CIA plotted to kidnap — and possibly kill — the journalist".

This article discusses media silence around the "Two major stories have emerged since[baraitser] ruled against Assange’s extradition" (i.e. Sigurdur Thordarson and the Yahoo report). "Another widely ignored story is the relentless and invasive spying on Assange and his visitors – including lawyers, family and journalists – while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy". It compares the media’s coverage of Assange with that given to the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny and journalist Peter Greste. Burrobert (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

More analysis of the nature and function of the media, which, “on matters that are of significance for established power, is to avert any ‘danger’ that the public can ‘assert meaningful control over the political process’ ”. Examples presented include the Yahoo report, the sale of arms by the Uk to Saudi Arabia so that it can continue to bomb Yemen, the deification of Colin Powell after his recent passing (“Like a parody from the satirical website The Onion, the article was titled: ‘Powell remembered as “one of the finest Americans never to be President’ “) and the climate crisis. Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Planet America 22 October 2021: "Kidnap or kill: Wikileaks Editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson on the "chilling" CIA plot to assassinate Julian Assange and the US bid for his extradition". Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

An article by Rupert about the Belmarsh Tribunal. It mentions the Yahoo report. Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

More fallout from the Yahoo report. The Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard, has called on US authorities to drop the charges against Assange and urged British authorities to release him immediately.

Amnesty pointed to an investigation by Yahoo News revealing that US security services considered kidnapping or killing Assange when he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Those reports "have cast even more doubt on the reliability of US promises and further expose the political motivation behind this case," Callamard said. "It is a damning indictment that nearly 20 years on, virtually no one responsible for alleged US war crimes committed in the course of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been held accountable, let alone prosecuted, and yet a publisher who exposed such crimes is potentially facing a lifetime in jail," she added.

Burrobert (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Some Sky News Australia articles about the CIA plots. The latest is a video report that places the Yahoo revelations in the context of the extradition appeal which has just started in London. It is a surprisingly sympathetic report from a source which is usually quite regressive. Burrobert (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Two articles published by the Sydney Morning Herald about the CIA plot to assassinate/kidnap Assange. One article provides another response from oz MP Julian Hill, "a prominent figure in the 23-member bipartisan Bring Julian Assange Home parliamentary group. Afaict we have not mentioned the existence of this group of oz parliamentarians. It also mentions that the Australian Labor Party passed a motion at its National Conference that Labor believes "it is now time for this long-drawn-out case against Julian Assange to be brought to an end". The SMH quotes Stella Moris saying "It felt like we were prey and because I was the person who was closest to Julian, I felt that I was very clearly a target". This Politico article is largely about the current extradition appeal hearing. The article was also published by Yahoo News. The article is sourced from Associated Press so that agency has now become aware of the Yahoo investigation. The article does mention that "Wikileaks supporters" say that the UC Global spying and the CIA plot "undermines U.S. claims he will be treated fairly". There was some concern that Reuters may have forgotten to report on the Yahoo investigation. It has just awoken and published this article which has also been republished by the Toronto Sun and Fox Business. Burrobert (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald' article said "Although the CIA has a history of involvement in drone strikes against terrorism leaders in the Middle East, the US intelligence agency has backed away from organising the assassinations of public figures since the 1970s after revelations of those activities were publicised".

• The article is referring here to the Church Committee report and Gerald Ford's ineffective presidential order which stated "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination".
• The difference between killing people with drones and political assassination seems rather arbitrary.
• Omits the 638 attempts made on the life of Fidel Castro. According to Castro's wiki, the last attempt was in 2000.
• Omits the CIA assassination attempt on Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah which missed its target and killed 80 bystanders.
• Assassination of Qasem Soleimani??

Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In parliament today, Senator Janet Rice asked Foreign Minister Marise Payne whether she had seen the Yahoo report and what she had done about it. Rice also asked whether Payne had made any response to the revelations about Sigurdur Thordarson. The answer in both cases appears to be "nothing". There is a twitter thread showing the questioning. Burrobert (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

An uncharacteristic burst of energy from Associated Press. Dicussing the recent appeal, the article says "Assange’s defense team also referred to recent allegations that the CIA and the U.S. government had considered plans to “seriously harm” him — including alleged discussions to “kidnap or poison” Assange —while he was inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. His lawyers urged the court to consider whether U.S. authorities were likely to stick to their assurances in light of the claims". This source provides some responses from oz pollies. From Articolo 21, liberi di..., a freedom of expression group. Burrobert (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

More on how the Yahoo story was presented by Assange's defence lawyer during the extradition appeal. "Summers added that “there is going to have to be some assessment” of the reports about the CIA’s conduct as well as apparently related evidence developed by a Spanish judicial investigation into a security company that allegedly helped the CIA spy on Assange. He argued that the Yahoo News story and the Spanish probe buttress allegations that the CIA “plotted assassination, kidnapping and poisoning” of Assange". Burrobert (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the two quotes above, it may be worth fleshing out how the defence used the Yahoo report in its submission in the extradition appeal. The defence said the report and the evidence about UC Global surveillance showed that the assurances provided by the US in relation to its treatment of Assange could not be trusted. Currently, we only say "Assange's lawyers introduced the alleged plot during a hearing of the High Court of Justice in London". We don’t mention the full basis of the US appeal, including the assurances that it provided. Apparently, on 27 October, Rupert’s London paper published a full page ad for the International Federation of Journalists, representing 600,000 journalists worldwide, calling for Julian Assange's immediate release.

Heise online published an article about the recent appeal hearing. Pompeo was quaintly described as "Trump's rustic CIA boss". Afaict this is the first time Pompeo has been described as rustic. The article also said "Pompeo had indirectly admitted the authenticity of these [CIA assassination/kidnapping] plans when he was outraged by the traitors ".

The Marxist organisation Counterfire published an article by John Rees in which Rees makes the interesting point that "it is the CIA which has the say in how prisoners held under the Espionage Act ... So the very same agency which planned to either kidnap or kill Assange will be deciding whether he should be held in life-threatening conditions in US prisons". It does seem like an anomaly. Rees article was written prior to the trial so it would be worth looking into whether the defence used that particular argument in its submission. While it would not be appropriate to use Rees statement in Julian's bio, it would be appropriate to include the same reasoning if it were used by the defence and reported in reliable sources. Burrobert (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

According to former Newsweek journalist Tareq Haddad, who attended the extradition appeal, the defence did use the argument given by John Rees in its submission. Haddad said Mark Summers QC, on behalf of Assange, "pointed to the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency is an authorising body in the application of SAMs". If editors are interested in going to the source, details can be seen in the skeleton arguments submitted to the court prior to the trial, in which the defence links the UC Global surveillance with the revelations in the Yahoo report: "These witnesses … testified to the extreme measures of surveillance employed against Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the targeting of Stella Moris and the children; and the discussions they participated in about kidnapping or poisoning him. … Since then, recent disclosures about CIA plans from the same period in time to seriously harm Julian Assange have only served to emphasise and justify the reality of Professor Kopelman’s concerns. UC Global was said to be operating in conjunction with the CIA and is the subject of criminal proceedings presently conducted by a judge in Spain".

Time reported on how the defence raised the Yahoo report in court: "Last month Yahoo News published a report that the CIA had plotted to poison, abduct or assassinate Assange in 2017". " "Given the revelations of surveillance in the embassy and plots to kill him", Fitzgerald told the court, "there are great grounds for fearing what will be done to him" if extradited to the U.S. He urged the court "not to trust [the] assurances" of the "same government" alleged to have plotted Assange’s killing ". Burrobert (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Mamamia published an interview with Stella Moris yesterday. The Yahoo report was mentioned. "This September, further allegations against US intelligence emerged via a Yahoo News investigation, which featured claims from former counterintelligence officials that, the same year Gabriel was born, senior figures inside the CIA and the Trump administration mulled the possibility of kidnapping or killing Assange within the embassy, going so far as to request "sketches" or "options" for how to assassinate him". There are other interesting details about Julian and Stella's private life.

• "[D]isguised as a motorbike courier, Assange walked up the steps of London's Ecuadorian embassy on June 19, 2012, rang the bell, and requested asylum". Worth mentioning?
• "As well as accusing Assange of turning the embassy into a "centre for spying" that risked Ecuador's relationship with other countries, the government publicly claimed that he had threatened embassy staff, skateboarded and played football inside, blasted loud music, and even smeared fecal matter on the embassy walls. It is a testament to the good sense of editors here that, as far as I can recall, no one has tried to insert into Julian’s bio the claims about smearing poo, skateboarding and threatening staff. Well done everyone.

Burrobert (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

WSWS published an article which describes how Assange introduced the Yahoo report into the recent extradition appeal. It also indicates that the defence has linked the allegations in the Yahoo report to the spying done by UC Global inside the embassy. It also says the defence mentioned Pompeo's "non-state hostile intelligence service" speech and the relevance of the Intelligence Authorization Act. The article says: "Summarising the [Yahoo] article, Summers said that WikiLeaks’s “Vault 7” release of CIA electronic surveillance and cyber warfare tools “provoked what former US officials variously describe as ‘a desire for revenge’, ‘fury’, ‘seeing blood’, ‘an obsession’ and ‘a desire for vengeance’”. It led to former US CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “designating WikiLeaks as a non-state hostile intelligence agency”, granting the CIA additional powers to act against it, and “discussions about killing Mr Assange.” He continued, the “CIA discussed kidnapping him, rendering him back to America” and this “led to the placing into existence of charges so that there would be something in place in the event that they did render him to the USA.” Conversations between the CIA and UC Global, the company which provided security at the Ecuadorian embassy where Assange claimed asylum, involved “discussions of kidnapping and poisoning”. Summers concluded by saying “what is now known” is that the UC Global revelations discussed in the initial extradition hearing were “potentially the tip of the iceberg and the CIA’s planning in relation to Mr Assange goes much, much deeper than that.” "

The WSWS article also quoted Stella Moris saying outside the court "Today we were able to air in court Mike Pompeo’s plans, his ‘sketches’ and ‘options’ to assassinate Julian in London. To assassinate a journalist in this city for doing his job because he exposed their crimes".

Burrobert (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Post-Yahoo report developments

The section above is starting to get long. Over the next week or so I will tease out the main points from the discussion above and place these in a subsection below. Since the Yahoo report itself is still being assessed via an RfC, I will limit the points to reactions to the Yahoo report and developments that occurred after the release of the investigation. For the moment, here is a quick list of items, in no particular order, that have appeared in sources since the Yahoo report was published.

Follow up articles by Yahoo

Pompeo’s responses from interviews with Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck, Hillsdale College etc

Responses to Pompeo’s responses (Ben Wizner etc)

Responses of the various governments, Jen Psaki, intelligence services etc

Response from DFAT, Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian Labor Party

Discussion of Assange’s and Wikileaks previous statements in light of the Yahoo reports allegations

Connection with UCGlobal surveillance

Responses from Media organisations

Assessments of the media’s performance

Responses from associates of Assange who were concerned they may have been caught up in the plans

The plan to poison Assange that was reported in the 2020 Guardian article about the extradition trial

The connection between the events mentioned in the Yahoo! News investigation and events within the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and other areas of the US legislature.

The similarity, mentioned by several sources, between the “conflat[ion] of journalistic enquiry with espionage” in the Assange case and the proposal by the British home secretary, Priti Patel, to "update the Official Secrets Act so that journalists, whistle-blowers and leakers could face sentences of up to 14 years in prison”.

The connection with Operation Pelican

The role of the House and Senate intelligence committees in the "Pompeo-era proposals regarding Assange and WikiLeaks".

The connection between Pompeo’s "non-state hostile intelligence service" statement and the Intelligence Authorization Act.

Joshua Schulte.

Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No thank you. Try being brief please, you just added 3,321 characters. Another section to summarize this would be like [4]. NadVolum (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hear hear. And for starters we only use impeccable RS in a BLP bio, and on topic. This page reads more like a fan's scrapbook of disjointed and conflicting whimsey. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Responses by Pompeo to the Yahoo report

Firstly, why is Pompeo important in a discussion of the Yahoo report?

• He was CIA director at the time these events occurred.
• "Pompeo, who served as CIA director during the period when these extreme options were under consideration, spearheaded the campaign against Assange and WikiLeaks, former officials told Yahoo News".
• "At meetings between senior Trump administration officials after WikiLeaks started publishing the Vault 7 materials, Pompeo began discussing kidnapping Assange, according to four former officials".

Pompeo has provided a number of responses to the Yahoo report. These come from interviews he has done with Glenn Beck and Megyn Kelly and a speech he gave a Hillsdale College. I have also included where sources have highlighted non-replies by Pompeo.

• " “I can’t say much about this other than whoever those 30 people who allegedly spoke to one of these [Yahoo News] reporters — they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency,” Pompeo said”.
• "At the same time, Pompeo declined to respond to many of the details in the Yahoo News account and confirmed that “pieces of it are true,” including the existence of an aggressive CIA campaign to target WikiLeaks in the aftermath [of the publication of Vault 7]".
• "When first asked about the Yahoo News story by Kelly, Pompeo responded, “It makes for pretty good fiction.” But when pressed by the host whether that meant he was denying what Yahoo News reported, he acknowledged “there are pieces of it that are true.” “
• "He did not address any of the details about other actions the CIA was contemplating, such as Assange’s possible abduction, or steps U.S. intelligence actually took, including conducting audio and visual surveillance of Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy or monitoring the communications and travels of his associates throughout Europe".
• When asked about Trump’s comment (i.e. Assange was treated badly), "Pompeo said: “No. Assange treated the U.S. and its people very badly." "
• "Pompeo declined to deny the individual allegations in the story, saying only that Yahoo News’ “sources didn’t know what we were doing.” "
• "Pompeo did not respond to multiple interview queries by Yahoo News, and a detailed request for comment, sent over a two-month period prior to the story’s publication".
• On the Glenn Beck show Pompeo said he "concluded that WikiLeaks was “one of the first non-state hostile intelligence entities” that “weren’t engaged in even crappy reporting” like Yahoo News’, but were instead working to “steal secrets themselves and pay others to do the same."
• Speaking at Hillsdale College Pompeo said: "They assert that was me who was trying to kill Julian Assange. You should know: Don’t believe Michael Isikoff, OK? Don’t believe everything you read in Yahoo News."

Burrobert (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Responses to Pompeo's responses to the Yahoo report

• "[Pompeo's] call Wednesday for the criminal prosecution of sources who spoke to Yahoo News drew a strong rebuke from a member of Assange’s legal team. "I find it highly disturbing that his reaction is to try to prevent information about misconduct from being known by the American people," said Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S. lawyer".
• The assessment of Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was that Pompeo’s comments effectively "just verified the truth of the [Yahoo News] story. Because the only reason to prosecute someone is that they revealed legitimate classified information".
• Zach Dorfman says in a follow up report that "Pompeo declined to deny the individual allegations in the story".
• Dorfman and Isikoff wrote in another follow up article that Pompeo "did not address any of the details about other actions the CIA was contemplating, such as Assange’s possible abduction, or steps U.S. intelligence actually took, including conducting audio and visual surveillance of Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy or monitoring the communications and travels of his associates throughout Europe".
• Drew Hamre wrote in the Star Tribune that "Former director Mike Pompeo seemingly confirmed the report in a subsequent interview, saying that the 30 sources should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified CIA activity".
• Heise online published an article which said "Pompeo had indirectly admitted the authenticity of these [CIA assassination/kidnapping] plans when he was outraged by the traitors".

Burrobert (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Responses by governments, parliamentarians and the state apparatus

• The Australian state-funded news agency ABC asked whether Australia was notified of the US plans to assassinate or kidnap Assange, and, if so, what was Australia’s response.
• "BRITISH spooks remained tight-lipped today after questions posed by the Morning Star over an alleged CIA plot to kidnap and assassinate Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. MI5 did not respond when asked what it knew about the plans to kill Mr Assange on British soil reportedly discussed by the US spy agency and former US president Donald Trump at the White House in 2017".
• The Guardian contacted Oz parliamentarians about the Yahoo report. Malcolm Turnbull, who was Oz Prime Minister at the time that the US government and intelligence agencies were conducting the discussions around rendition/assassination, told The Guardian that "The first I heard about this was in today’s media".
• "Guardian Australia also asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade whether the US had ever briefed or consulted the Australian government on the reported option of the CIA kidnapping or killing Assange, but it did not answer that question".
• "White House spokesperson Jen Psaki also declined to comment Tuesday on the Trump-era discussions about kidnapping Assange, referring questions to the Justice Department and CIA".
• Mary Kostakidis interviewed Federal Labor Opposition parliamentarian Julian Hill about the Yahoo report and the Assange case. Mary notes that the oz government has not responded to the Yahoo report about plans to kidnap or assassinate Assange. Hill said the oz govt should have a formal discussion with the US govt about the allegations in the report.
• Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee has asked the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for information about the Yahoo allegations. Schiff was on the committee in 2017 when the events were happening but said he was not briefed about the CIA’s plans to target Assange.

In summary, the only responses from the various state functionaries to the Yahoo report were from:

• Oz PM at the time who stated he was not made aware of the plans,
• A Federal Labor MP who said the oz government needed to discuss the allegations with the US and
• Adam Schiff, who has asked the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for information about the Yahoo allegations.

The US and oz governments and MI5 did not respond to requests for comment and have not otherwise commented on the report.

Burrobert (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Responses by non-state organisations and individuals

• "A group of prominent Australians have written to the Prime Minister, asking what the government knew about an alleged CIA plot to kill or kidnap WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London". The group, all of whom visted Assange in the embassy, includes Julian Burnside, Melbourne lawyer Lizzie O'Shea, Jennifer Robinson, Scott Ludlam, Mary Kostakidis and Kathy Lette. The group has "also demanded the government reveal whether they were caught up in the US plot and if their lives, too, were ever at risk".
• Statements were issued by Nils Melzer, Reporters sans frontières, Freedom of the Press Foundation, ACLU, Defending Rights & Dissent, International Federation of Journalists, National Union of Journalists and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
• Bernard Keane provides responses from people who visited Assange in the Embassy and who were therefore targets of surveillance and/or worse. This includes former Greens senator Scott Ludlam, former Greens staffer Felicity Ruby, academic and technology researcher Suelette Dreyfus who said she was "censored from speaking at a conference — here in Australia — by Australian Signals Directorate". Assange's legal adviser Jen Robinson also wants answers from the Australian government. "I have serious questions for the Morrison government: (1) What did you know and when about US plans to abduct and assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen? (2) What action will the Australian government now take in response to these revelations? (3) What more will it take for our government to act to protect this Australian citizen?"
• "A group of civil liberties and human rights organizations are making an urgent appeal to Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the criminal prosecution of Julian Assange in light of what it called a “shocking” Yahoo News story recounting how in 2017 senior CIA officials plotted to kidnap the WikiLeaks founder and even discussed possibly assassinating him". A Salon article also reported that a "coalition of more than two dozen press freedom groups on Monday intensified an earlier call demanding the Department of Justice drop its charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying the demand is now even more urgent due to recent reports that the CIA plotted to kidnap — and possibly kill — the journalist".
• The Secretary General of Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard, called on US authorities to drop the charges against Assange and urged British authorities to release him immediately.
• Stella Moris said: "It felt like we were prey and because I was the person who was closest to Julian, I felt that I was very clearly a target".

Burrobert (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Previous statements by Assange and Wikileaks related to the Yahoo report

• Assange wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in 2017 about Pompeo's "war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks". This was in response to Pompeo's "non-state hostile Intelligence service" speech.
• The kidnapping/poisoning plan was raised by the defence at Assange’s extradition trial in October 2020.

  "Plans to poison or kidnap Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy were discussed between sources in US intelligence and a private security firm that spied extensively on the WikiLeaks co-founder".

  "An increasingly sophisticated operation to monitor Assange was launched and would accelerate after Trump assumed office in 2017".

  "On one occasion in 2017, they also recalled Morales saying that his American contacts had suggested that “more extreme measures” should be deployed against visitors to Assange. “There was a suggestion that the door of the embassy would be left open allowing people to enter from the outside and kidnap or poison Assange,” the court was told. The witness alleged Morales said these suggestions were under consideration with his contacts in the US".

• "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a 'grab team' waiting outside the embassy".
• After Pompeo made his "non-state hostile Intelligence service" speech, Julian Assange responded to Pompeo’s threat in an interview with Jeremy Scahill via The Intercept in 2017. Assange said: "Pompeo has stated that this is the end of WikiLeaks and its publications. So how does he propose to conduct this ending? He didn't say, but the CIA is only in the business of collecting information, kidnapping people and assassinating people. So it's quite a menacing statement that he does need to clarify".

Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Connection between the Yahoo report and UC Global surveillance

• Bernard Keane connects the Yahoo report with surveillance of Assange by UC Global.
• The Star Tribune is the largest newspaper in Minnesota and links the Yahoo allegations with the UC Global surveillance.
• "White House lawyers also managed to scuttle the kidnapping plan pushed by Pompeo, but other CIA operations went forward, including monitoring the communications and travel of WikiLeaks associates throughout Europe. That surveillance also covered Assange himself, including audio and visual feeds from inside the Ecuadorean Embassy showing the WikiLeaks founder talking to friends and associates. (Assange’s lawyers have claimed these included confidential conversations that Assange had with his lawyers and doctors)".
• "But the CIA did institute other aggressive measures to conduct surveillance and disrupt the activities of Assange and his associates. A Spanish security firm that had been hired by the Ecuadorian government was, according to testimony in a Spanish court case, “turned” by the CIA and used 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".
• During the appeal Assange's laywer said that " "there is going to have to be some assessment" of the reports about the CIA’s conduct as well as apparently related evidence developed by a Spanish judicial investigation into a security company that allegedly helped the CIA spy on Assange".
• The WSWS reported that Mark Summers QC, Julian's lawyer, said during the extradition appeal that "conversations between the CIA and UC Global, the company which provided security at the Ecuadorian embassy where Assange claimed asylum, involved “discussions of kidnapping and poisoning”. Summers concluded by saying “what is now known” is that the UC Global revelations discussed in the initial extradition hearing were “potentially the tip of the iceberg and the CIA’s planning in relation to Mr Assange goes much, much deeper than that.” "

Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What actions by the CIA have been linked to the kidnap/assassination plots mentioned in the Yahoo investigation?

• "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a “grab team” waiting outside the embassy".
• "But the CIA did institute other aggressive measures to conduct surveillance and disrupt the activities of Assange and his associates. A Spanish security firm that had been hired by the Ecuadorian government was, according to testimony in a Spanish court case, “turned” by the CIA and used 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".
• "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". "
• "Assange was also the subject of intense surveillance within the Ecuadorian embassy, with even toilets bugged by UC Global, the firm ostensibly charged with providing security for the embassy".
• The ‘’Star Tribune’’ also links the Yahoo allegations with the UCGlobal surveillance.
• "White House lawyers also managed to scuttle the kidnapping plan pushed by Pompeo, but other CIA operations went forward, including monitoring the communications and travel of WikiLeaks associates throughout Europe. That surveillance also covered Assange himself, including audio and visual feeds from inside the Ecuadorean Embassy showing the WikiLeaks founder talking to friends and associates. (Assange’s lawyers have claimed these included confidential conversations that Assange had with his lawyers and doctors)”.
• During the appeal Assange's laywer said that " "there is going to have to be some assessment" of the reports about the CIA’s conduct as well as apparently related evidence developed by a Spanish judicial investigation into a security company that allegedly helped the CIA spy on Assange".
• Bernard Keane provides responses from people who visited Assange in the Embassy and who were therefore targets of surveillance and/or worse. This includes former Greens senator Scott Ludlam, former Greens staffer Felicity Ruby, academic and technology researcher Suelette Dreyfus who said she was "censored from speaking at a conference — here in Australia — by Australian Signals Directorate".
• "A group of prominent Australians have written to the Prime Minister, asking what the government knew about an alleged CIA plot to kill or kidnap WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in London". The group, all of whom visted Assange in the embassy, includes Julian Burnside, Melbourne lawyer Lizzie O'Shea, Jennifer Robinson, Scott Ludlam, Mary Kostakidis and Kathy Lette. The group has "also demanded the government reveal whether they were caught up in the US plot and if their lives, too, were ever at risk".

Burrobert (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Effect of the Yahoo report on extradition

• An Associated Press article published prior to the extradition appeal hearing mentions that "Wikileaks supporters" say that the UC Global spying and the CIA plot "undermines U.S. claims he will be treated fairly".
• In an article published prior to the appeal hearing, John Rees wrote that "it is the CIA which has the say in how prisoners held under the Espionage Act ... So the very same agency which planned to either kidnap or kill Assange will be deciding whether he should be held in life-threatening conditions in US prisons".
• Associated Press reported that "Assange’s defense team also referred to recent allegations that the CIA and the U.S. government had considered plans to “seriously harm” him — including alleged discussions to “kidnap or poison” Assange — while he was inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. His lawyers urged the court to consider whether U.S. authorities were likely to stick to their assurances in light of the claims".
• "Summers added that "there is going to have to be some assessment" of the reports about the CIA’s conduct as well as apparently related evidence developed by a Spanish judicial investigation into a security company that allegedly helped the CIA spy on Assange. He argued that the Yahoo News story and the Spanish probe buttress allegations that the CIA "plotted assassination, kidnapping and poisoning" of Assange".
• Tareq Haddad, who attended the extradition appeal, wrote that the defence did use the argument given by John Rees in its submission. Haddad said Mark Summers QC, on behalf of Assange, "pointed to the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency is an authorising body in the application of SAMs”.
• The defence's skeleton argument said that "These witnesses … testified to the extreme measures of surveillance employed against Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy, the targeting of Stella Moris and the children; and the discussions they participated in about kidnapping or poisoning him. … Since then, recent disclosures about CIA plans from the same period in time to seriously harm Julian Assange have only served to emphasise and justify the reality of Professor Kopelman’s concerns".
• Time reported that Assange’s defence lawyer Edward Fitzgerald told the court that "Given the revelations of surveillance in the embassy and plots to kill him, there are great grounds for fearing what will be done to him" if extradited to the U.S. Fitzgerald also asked the court "not to trust [the] assurances” of the “same government” alleged to have plotted Assange’s killing”.
• During the extradition appeal, Julian's defence said the "CIA discussed kidnapping him, rendering him back to America” and this “led to the placing into existence of charges so that there would be something in place in the event that they did render him to the USA".

Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Case for inclusion

On 28 September 2021, SPECIFICO removed the Yahoo! News story from the BLP subsection Later years in the embassy with the edit summary NOTNEWS, UNDUE, and weakly sourced BLP content. Be patient, await broad mainstream coverage if this is confirmed/significant.

Perhaps in anticipation of objections to no broad mainstream coverage, Burrobert has assiduously compiled widespread coverage during the past two days. For convenience, here is the list, with sources linked to each story.

• World Socialist Web Site
• The Independent
• Crikey
• The Times
• Alaska Native News
• Business Insider
• CBS News
• The Sydney Morning Herald
• France24 News English
• The Guardian
• Reporters without borders
• MSN
• Democracy Now!
• Columbia Journalism Review
• Political Wire

These 15 sources include the World Socialist Web Site, which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources designates as "generally unreliable," and Business Insider, of which WP:RSPS cautions, "There is no consensus on reliability." The remainder appear to be WP:RS.

This obviously qualifies as broad mainstream coverage. However, by itself the list fails to satisfy SPECIFICO's point about the story being "confirmed/significant." The problem is that not one of the 15 sources contains original reporting. They merely rehash and rely solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop. As such, SPECIFICO's objections on grounds of NOTNEWS and UNDUE are salient and must be overcome by consensus to include this story, which has caused a two-day media splash but which awaits substantive journalistic follow-up. We are witnessing news organizations playing follow the leader by reporting on a single item by one other news organization. As the editor who first introduced this to the Assange BLP, I concede it is premature and unencyclopedic. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "point about the story being "confirmed/significant". Confirmed in what sense? Significant in what sense?
• "The problem is that not one of the 15 sources contains original reporting". Why is that a "problem"?
• "a two-day media splash". Don't all major media stories create a "a two-day media splash" - at least for the first two days?
• "awaits substantive journalistic follow-up". What does this mean?
• WP:NOTNEWS: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". How does this policy apply here?
• WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". How does this policy apply in our particular scenario? For example, what are the other “significant viewpoints”? Has anyone published articles stating assassination/rendition was not discussed within the Trump regime?

Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

None of SPECIFICO's objections seem to have any merit to me, and it certainly looks to me like it should be in the article. NadVolum (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No there really isn't any merit. I've opened comments at NP notices. Cambial foliage❧ 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As you should be aware, not all RS content goes in our articles. See WP:ONUS. You will also need to demonstrate NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with that as well. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Witnesses to a kidnapping and assassination plot provided their accounts, over a multi-year period, to journalists at a reliable source who are considered reputable enough to quickly elicit a reaction from ~10 other reliable papers. That is somehow not news or undue or not neutral or whatever because there hasn't yet been enough time for another newspaper to track down and re-interview those same witnesses? Connor Behan (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that these media did not produce original reporting. The fact they they ran these stories referencing Yahoo News investigation means that they consider it notable. As far as I can see they don't raise any reliability concerns making it a clear case of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Obviously we still need to attribute this rather than stating it in wikivoice. I don't understand how WP:DUE is relevant here. If CIA denies this we would also include it in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 05:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

In the previous section, Burrobert presents impressive 2020 court testimony related to this, so together with that court testimony, this seems to be worth including, of course with proper attribution. -- Valjean (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Somehow this content has been reinserted in the article, despite an editor having started discussion with posts at two sitewide noticeboard, including an ongoing RfC and most importanty despite there being no consensus on this talk page as to what if any article text should be included. At some point there will need to be an RfC on this page. I note that while this content may tell us a lot about Pompeo and the CIA, it is not particularly significant as to Assange, who -- as I keep reminding my colleagues here -- is safe and sound. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that high-ranking officials discussing kidnapping or killing Assange is "not particularly significant to Assange". Frankly, anyone who makes such arguments is WP:NOTHERE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It also looks to me like it should be in the article. Specially considering that it is as attributed as can be. - Daveout(talk) 06:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Case for not mentioning the Yahoo! News investigation

The Yahoo! News investigation has disappeared from JA's bio again. For ease of reading I have created this sub-section so that editors who don't think we should mention the report can provide their reasons. Here is my interpretation of the reasons for exclusions so far provided:

• the report is significant for Pompeo and the CIA but has no significance for Assange.
• "weakly sourced BLP content. Be patient, await broad mainstream coverage if this is confirmed/significant".
• Yahoo! News is the only organisation that has provided original reporting on the allegations.
• It's a "a two-day media splash".
• WP:NOTNEWS
• WP:DUE

Any others?

• WP:NOTHERE per Thucydides, above. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Burrobert, I believe the editor you referred to above as "the great Connor_Behan" acted rashly in restoring the disputed content, and that SPECIFICO was correct in removing it. SPECIFICO's edit summary bears repeating here: Ongoing discussions at talk and RE: NPOV and RS. BRD: Don't declare your preferred wording belongs in the article jumping ahead of the community on difficult content and sourcing issue. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's see. I waited more than 24 hours, checked to see that the RfC is being criticized as the improper place, and checked to see that the !votes here are shaping up in favour of WP:SNOW. You have attempted to make a policy objection but it's a misreading of policy. The sourcing requirement is to have an RS source's story (in this case Yahoo News) with a significant number of other RS sources covering the story. There is no requirement that we have a significant number of RS sources independently rediscovering this story via their own investigative reporters. Connor Behan (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Connor Behan—so "being criticized … votes are shaping up" is your basis for unilaterally restoring disputed content about which consensus has not been declared? That's not your call, sir. You may be a "great" editor but you are not an administrator. Please respect the process. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't unilateral, his action reflected the consensus in the above conversation. He was right to ignore specifico's fatuous argument, and several other editors supported his action. Cambial foliage❧ 22:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing: Aren't you the editor who less than 24 hours ago opened an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard? That RfC is still active. Let's wait for consensus and closure before jumping the gun to restore disputed content at Julian Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We don’t need to wait for consensus; it’s already apparent above. An RFC does not have to have a formal close - in fact most don’t. Where the support and the logical arguments fall on one side that represents a consensus. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments. The reference to SNOW is appropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 22:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Surprisingly (to me at least), while this talk page has averaged more than 250 daily pageviews since the Yahoo! News story broke, and while more than 1,000 editors watch this talk page, only 11 editors commented here during 27 Sep–28 Sep 2021. That seems like a woefully inadequate pool from which to form consensus on such an important issue of disputed content in an article that, during the same period, averaged more than 14,000 daily pageviews. Is a broader RfC in order? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to sustain due consideration of consensus -- as opposed to involved editors claiming consensus supports them at every turn -- we need to remove the content (again) and launch an RfC. Don't forget Pompeo gets BLP treatment just as does every other living person. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This situation reminds me of the apocryphal story of Lincoln, who after discussion at a cabinet meeting calls for a vote. Around the table they go, with each secretary voting nay, until it gets back to the president. He votes aye, and declares: "The ayes have it!"

Here we have an editor who opens an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. After 24 hours, it has attracted only one vote to include the disputed content—his own. Yet here comes that editor declaring, "We don't need to wait for consensus."

"The ayes have it!" Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That would be a disruptive comment even if the analogy were apt, and it's not. The RfC has one aye and zero nays because it was not in the proper place. The proper place to discuss policy objections is here and they are lacking. Connor Behan (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, a proper RfC can be opened (here rather than on the RS noticeboard) to gather wider input. Alaexis_¿question? 05:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Please start the RfC and remove it from the article pending resolution. There is no rush. We need to get it right, not quick. SPECIFICO talk 07:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus requirements don't mean that every editor has the veto power over the changes they don't like. On this page the overwhelming majority of the editors support adding this information and provide arguments why it's due. WP:RSN is not a right place for such an RfC so there is no point in waiting for feedback there. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I was endorsing your own suggestion for a proper RfC here on talk. Sooner it starts, sooner we can resolve this. SPECIFICO talk 08:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

My point was that the content that is supported by current consensus should not be removed pending the outcome of this future RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You would need an uninvolved close to declare consensus. That is how WP works. Launch the RfC. Lets get this done right and with a firm resolution. Otherwise, per WP:ONUS and BLP, we can't include it. SPECIFICO talk 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you do not need an uninvolved close to "declare" (i.e. observe) consensus. Where it is obviously evident from both edits and discussion, as in this case, a formal close is unnecessary. Many RFCs expire without a formal close. Asserting the absolute necessity of a close in the face of the evidence sure does look like stonewalling though. Cambial foliage❧ 09:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And this is not an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The RfC at WP:RSN has been closed procedurally. So no longer relevant to a consensus here. NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And saying vrifiability does not guarantee inclusion and pointing to a large policy without making any specific point is something I would not even need an AI to do for an I don't like it objection bot. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no indication that the kidnap or assassination chatter was taken seriously within the CIA. Among the tens of thousands of senior government officials, there are all kinds of speculative ideas and brainstorms that are quickly rejected as infesible, illegal, or worse. There's nothing in the sole source or the many repetitions of that source that indicates the kidnapping and assasination chatter was seriously considered. It's trivia. It's UNDUE and it is weakly sourced. For valid BLP content, there will be numerous independent RS verifications. We don't have that here. It's just trivia. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are all kinds of contingency plans and most of them aren't notable. However it doesn't follow from it that if the assassination has not been carried out it's not notable. This specific plan is deemed notable by a large number of reliable sources and therefore we should mention it. Btw I don't think it should be in the lede, given what we know about it so far. Alaexis_¿question? 05:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Big Dogs That Did Not Bark
I am baffled by the lack of coverage of this 4-day-old story by some of the most prominent news organizations that editors generally recognize as the gold standard for WP:RS. I cannot find a single story from any of these, as shown by links to respective Google searches for the past week:

• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• Associated Press
• Reuters

Bizarrely, the BBC has reported it only on BBC News Somali:

• "Julian Assange: Nin ay Mareykanka aad u raadinayeen oo ay 'CIA damacday inay London ka qafaalato'"

I'm frankly at a loss to discern the implications of this media blackout for our BLP. Please, what does it mean? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

When you say "blackout" it sounds like a conspiracy to suppress news. But it apparently is not significant news. In cases such as this, either the mainstream press has not been able to confirm the story or they have determined -- after examining the context and rejection of these schemes -- that they were the fevered inspirations of the fringe of the intelligence service and were summarily rejected by management. It's trivia. There were scores of hare-brained illegal schemes sprouted and quashed in the Trump Administration. This one didn't even get past the early stages. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As a US taxpayer, I hope the CIA has plans to kidnap everyone from Julian Assange to Adele. That's the CIA's job, and it's not noteworthy that they made plans to kidnap Assange. The civilians who control the CIA are then charged with not doing all the bad stuff, a job at which they fail way too often. If the civilians put the plans in motion, that's noteworthy. Making plans is not, and the major news outlets seem to agree with me. Rks13 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the reliability or NPOV policies that makes these three source better or more significant that other RS which did mention it (which include The Guardian and The Telegraph [5]). The media outlets which did not report it might have had valid or nefarious reasons for doing so but it's irrelevant for the discussion whether to include it. Alaexis_¿question? 05:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The claim that there is no indication that the plans were taken seriously is incorrect. There are numerous indications: "sketches" or "plans" were requested, something employees would have to spend time doing, time that senior officers are, one presumes, not in the habit of wasting in the service of a frivolous lark; White House lawyers became concerned about the proposals; and some CIA officials were sufficiently concerned that they notified congressional intelligence committee members. That’s three indications for starters. As a British taxpayer, I am concerned if the CIA has plans to kidnap anyone on the soil of a free country and ostensible long-term ally, and frankly the CIA can suck a bag of dicks. But that’s beside the point. What is noteworthy is established by reliable sources, not by one editor’s authoritarian wet dream. In this case, at least ten mainstream reliable sources, and a few more lesser known ones. In other words it’s clearly noteworthy, whatever language the one journalist at the BBC who managed to slip it past Fran Unsworth happens to speak. Cambial foliage❧ 06:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is exactly the same business as with the Stundin revelations. And yes it does look like a deliberate media blackout. As far as I can make out at least forty and probably more like 120 corporate news sources around the world cooperate in these blackouts on various topics like this. It's very interesting. They simply do not mention things but they don't seem to actually put out misinformation or actively try to deflect. I thought it was individual self censorship instead at first but it definitely looks like more than that. It also only affects the mass media, not anything more specialized. There's a lot of other topics where I sometimes think why do they not cover that it's a major story but they can be explained by political leaning or stupidity or laziness. The ones associated with Assange though seem much more blatant and calculated than that. I don't know what can be done about it in Wikipedia though as we're supposed to go by reliable sources and as I said these reliable sources don't peddle misinformation, they just omit what is blacked. NadVolum (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a perfectly rational and non-nefarious explanation for why large blocks of news sources and websites seem to act "in concert" with their coverage. They subscribe to one of the few news agencies, such as Associated Press (AP), Reuters, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Non-Aligned News Agencies Pool (NANAP). If their news agency loses interest for a story that isn't developing, it gets dropped by all their subscribers, but if there is follow up or great interest, the story will get picked up again. Just wait and see. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we can lay off the OR conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven is right. There is no conspiracy. Besides which, it's nothing like the same business. In the case of Thordarson's fabricated testimony, it was reported widely in Iceland and a couple of countries on the continent, more spottily in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium etc. The lack of reporting was particular to US-UK (and near absolute). In this case several major anglophone newspapers in US, UK, Aus reported on the official's claims. The differing factor is of course the Trump administration. Cambial foliage❧ 13:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

FAIR have made a similar point regarding the Stundin story. Alaexis_¿question? 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think looking at this again it does not seem to be deliberately blocked because many of the usual suspects have actually reported on it. So sorry for extending my conspiracy theory to this. That it is missing in many others is more probably Media bias in the United States, and organizations like Reuters have a very strong influence on what is reported. By the way Stundin is releasing audios with bits of the inverviews with Thordarson. Are you saying that dirty tricks by the CIA or FBI with real effects are not newsworthy but Trump involvement where the plans are not acted on is newsworthy? NadVolum (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"BLP Violation, UNDUE, ill-sourced, disputed on talk". Discuss. Burrobert (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The reasons have been given on this talk page. Insinuating Pompeo supported any of this would require extraordinary sources. There is a single weak source to date. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's take it step by step:

• "BLP Violation": where?
• "Undue": why?
• "ill-sourced": why?

Burrobert (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are wrong that there is a single weak source. We are counting the sources which reported on this, not only those who did the initial investigation. You haven't provided any evidence of Yahoo being weak. The fact that undeniably RS like The Guardian and The Telegraph reported on this proves the opposite, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Alaexis_¿question? 08:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No. The evidence has been given. And "you are wrong" is not a rebuttal. SPECIFICO talk 11:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede

The news story about the CIA planning to kidnap or assassinate Assange is obviously one of the most significant elements of his biography, so it belongs in the lede. I don't know why there's any discussion whatsoever about this possibly being a minor, undue story. Such claims are obviously absurd, and the fact that they're being made points to behavioral problems that will have to be addressed at some point. Blockading the article by raising spurious (and often nonsensical) objections and demanding RfCs for every bit of content is just disruptive behavior.

In any case, the CIA story should be restored to the lede, and the disruptive blockading behavior must stop. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411: if this 5-day-old story is, as you contend, "one of the most significant elements of his biography," that is all the more reason for us to seek consensus for inclusion in the lede. It should not be inserted by a single editor on the grounds that its significance is "obvious." It's not obvious to me, and I reject your accusations that anyone has been "blockading the article by raising spurious (and often nonsensical) objections." If you cannot assume good faith, you should report this to WP:ANI and let an administrator apply the appropriate remedies. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Above, there are editors arguing that the CIA and top US government officials planning to kidnap or assassinate someone is so insignificant that it's not even worthy of a mention in that person's biography. That's a manifestly absurd position to take. It may very well be that these behavioral problems will ultimately have to be addressed at WP:ANI, but in the meantime, the absurd blockades have to stop. This is unacceptable behavior, particularly at a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. Either seek remedial action or give it a rest. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning - just not in the summary at the beginning. NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The subject of our page was the target of plans to potentially kidnap or even murder him. Those plans originated within organs of government serving the very country which has for years been seeking his extradition and arrest. That’s says a lot about the hostile world Assange has long been subject to – that in short is big news and belongs in the lede. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s notable enough and DUE to be mentioned in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It never got anyhere and it didn't affect Assange. Yes it is a notable in itself, but there's just too many other things which were done by or affected Assange which are important to include. It probably could make it into the summary of someone who was directly involved in the matter. Here it would just be just clutter in the summary. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The Gunpowder plot was never carried out and therefore, in that sence, "didn't affect" Britain - none the less it’s considered an important part of UK history – The U.S. government has set itself in opposition to Assange and, as such, is just as much a part of Assange’s story as Napoleon was to Wellington (I’m not talking goodies and baddies here, just opposing forces) - a plot within parts of the U.S. establishment tells us something about what Assange was up against, and the ruthless and determined attitudes which put him where he is today. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I was summoned to the related RfC. I concur with NadVolum, that the story is (just about) worth mentioning in the body but no more. Unnamed intelligence sources say that there was discussion about the possibility of kidnapping/assassinating Assange. That is a million miles away from "planning" these acts and anyhow exploring the unthinkable is what intelligence agencies do. What reason do we have to believe that any of these discussions were remotely serious, rather than of the "can't we just shoot the fucker" variety? None AFAI can see. I am pretty cynical about the amorality of applications of US power in recent years, but a child could see that violating an Embassy's territory on UK soil would not even be a credible plan. A large number of news sources have ignored this story, some have reported it. All attribute it I believe. Pincrete (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we learn that these plans were put into action I don't think it belongs to the lede. It should be mentioned in the body of course. Alaexis_¿question? 05:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

State of play

The Yahoo story has been popping in and out of the article with reckless abandon. Here is a count of the number for and against inclusion:

Editors who are support inclusion:

Burrobert

Valjean

Prunesqualor

NadVolum

Cambial foliage (what happened to the yellow?)

The very good Connor_Behan

Alaexis

Thucydides411

Daveout

Pincrete

Onetwothreeip (e.g. edit [6])

Mr Ernie

Editors who oppose inclusion:

Slatersteven

Basketcase

SPECIFICO

Rks13

Burrobert (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

LIke I said I think we need a formal RFC. I think there may be issue for some over specific wording (for example). There is also lede Vs body.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"there may be issue for some over specific wording": Has anyone said the problem is in the wording? Afaict, the four editors have objected to any mention of the Yahoo investigation. If the problem is with the way the item is worded, then propose an alternative wording. As we recently discovered, an RfC won't solve a dispute over wording.

lede Vs body. Forget about the lede. The count above relates to mention of the Yahoo report in the body.

Burrobert (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it will because We will know who supports what.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a countably infinite number of ways of wording the item. We could cover all possible wordings in a finite time if we let the first RfC run for a month, the second for half a month, the third for quarter of a month etc. However, the number of words an editor can type in a fixed time is limited by physical constraints, which would make the task impractical. Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an argument to never have any FRC's ever. Sorry but the other RFC cleary has come down in favour of an option, and this one would as well.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's an argument against having RfC's when there are a large number of choices. RfC's can only cover one choice at a time so work best when there are only two choices. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The lets go for that, should this or shus this not be included only in the body, its not hard. If you have the consensus you think you have you will get your way. There is nothing to lose from an RFC other than to stop those who oppose inclusion from having an argument of "no consensus for inclusion". It will just make the consensus formal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Add me to support. There’s no need for a formal RFC - local consensus here is entirely clear. Continued removals are disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

An aside

I will describe this as an aside as no doubt editors will say that what happens on other pages is of no relevance to what happens here. So the following is not an argument for inclusion of the Yahoo report in Julian's bio. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the Yahoo report has been mentioned in the Wikipedia news sections at Current events for 26 September 2021 and Current events for September 2021. It has also been referenced in the following pages (wording included):

Wikileaks In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2017 in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA planned to spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices. "[T]op intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. Laura Poitras described attempts to classify herself and Assange as "information brokers" rather than journalists as "bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide".[265] Pompeo later stated that the US officials who had spoken to Yahoo should be prosecuted for exposing CIA activities.

Laura Poitras In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the aftermath of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Poitras as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against her, "potentially paving the way" for her prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. Poitras told Yahoo! News that such attempts were "bone-chilling and a threat to journalists worldwide”,

Glenn Greenwald In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the aftermath of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Glenn Greenwald as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against him, "potentially paving the way" for his prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists.”

Vault 7 In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2017 in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA planned to assassinate Assange, spy on associates of WikiLeaks, sow discord among its members, and steal their electronic devices.

Mike Pompeo In March 2017, WikiLeaks began publishing a series of documents known as Vault 7, detailing the CIA's electronic surveillance and cyber warfare activities and capabilities. At meetings with senior Trump administration officials, Pompeo discussed kidnapping the organization's founder, Julian Assange, from Ecuador's London embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum.

Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Observation update: It is time to revisit my observation on this thread made more than two weeks ago. As I noted, the Yahoo! News article under discussion contains 7,177 words and is rated as a 39-minute read. This talk page section has now mushroomed to 14,703 words—more than double the size of the Yahoo! News story, and at the same rate would take 78 minutes to read.

A day after he began this thread, Burrobert remarked, "The Yahoo story should provide us with an interesting social experiment." To conduct his experiment, Dr Burrobert has personally made 69 injections, totaling +60,784 bytes.

I request an interim assessment. What exactly has Burrobert's protracted experiment—however "interesting" it may or not be—accomplished? Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Assessment - We conclude that the content is UNDUE and no RS thought it significant enough to cover with its own investigation or corroboration. NOTNEWS, only it hasn't even been established that there was news in the first place. Tip of the hat to formerly RS Der Spiegel for biggest disappointment. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The SPECIFICO 'we'? NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

There's an RFC below where the assessment is clear. SPECIFICO can you refer us to where there is a conclusion or consensus for what you are claiming? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I find scant evidence of any relationship between this humongous talk page section and the RfC you mention. One way to gauge it would be commonality of citations. Of the 69 references listed in this section, only 5 show up in the RfC. I added one of those, which I had to find elsewhere on this talk page because it did not appear previously in this bloated section. The other 4 references listed both in this section and in the RfC were contributed by, respectively:

1. ZScarpia

2. LokiTheLiar

3. and 4. Jtbobwaysf

We'd have to ask them if they added each reference to the RfC after seeing it first here.

Similarly, of the 69 references listed in this section, only 4 have been incorporated into the BLP. Again, I added one of those and can attest I found it independently before seeing it on this talk page. The other 3 references listed both in this section and in the BLP were contributed by, respectively:

1. Cambial Yellowing

2. Cambial Yellowing

3. Onetwothreeip

Also again, we'd have to ask them if they added each reference to the BLP after seeing it first here.

My point is that this talk page section's constructive influence on either the RfC or BLP is doubtful, suggesting that Burrobert's self-indulgent "social experiment" has been a distracting waste of time. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Then they should read wp:not, and wp:point.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is a long discussion over something which I think probably should be included, but would be happy to remove if it was a summary and the main article dealt with it. It is more about Trump and Pompeo and the CIA and is background to the story of why Assange is a bit paranoid about what America would do. It is interesting that the allegations don't appear in the Pompeo or Trump or CIA articles though. I'm thinking Trump was right saying "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." NadVolum (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, as I said thousands of words above at the outset, it may be noteworthy about those alleged to have promoted such schemes. But it's not about Assange and nothing came of it. @Burrobert: please stop posting text from Assange's claque and promoters and fringe internet bloggers like Greenwald et al. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I said it is about Assange but not to the same extent of those others. That does not mean it is not about Assange as he described his fears about America and this illustrates why those fears are justified. NadVolum (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would classify it as medium relevance accordig to Wikipedia:Relevance and that's why I would remove it if there was another article which could be referrred to or this was in a summary of. NadVolum (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we please keep this all in the RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Thordarson’s Stundin revelations (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of sources

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

• Washington Post (generally reliable) [7]
• Der Spiegel (generally reliable) [8]
• Mail & Guardian (generally reliable) [9]
• Deutsche Welle (not rated) [10]
• Berliner Zeitung (not rated) [11]
• Stundin itself (not rated) [12]
• Tribune (magazine) (not rated) [13]
• The Wire (India) (not rated) [14]

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

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

In addition to those mentioned by @Alaexis::

Business AM (Belgium)

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

Cumhuriyet (long-established Turkish newspaper)

The Hill (considered reliable)

The Intercept (considered reliable)

NTV (Turkish TV channel) National TV News in Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and the consensus is very readily apparent.

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

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

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

In favour:

Prunesqualor billets_doux

Cambial

Nad

Alaexis ?

Mr Ernie

Burrobert

Against:

Steven

SPEC

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

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

Text

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment on Yahoo report

Should we include

"According to former intelligence officials, in the wake of the Vault 7 leaks, the CIA plotted to kidnap Assange from Ecuador's London embassy, and some senior officials discussed his potential assassination. Yahoo! News found "no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved." Some of its sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting."

In the body?Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes

• Yes. And I consider having RfC's on every issue as disruptive behavious. NadVolum (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  We are not, there are plenty of issues we have not had RFC's on, but this issue has involved some degree of edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  And it could take some more without being disruptive. If you are worried about it so much then complain at ANI about perpetrators instead of stopping discussion by putting one particular wording to an RfC and so stopping a possible better wording being got. And for instance I just showed a consortium news article which even if it isn't a strong RS does cast a different light on parts of this affair. You did the same to the Stundin article, stopping it mid discussion and going for an RfC and making it hard now to get anything though more sources are now available. People can live with a bit of uncertainty and argument for a little while. You are stopping the encyclopaedia being discussed and built. NadVolum (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  An RFC does not stop discussion. What do you think we are doing here? Moreover (I would argue) the above discussion is just going round in circles with the same editors repeating the same arguments. Now what we need is just who supports what clearly and concisely. That is done best (to my mind) in an RFC where people can just say Yay or Nay without closers having to wade through tons of arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  You stopped a discussion about what words to include in the article and now we hav an RfC about some particular wording you happened upon at one time. For instance as shown below there is a willingness to remove Pompeo in a first text in the article but there will be all sorts of objections about changed wording for the RfC and leaving things fixed in stone till the RfC ends. NadVolum (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes as DUE, notable, and well sourced text. Just a procedural note - this currently has overwhelming consensus for inclusion and should not be removed while the RFC runs. The onus is now on the small handful of editors who are continually reverting this information to gain consensus for removal. The removal of this text over the last few days has been disruptive and a huge time sink. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Yahoo news investigation generated lots of coverage in many RS, including The Guardian [15] and The Telegraph [16]. These RS have not questioned Yahoo news reliability. At only two sentences it cannot be considered to have undue weight (compare to the extradition hearings which are described in 11 paragraphs). BLP is irrelevant as no individuals are mentioned in the proposed text. Alaexis_¿question? 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alaexis: "Pompeo" was the US Director of the CIA. He is a natural person. That is the BLP violation, implicating him in an alleged scheme to murder a civilian. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

    Ah, okay, I missed it. So, if it was reworded to avoid mentioning his name, would you drop your objections? Note that the essence of BLP is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In this case, as demonstrated by the multitude of RS reporting on it, the statements are well-sourced. Alaexis_¿question? 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for your reply. It needs to be removed from the article -- as several editors have tried to do -- pending any outcome of this RfC that might validate some of it or some other related article text. There is only a single source. No other publication has been able to verifiy Yahoo's claims. Yahoo is an aggregator of established news agencies and has a miniscule and very spotty portion of its own reporting. When investigative journalists break major stories, other publications publish their own investigations that independently corroborate the first revelatoin. That has not happened in this case. It is not adequately sourced for these claims. There are thousaneds of officials in the CIA who moot bad or illegal ideas, only to have them scrutinized and rejected by higher-ups. At most that is what may have happened here. At least, the whole bit may be fabricated by ex-Trump-era parties trying to rehabilitate their reputations. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)tt

    Well, you are entitled to your own opinion about the reliability of Yahoo news, inner workings of the CIA and ex-Trump-era parties, but as long as no RS make these points they remain your opinions and aren't relevant for this discussion. Come on, Pompeo himself did not deny this [17]. Alaexis_¿question? 17:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

    No, that is not how we work on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with my opinion. The WP:BURDEN for valid verification is on you, the editor who wishes to include this. Please read WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We do not publish poorly sourced defamatory content. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Yes. I would prefer to attribute the whole thing to Yahoo! News since we don't have a second independent source. But we definitely should mention it. Loki (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes in whatever wording is needed. This is obviously DUE. Snow is falling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Seems to me yet again we have a flawed framing of an RFC which asks us to vote on a specific wording rather than (in this instance) asking “should the article include material from the Yahoo report?” and then if agreed debating the actual wording. I’ll vote for this wording on the understanding it’s about the Yahoo material being included in some form, and this version being acceptable for now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Are we really still having this discussion? The two editors in opposition are still repeating the factually inaccurate implication that WP:SIGCOV means significant re-investigation. Connor Behan (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The content is well sourced and certainly due, and I don't see anything wrong with the wording, though it's fine to further edit the wording after the RfC closes. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I was among those who voted No the first time around. I said then that I was willing to change my vote if the story receives greater traction in the mainstream media, which is exactly what happened in the intervening month and a half. The issue is now widely discussed in the media and is definitely WP:DUE. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @PraiseVivec:. The question you !voted on previously was about the fabricated testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson. This RFC is about plans drawn up by the CIA to kidnap, or poison or otherwise assassinate Assange. The confusion is entirely understandable! The information about the CIA kidnap plans has indeed been reported far more widely in the anglophone press (Guardian, Times, Telegraph, BBC etc) than Thordarson's fabrication of testimony. But I thought you should be clear about what you are voting on. 🙂 Thanks! Cambial foliage❧ 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Cambial , thanks for this. Should have reread the previous RfC more carefully, I kept reading about the CIA plan these last few days and somehow became convinced that's what the Icelandic newspapers were alleging. Regardless of my failing memory, my Yes vote for this RfC remains unchanged. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Icelandic one is an FBI plot which they actually carried out, this Yahoo story is a CIA plot, we don't know how far they actually went but it does not seem to have had any actual effect except to get the justice department to act faster making up charges - which seem largely based on what the FBI did. All allegedly of course but with reliable sources, probably years before anything like the full story comes out I guess. NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Please provide sources for calling the witness' actions related to "an FBI plot which they actually carried out" and for the US Justice Dept. "making up charges". I have seen no RS making that claim and without links to supporting citations, it does not advance the conversation here. It sounds close to a conspiracy theory of events. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  No it doesn’t. And Wp:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Cambial foliage❧ 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Original Research or personal conspiracy theories are not furthering article improvement, so that kind of thing is not helpful on an article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  WP:NOR, first paragraph: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. You are not the arbiter of what furthers article improvement. You're the only person who's mentioned conspiracy theories in this section. Why are you ignoring your own admonishment against them? Cambial foliage❧ 19:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I merely asked NadVolum for a source supporting his statements. Just their source. I'm not going to have anything further to say on the tangent you're raising. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Which tangent is that? The conspiracy theory that is not present in @NadVolum:'s comment? Forgive me, I think that was raised by you. If you have nothing more to say about it all the better. Cambial foliage❧ 20:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Don't know where your "witness's actions" come from - would you care to explain? The FBI plot related to Thordarson and is substantiated by the former Icelandic Minister of the Interior Ögmundur Jónasson who asked the FBI to leave Iceland. The bit about the Justice department comes freom the Yahoo story "Concerned the CIA’s plans would derail a potential criminal case, the Justice Department expedited the drafting of charges against Assange to ensure that they were in place if he were brought to the United States." The superseding indiictment they have is the one that is based mainly on tryng to prove Assange conspired and helped to hack computers and depends in most of its sections on evidence by 'teenager' i.e Thordarson. NadVolum (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  And I agree it does sound like a conspiracy theory like you say. Or perhaps more like a badly written spy book, NadVolum (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Yahoo reporting is generally sound. One of the authors, Michael Isikoff is a well renowned investigative reporter. LondonIP (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. From what I read, we are arguing three things:

1) The reliability of the article

2) Whether the proposed text meets WP:DUE

3) Is it a BLP violation on Pompeo (CIA director at the time)

Here's what I think:

1) I am not too sure about the reliability of Yahoo News itself. So, I started an RfC about it. Please join that if you have an opinion. However, the investigation was cited in several other reliable outlets (as you can see in the section of the current article), and for me that is enough to say that the information was reliable.

2) I think the current text doesn't violate WP:DUE because we don't need to include the fact that the CIA denied this, as it is ovbious they would deny it. (WP: MANDY)

3) As director of the CIA at the time, Pompeo would have been responsible for approving the plan. The fact that he didn't approve it means he is not implicated in the scheme. Anyhow, it doesn't mention him by name. Bwmdjeff (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No

• No. I've been on both sides of this issue. I was the first to add the content, sourced singly to Yahoo! News and without naming anyone other than Assange. Two days later, SPECIFICO removed it with the edit summary NOTNEWS, UNDUE, and weakly sourced BLP content. Be patient, await broad mainstream coverage if this is confirmed/significant. At that point I changed my mind. While acknowledging that there had by then been broad mainstream coverage, I felt that by itself did not establish the story as being confirmed/significant, since those follow-on articles contained no original reporting; they simply rehashed and relied solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop. SPECIFICO was right to object on grounds of WP:UNDUE. Mere replication by other reliable sources ≠ corroboration. Moreover, since then—as I noted in a comment headed The Big Dogs That Did Not Bark— some of the most prominent news organizations that editors generally recognize as the gold standard for WP:RS have pointedly ignored this story, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, and Reuters. I am also deeply troubled by the subsequent naming of an individual in revised wording to the disputed content, as shown in the newly opened RfC, alleging criminal activity by someone who was then serving as a top official of the U.S. government. WP:BLPPUBLIC advises that in the case of public figures, If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. To reiterate, we have at this point only one source alleging criminal activity by this individual, and no sources independently documenting it. Its inclusion in Wikipedia is a clear BLP violation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, WaPo has at least since mentioned it. Plus so have several other sources we recognize as reliable, like the Intercept and the Guardian. I'm also concerned that none of these articles actually independently verify the story but I still personally think this is enough to mention it. Loki (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your link shows that The Washington Post mentioned the Yahoo! News story in passing within a newsletter briefing on cybersecurity news and policy by its anchor, Joseph Marks, whose piece is labeled Analysis and like all the rest simply rehashes Yahoo! News. I'm glad you introduced it here with "FWIW" because, frankly, it ain't worth much. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  The basic facts without Pompeo were disclosed in the court case to extradite Assange over a year ago. NadVolum (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Grayzone is described thus at the explanatory supplement to Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline:

The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.

Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that naming Pompeo doesn't add much value. Slatersteven, do you want to edit the proposed wording to remove it? Having yet another RfC would probably be a bit silly. Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I was just pointing to the court case, they weren't going to fabricate that. Just it was about the the first place to cover the story. If you actually want a cite from a reliable source how about this from four months later.. NadVolum (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

As usual, I'm missing your point. How does this year-old source relate to including the week-old Yahoo! News story? Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said. It was in response to your " I felt that by itself did not establish the story as being confirmed/significant, since those follow-on articles contained no original reporting; they simply rehashed and relied solely upon the Yahoo! News scoop." I was showing the main stuff as it relates to Assange had already come out in his extradition court case. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And if, as you say, the main stuff had already come out, how does it relate to the RfC that we are putatively discussing in this talk page section? Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 The Yahoo piece was researched and written by three journalists all working for a mainstream news outlet – they state that in researching the article they interviewed “more than 30 former U.S. officials” – These journalists are laying their professional reputations on the line here – I ask you to reflect on the what it means to “not establish the story as being confirmed” (ie the alternative is they fabricated the story). As to the significance of the story - the fact that hundreds of articles and blogs across the net, printed newspapers, and television have referenced the story settles that. Regarding why some major news outlets have chosen to ignore the story (as they did with much of Assange’s first appeal hearing and the Thordarson recanting) perhaps that deserves analysis and mention in its own right (downright bizarre, if not sinister some might say). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd question whether Yahoo is a mainstream news source at this time. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: Referencing the story without corroborating it does not settle its significance. That merely confirms its appeal to sensationalism, to which Wikipedia should not contribute. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 The concept of corroboration when talking about three professional journalists all putting their reputations on the line by saying they were given information by (between them) “more than 30 former U.S. officials” and handing their work over to the scrutiny of editorial staff at a mainstream news source sits a little uneasily. But as stated by others quite a lot of RS have accepted the credibility of the story, Even Rumsfeld (Oops I meant) Pompeo hasn’t denied it – Characteristically he merely wanted to punish the officials who blew the whistle (so much for open democracy and the fourth estate). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Rumsfeld! Please try to remember whom we are discussing here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that a totally different source from a totally different place saying the same basic thing as far as this article is concerned does not corroborate what is wanting to be put into this article? What exactly would you count as corroboration? NadVolum (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian story, dated 30 Sep 2020, reports accusations by an anonymous former employee of Spanish security company Undercover Global S.L. (UC Global), which spied on Assange for the CIA during his time in the embassy. In testimony read aloud by one of Assange's lawyers during an extradition hearing, the ex-UC Global employee alleged that plans to poison or kidnap Assange were discussed between unnamed "sources" in U.S. intelligence and UC Global. Four days after its publication, The Guardian story was added to Wikipedia's Julian Assange by the great Connor Behan. A year later, in the story under discussion in this talk page section, Yahoo! News likewise cited The Guardian′s 2020 article. Yet I remain mystified by where you are going with this. Are you insinuating that since the story has been included in Wikipedia for a full year, there is no need to add the redundant 2021 Yahoo! News report? Or do you mean that we should re-cite The Guardian story in order to retroactively corroborate Yahoo! News? Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

'insinuating'? How about just saying? I didn't think it was actually needed but if a cite to the Guardian article ssatisfies you the basic facts have a strong basis then fine, re-cite it. NadVolum (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: Thank you for bearing with me. I apologize for being dense, but I wanted to be sure I understood what you are proposing. I will not cite it myself because I find the concept of retroactive corroboration confusing, but I will support your inserting an additional citation to The Guardian′s 2020 story. However, placement is crucial. The Guardian citation should not immediately follow content attributed inline to the 2021 Yahoo! News story, and it especially should not be appended to the existing four cites naming Pompeo, which The Guardian does not do. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm sure the bit about Pompeo can be split off or even removed once this RfC is ended. I think I'll leave off trying to alter what the RfC says for the moment though! NadVolum (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• No Yahoo is the walking zombie of the internet. Isakoff has done fine reporting and investigation in the past, but this article is sketchy and doesn't give any indication that these plans were taken seriously at the CIA. Far from it -- Pompeo specifically responded that while some details in the Yahoo piece are accurate, he denied the substance of what's being proposed for this Assange BLP. There are 1000 crazy ideas a day in any large organization, and in the CIA they often turn grizzly. That doesn't mean that such brainstorms are endorsed by the top leadership, or even that they are legal and feasible. Yahoo News content is 90% aggregation from RS news sites, with a very small inclusion of Yahoo-originated content. We do not see other more respected news organizations independently verifying or corroborating that any illegal threat to Assange was real. This content is UNDUE, it's a BLP violation implicating Pompeo, it is SYNTHy promotion of Assange's legal position in the US, and like a lot of other salacious and scandalous recent reporting about the Trump Administration, it may have been planted by sources with an axe to grind and career credibility to salvage. If RS media independently verify this with better context and detail, we should by all means reconsider. But it's currently insupportable. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  I hope you're not saying we should not be concerned about evidence of America's security services talking about doing a Skripal. NadVolum (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your description of the article is egregiously inaccurate and without any merit whatsoever. walking zombie might just about pass as poor sixth-form poetry but tells us nothing about the quality of the outlet's - largely excellent - reporting. The suggestion that there is no indication that these plans were taken seriously suggests that you either haven't read or failed to understand the article or the follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations. There are numerous indications, laid out in extensive detail. Pompeo denied it - well, he would, wouldn't he? We can hold an RFC about whether to include his denial if you like, though that seems more appropriate to his article. Not only have other RS sought to corroborate the story, some, including The Guardian, have already independently reported on credible threats to Assange before the Yahoo story was published. Your last comment refers to shortcuts like SYNTH that are so completely irrelevant to this case that I'll not bother to respond, out of politeness. Cambial foliage❧ 23:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Cambial Yellowing: Oh, goody! I've been eagerly awaiting those "follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations." Please, I beg you, will you share links to those? Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Cambial Yellowing: It's been two days and I'm still waiting on those links to "follow up investigatory articles by other media organisations." Please provide at your earliest convenience. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Links are already above, The Intercept etc. I have neither the time nor inclination to dig them up for you. And I'm not interested in a turgid debate about the semantics of the word "investigatory", nor the definition you've chosen for the term in the context of this talk page. WP:USEBYOTHERS is what matters here, and at this point, WP:SNOW. Cambial foliage❧ 17:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Intercept begins by saying, "According to an explosive investigation published Sunday by Yahoo News…" and after rehashing old developments concludes, "A spokesperson for the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a question about whether the revelation of the kidnapping and assassination plans has any effect on the decision of whether to continue the extradition attempt." That is not investigative journalism. It's lazy copycat piling on. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  See previous comment. I'm not interested in debating the specious definition you've invented for the purpose of engaging in very boring extended sophistry. Read the whole Intercept article. Or don't. Cambial foliage❧

  One phone call to the Department of Justice that produced no response. That's the extent of The Intercept′s vaunted "fearless, adversarial" (remember that promissory motto from their founding days?) investigative journalism. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't the extent. They investigated and reported on much detail of the senatorial select committee approval of Pompeo's legalistic phrase. "But that's not investigation, you have to phone somebody and do interviews." I think your definition is dumb, and I don't believe your choice of it is uninfluenced by your position on the content in question. Have a great day though. Cambial foliage❧ 18:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Your allusion to Pompeo's 2017 phrase "non-state hostile intelligence service" is misplaced. That is not part of the content under discussion in this RfC on the 2021 Yahoo! News report. Please try to stay focused. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  OK. Om. I'm focused now.... this whole conversation is irrelevant and the RFC is a foregone conclusion. Bye. Cambial foliage❧ 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Since the outcome "is a foregone conclusion," can we expect you to quickly close this RfC? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Btw, whether the further investigation carried out by the Intercept or another media organisation is part of the content under discussion is not relevant to the point you tried to make. What you've implicitly accepted is that yes, there were follow-up investigatory articles by other media organisations. They investigated other aspects, and that investigation was instigated on the basis of Yahoo's reporting. That's what you tried to dispute, and you were clearly wrong on this point. Please try to be logical. Cambial foliage❧ 01:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Don't tell me what I've "implicitly accepted." I EXPRESSLY REJECT your unsubstantiated claim that either The Intercept or any other media organization produced follow-up investigatory articles. They produced nothing but copycat recaps of what Yahoo! News reported. There was not a shred of independent investigation in any of those articles. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  You can reject all you like, in block capitals or no. It remains a fact, and The Intercept investigation of the congressional approval of Pompeo's phrase is a prime example of that. Cambial foliage❧ 01:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  And that investigation was not a follow-up to the 2021 Yahoo! News story. It dates from 2017. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's a different, older article, which is referred to in the recent article explicitly instigated from the Yahoo report. The recent article contains information neither in that report nor in the Yahoo article, about the senate committee and about a video of a likely U.S. operation outside the embassy. Cambial foliage❧ 02:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Near the very bottom of its 28 September 2021 article (placement indicating the relative value of this nugget), The Intercept recalls that "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a 'grab team' waiting outside the embassy." Beneath that The Intercept reproduces a 23 May 2018 WikiLeaks tweet embedding said video. That is not investigative journalism following up on the 26 September 2021 Yahoo! News story. The Intercept is merely padding its 28 September 2021 non-story with a nearly 3½-year-old speculative tweet from Assange's own organization. As for the what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did in 2017, The Intercept′s 28 September 2021 rehash adds nothing of value to its 25 August 2017 story by Sam Biddle. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  The investigation was cited in other reliable sources though, and none of them questioned the accuracy of the Yahoo Report. And of course Pompeo would deny that the report was true, WP:MANDY applies here. And since the proposed text says the ideas were not approved, nor does it mention Pompeo by name, it is not a BLP violation. Bwmdjeff (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to this comment, in which I already indicated that I have no interest in your personal opinion about a special definition of the word "investigatory" that you invented in order to try to instigate and win an argument that will have no influence on the outcome of this RFC. Cambial foliage❧ 16:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Where did you see that Pompeo denied it? I thought he said "I make no apologies for the fact that we and the administration were working diligently to ..." and didn't deny any individual allegation. And said the people who leaked the classified information to Yahoo should be prosecuted. Not that he's needed here anyway. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

To most journalists that approached he gave a standard spook "neither confirm nor deny", but he says "don't believe Isikoff" /Yahoo News here. Cambial foliage❧ 00:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Don't believe Isikoff" is not a denial, it is a request. If he'd said "Don't believe Isikoff please" maybe I'd be more inclined to do what he said! NadVolum (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This news has received widespread coverage on social media. indepdent, aljazeera, the verge, abc. I am confused about your position that this story is limited to yahoo. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion Yahoo

Is there a need for an RfC at this stage? There seems to be a large preponderance of editors who want to include this text and discussion is ongoing. Burrobert (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There can be an RFC but current consensus is to include it. That’s the current status quo and the text should remain in while the RFC runs. At this point the “remove” voters would need to obtain the consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Its not long-standing content, So I am not sure that applies. In fact this has been in dispute since it was added, and pretty much constantly.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I would have said yes, and I have explained why.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

In the last couple of days, articles about the CIA looking at the possibility of a kidnap have appeared in The Independent (Patrick Cockburn in the Voices section) and Al Jazeera[18]. And there was an article about it in The Sunday Times on 27 September. My feeling is that more articles will appear, increasing the amount of article space justified by the story. Are there editors resisting inclusion? It looks to me that there's sufficient coverage for an RfC not to be needed, if that's what the issue is.     ←   ZScarpia   14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a long story ZScarpia. The discussion is at Yahoo_News_investigation. The count of editors for and against is at State of play. We have compiled a list of sources which have referenced the Yahoo report. It is available at References.Burrobert (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   16:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here is a secondary evaluation of the murder/rendition chatter from New York Magazine

  Killing Assange was discussed — but was never a serious option, Yahoo reports, “Some senior officials inside the CIA and the Trump administration even discussed killing Assange, going so far as to request ‘sketches’ or ‘options’ for how to assassinate him.” Trump reportedly raised the idea in a 2017 meeting. But if kidnapping Assange was a legally shaky proposition (at best), assassinating him was truly a bridge too far for a preponderance of decision-makers — even for the Trump administration.
  “That kind of lethal action would be way outside of a legitimate intelligence or counterintelligence activity,” a former senior intelligence community lawyer told Yahoo. The plan went nowhere.

So, we have "never a serious option" and "went nowhere" -- both of which are an independent evaluation that confirms that the proposed article content is not a significant factor in Assange's biography SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: You and I are on the same side, but I disagree that the New York magazine article to which you linked in any way represents an independent evaluation. In particular, the phrases you quote are derivative. "Never a serious option" simply paraphrases Yahoo! News: The idea of killing Assange 'didn't get serious traction,' said a former senior CIA official. "It was, this is a crazy thing that wastes our time." And "went nowhere" is a direct quotation from Yahoo! News: In the end, the assassination discussions went nowhere, said former officials. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have stated it better. NY is demonstrating that, for this article, the Yahoo content is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO The material we are discussing already acknowledges “Yahoo News found no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved.” Despite that fact, news sources around the world (some of them major) have still gone with the story. Seems that, when the intelligence agency of the world’s most powerful nation contemplates murdering a publisher, people want to read about it – perhaps they are seeing a significance that you are missing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

---

SPECIFICO, when you request feedback elsewhere, it's a common courtesy to notify other editors here. Alaexis_¿question? 06:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Note this is about the specific wording (that keeps on being readded without discussion as if this wording has consensus), not inclusion itself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I'm pinging User:JBchrch, User:M.Bitton and User:PaleoNeonate as all 3 participated in the closed discussion at RSN. I think it's best even if for the first two basically just to say it was the wrong place to discuss it, and they were not pinged by User:SPECIFICO at RSN about the new discussion here. AFAICT, this completes pings for editors who participated in the RSN discussion who haven't already made it here. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Its not quite a snow, but there does now seem to be a clear consensus for inclusion, but I think an uninvolved editor should close it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Off topic (I know), but @ZScarpia: would you please remove that arrow from your signature? It's distracting. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody else find the arrow objectionable? It has been part of my signature going right back, pretty much, to registration as an editor coming up to 16 years ago. GoodDay is the first person to remark upon it, but perhaps everybody else was being too polite?     ←   ZScarpia   13:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

ZScarpia Honestly, I find the font size/font itself more distracting than the arrow, since the font is different than the rest of the message. Other peoples' mileage might vary though, of course. (Also pinging GoodDay). I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the enlarged font size, is also distracting. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s a bit WP:POINTy, no? I’ll get my coat. Cambial foliage❧ 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Curious, because my signature hasn't ever looked abnormal on any of my various PCs and laptops, which have run different operating systems with many versions of different web browsers and different sets of fonts installed. Right back at the beginning, I suppose I looked at the code behind a selection of signatures I liked and copied it.     ←   ZScarpia   01:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Consensus required restored

So please take it slow, folks. If a dispute becomes acute, wait for an RfC to close and then follow its dictates. If there is urgency that is of a BLP nature, use WP:BLPN to expedite. Use WP:AE to report CR violations, but please give ample allowances for self-reverts by explaining the violation in a clear and precise way. This sanction isn't that intuitive, so goodwill will go a long way. G'luck! El_C 23:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 5, yep that can go.

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

Paragraph 8 Again I think this is needed for balance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  See for instance [19] "First, Corsi says he continued to insist to Mueller’s team that despite what his emails might suggest, he actually never did get any inside information from WikiLeaks or any intermediary.", "Second, on the Access Hollywood tape day, Corsi says he never did successfully get in touch with Assange." Stone telling Corsi to do something is one thing. It happening is quite another. Stone likes to talk himself up and has tried to butter up Assange but it looks like Assange did not think much of him "Stone is a bullshitter,” Assange posted. “Trying to a) imply that he knows anything b) that he contributed to our hard work.” NadVolum (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

References

Violation of discretionary sanction (18:46, 9 October 2021)

On 8 October 2021, an administrator imposed the consensus required provision on Julian Assange. Its procedure for removing content is described in the relevant explanatory supplement:

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

On 9 October 2021, citing WP: DUE, Prunesqualer removed a portion of article content.

One minute later, Slatersteven undid Prunesqualer's revision with the edit summary, "I disagree, as you are well aware."

Seven minutes afterward, Jtbobwaysf manually reverted Slatersteven's edit, thereby re-removing re-added content prior to consensus on the talk page.

This violates the discretionary sanction in the Editing Julian Assange page notice that directs, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the worst sanctions admins can apply, and I hope El C removes it. This sanction actively impedes editing progress. At one of the last AE reports where this sanction was violated the reviewing admins were almost unanimously opposed to it. Why bring it back? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, from an outside perspective, it looks like recently nearly every substantive change just gets undone (edit warring that obviously destabilizes the page). CR is the final page-level restriction in the DS arsenal. Nobody likes it. I don't like it. I've removed it more times than I've added it. But I do think that in this instance it's better than doing nothing. Because even with 1RR, there are enough participants for frequent/immediate reversions.

Now, if you wish to see CR repealed outright, you should request it at WP:ARCA (i.e. to modify Arbitration policy thusly), all the more if you can show that it doesn't really get enforced at AE. If ArbCom's view is that, in general, the enhanced +1RR sanctions (CR and EBRD) should be done with, then that would be that.

I realize that at RfPP you wanted to do nothing. But my view was that it was either this or a lengthy full protection. Better impeded editing than no editing at all was my thinking. Certainly, I'm open to proposals, including ones that are outside the box (DS allowances do go far). But my experience has been that usually the more novel the sanction, the less effective it proves. And CR itself is already rather novel. Needless to say, once the influx of late dies down, the CR can retire once more. El_C 05:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it, we had made some progress until people started to ignore the sanction. Hell I removed some of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact (it seems to me) stuff I removed is now back in because people could not obey the DS. We were arriving at a compromise, and now we are not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am unhappy about the consensus required sanction. I think the article suffers fom WP:STONEWALLING and it just seemes to be a way of increasing that. Yes there were people who felt their edit really had to be in but I think they seemed to be amenable to reason and they did not disrupt things too much for progress. It is the continual calls for consensus and restoring the status quo without any relevant discussion that get me. NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum, I'd take a dim view of editors who outright WP:STONEWALL or otherwise WP:GAME the sanction. But your 'request' that I somehow extrapolate instances of that out of a ~600K talk page (which I mostly haven't read) — that is an unrealistic expectation, especially considering that en's scarce admin resources are chronically stretched thin.

I'll make it clear, though, that if it becomes obvious that someone is invoking the CR with flimsy reasoning (i.e. their objection lacking substance, etc.), then that could be addressed accordingly. But, again, the alternative of either doing nothing or a lengthy full protection, did not strike me as the optimal path toward mitigating some of the challenges brought by this latest influx. Hope that makes sense. El_C 14:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that several editors have made BOLD edits for which they could have anticipated objections. Then others have quickly reverted, sometimes with difficulty due to intervening tweaks that prevented "undo". I hope that for edits likely to be controversial, editors will propose on the talk page first. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I assumed the intent was, and to add. If it is objected to don't the talk page do not make it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye to progress, I guess the arguments now will be over what is the version to start from. Unlesss there is a very good reason otherwise I would suppose it is the version when the sanction was applied as per m:The Wrong Version. NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out that is this version [20]. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There's also WP:Stable version. I wouldn't fancy tying to do that! NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC to summarize AP2 section

Propose to summarize Julian Assange#2016 U.S. presidential election section that is subject of extended WP:TE

Option A. Proposed text: "During the U.S. 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted a searchable database of emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016 and were widely cited in press during the election. Assange spoke negatively of both candidates stating "The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers." On 7 October, Assange posted a press release on WikiLeaks exposing the second batch of emails, these from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Oct 7 email leak was attributed to the Russian government but Assange stated the Russian government was not the source of the DNC and Podesta emails, and accused the Clinton campaign of "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russian involvement."

Option B. Summarize to any other one-paragraph summary of similar size to Option A that contains no quotations of anyone except the article subject. (There is no need to add additional proposed paragraphs to this RFC, that can be done is a subsequent RFC if necessary.)

Option C. Leave it as is or expand it.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Option D Last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021‎).Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Given that the last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021‎) is identical to the present version, Option C should be revised to say only "Expand it." As they are now worded, options C and D are not mutually exclusive because Option C says "Leave it as is or expand it." Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Option A noting Option B is an acceptable second choice as I am largely indifferent to the text, other than stating that it should not have any quotes by anyone who is not the article subject and should be a summary of the main article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C last stable version As only giving Assanges POV is a violation of wp:NPOV and (I would argue) wp:BLP. Note as a result of all the tooing and throwing there is not "Leave it as is" as such I have to say the version of 6th October, and start again. [[Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is kind of my point, but I said "the version of 6th October", in other words before this round of edit and counter edit. But in terms of this content (and this content alone) this version of the text [[21]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: There must be some mistake. The talk page section on which we are commenting is an RfC proposing to summarize subsection 4.6 2016 U.S. presidential election. The diff to which you have linked shows an edit to subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments. Please explain. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, there is no mistake, the last consensus version was the version that is in the article at that point. I have no idea when that version was added, which is why I gave a date, and no a diff.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Of course I could just post the text of the last consensus version, the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Slatersteven: Please forgive my newcomer's confusion. I had expected the diff to display the corresponding text in 2-column format, and failed to scroll down to the formatted article content. However, when I did so, I discovered that for the first two paragraphs of subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments, which are the subject of this RfC, what you are calling the last stable version is identical to the present version. In other words, you are voting for both Option C (Leave it as is or expand it) and Option D (Last stable version). Is that correct? Thank you for bearing with me. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  No I am not as I have struck my vote for C, and have explained why, it is meaningless as there is not one version it can refer to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option A or B The 2016 U.S. election section is greatly overblown – The issues dealt with already have their own Wiki article and are covered in numerous other articles - As I said earlier: “regarding Julian Assange’s part in the 2016 U.S. election. Wikileaks published some information, which other outlets also published, and Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time”. Hardly earth shattering. Whenever party politics rears its ugly head then issues get exploited and “spun” out of recognition. Hillary’s 2016 loss, and the alleged causes, are a classic example. Option A restores the coverage in Assange’s article to something like its proper size/importance – and we leave the link to the Main article: “2016 Democratic National Committee email leak” for readers who wish to learn more. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C / last stable version as a starting point. Strenuous opposition to both A and B, or to any proposal to reduce it to a single paragraph, and to the RFC as a whole; A and B go drastically beyond anything that was remotely discussed in the section above or any versions that have been seriously proposed, which fails both WP:RFCBEFORE and common sense - it makes no sense to leap straight from a dispute over a much more modest reduction to the section to such a drastic one. Numerous severe omissions here, most particularly "attributed to the Russian government", which drastically understates the sources and which is unacceptably vague about who is doing the attribution and the omission of any mention whatsoever of the Access Hollywood tape; numerous sources indicate that Assange was pushed by Stone to release the Podesta emails in response to it:
  • Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee notes that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone called up author Jerome Corsi the day that the Trump Access Hollywood tape was released and may have encouraged him to put pressure on Julian Assange to release stolen emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in direct response.
  • When Trump’s campaign learned about devastating recordings of the candidate boasting about sexual assault in October, Stone told his contact, Jerome Corsi, to get Julian Assange to “drop the Podesta emails immediately.” (WikiLeaks did so.)

The exact wording can be workshopped but none of the proposed versions remotely reflect this central background. More generally, this is a core event in Assange's biography and reputation; trying to condense it to a single paragraph is completely unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

By last stable version I don't intend to refer to one specific diff (because I merely think it should be used as a starting point, with tweaks discussed and hammered out individually rather than the fairly drastic cuts we've seen since then; I'm not suggesting we go back to that version and then keep it unchanged forever - I agree there are some parts that could be mildly trimmed or tweaked, as well as some things I'd want to add.) But it would probably be something around this version, immediately before Prunesquealer started making wholesale removals. (Note that this is just in reference to that section; the rest of the article was not necessarily stable.) As I mentioned above, I don't agree that the section as a whole is too big or undue, and therefore I oppose large-scale cuts premised on that; there are parts that could be condensed, reworded, or refocused, but too much was changed, too quickly, and this up-and-down RFC on such drastic cuts isn't remotely adequate to affirm them, especially given how the other two proposals are woefully inadequate and "C" is worded in a way that makes it hard to express opposition to the cuts in general (ie. I want to make it unambiguous that by supporting "C" I am opposing most of the recent cuts and saying we need to go back to the drawing board on most of them, undo every removal that hasn't received a clear consensus, and proceed with a presumption that the section will merely be tweaked and not drastically trimmed or overhaulled, since I fear some people might misinterpret it as an endorsement of where things were when the RFC started - which meant there was no option that did not endorse the drastic and clearly contentious cuts that are actually the focus of the dispute the RFC was notionally meant to resolve.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• C And then chop it down to the bits that refer to Assange personally. Or B and add a bit to give context or avoid POV. But A is just unreadable. I had a look at Podesta emails and it doesn't mention Stone or Corsi. If they're so important they should be put in that article first, but do mention the business about Corsi denying contacting Assange even when offered a plea bargain. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• A - Indeed, it's accurate & correctly elaborate. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C / leave it as is with consensus to move some of the info to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak as right now if we go with Option A then we loose out on some of the sources/content that isn't in the main article. Dawiston (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

RfC should not mention allegation of WP:TE. It's not neutral, and it's not relevant to the RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion (III)

• Comment I have proposed this RFC due to the above ad nauseam arguments and TE that goes on relating to this problematic section. Other editors have imposed various types of DS on this article, and my suggestion is that limiting the scope of the section to simply a summary will have sufficient power to stop the AP2 arguing on this article. We have an existing policy in place that a section who subject has a main article, the section should simply be a summary. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• The 1st half of the current 3rd paragraph is the only part of the current text I see as problematic, as it isn't about Assange's role with the Podesta emails, but instead tried to associate Assange with Trump and the Access Hollywood tape in a way that the sources don't. Iffy★Chat -- 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The sources absolutely do; see the sources I cited above. Numerous sources state that Stone instructed Jerome Corsi to contact or put pressure on Assange directly, and no sources (that I am aware of) contest it. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Mentioning that isn't appropriate on this article as none of the sources directly link Corsi (and therefore Stone and Trump) to Assange. That's where the chain is broken. Iffy★Chat -- 11:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes the best the Mueller report has is something about Roger Stone contacting Jerome Corsi contacting Ted Malloch who might have contacted Nigel Farage who might have contacted someone else to contact Julian Assange. Which is at six degrees of separation :-) Oops only five! Gosh! NadVolum (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

      The sources I cited above directly make that link. Disagreeing with them and expressing the opinion, as an editor, that they shouldn't make that link has no bearing; they unequivocally do. Vanity Fair directly says "Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta." I'm unaware of any sources directly contradicting this; we can mention that Corsi denied it, but we cannot use that as a reason to exclude something that multiple high-quality sources cover as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - FWIW, Clinton wasn't the Secretary of State during the 2016 campaign. She resigned that post on February 1, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  The phrasing used in both the existing text (twice) and in the proposed replacement Option A is emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. Nowhere is candidate Clinton misidentified as the serving Secretary of State. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this RfC is highly premature. We have not even discussed and identified possible problems and solutions with respect to the current text. An RfC should be the last step in deciding on an improvement, not a very general first step before the structure and detail of the issue has been identified. This RfC really should be withdrawn for now and, if necessary, a more constructive one launched after the issues and alternatives are clear. @Jtbobwaysf: SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC) By the way, there has been no "extended TE" on this section. Attention turned to it roughly 24 hours ago, and if not for a series of ill-advised removals that should have been anticipated would be challenged, there would have been nothing but (one hopes) a talk page proposal or two. Things don't happen quickly in difficult articles, but they can often happen right if everyone is patient. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the text of the long standing version.

"2016 U.S. presidential election Main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak During the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted a searchable database of emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016.[260][261] The emails were a major point of discussion during the presidential election and prompted an FBI investigation of Clinton for using a private email server for classified documents while she was US Secretary of State.[262]

In February 2016, Assange wrote: "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States."[263] On 25 July, following the Republican National Convention, Assange said that choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea. "Personally, I would prefer neither."[264][265][266] In an Election Day statement, Assange criticised both Clinton and Trump, saying that "The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers."[267]

Image of Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaking at Democratic national Convention Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman following WikiLeaks releases suggesting bias against Bernie Sanders. On 22 July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in which the DNC seemingly presented ways of undercutting Clinton's competitor Bernie Sanders and showed apparent favouritism towards Clinton. The release led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and an apology to Sanders from the DNC.[268][269] The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention because he believed Clinton had pushed for his indictment and he regarded her as a "liberal war hawk".[270]

On 7 October, the Washington Post published a story on the Access Hollywood tape, a recording of a Trump interview conducted by television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump described his habit of sexually assaulting women.[271] Also on 7 October, shortly after the Post article was released, Assange posted a press release on WikiLeaks exposing a second batch of emails with over 2,000 mails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.[272] Podesta, in an interview with CNN, stated "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence."[273]

In mid-October, the Ecuadorian government severed Assange's Internet connection because of the leaks.[274] In December, Assange said the connection had been restored.[275]

Cybersecurity experts attributed the attack to the Russian government.[276] The Central Intelligence Agency, together with several other agencies, concluded that Russian intelligence agencies hacked the DNC servers, as well as Podesta's email account, and provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.[277] As a result of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, 12 Russian GRU military intelligence agents were indicted on 13 July 2018 for the attack on the DNC mail-server. According to the Mueller report, this group shared these mails using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0 with WikiLeaks and other entities.[278] The investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.[272]

In interviews, Assange repeatedly said that the Russian government was not the source of the DNC and Podesta emails,[279][280][281] and accused the Clinton campaign of "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russian involvement.[282] On the eve of the election, Assange addressed the criticism he had received for publishing Clinton material, saying that WikiLeaks publishes "material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere," that it had never received any information on Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson's campaign.[283][284] Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[285]

A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said that WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government, focusing instead on hacks relating to the US presidential election.[286] WikiLeaks said that, as far as it could recall, the material was already public.[286]

In April 2018, the DNC sued WikiLeaks for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and US federal statutes. It accused WikiLeaks and Russia of a "brazen attack on American democracy".[287] The Committee to Protect Journalists said that the lawsuit raised several important press freedom questions.[288] The suit was dismissed with prejudice in July 2019. Judge John Koeltl said that WikiLeaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and were therefore within the law in publishing the information.[289]

In a July 2016 interview on Dutch television, Assange hinted that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. Seeking clarification, the interviewer asked Assange whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder," to which Assange answered, "No. There's no finding. So, I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."[290] WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder and wrote,[291]

We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications.

Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[292][291][293] and set off a spike in attention to the murder. Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet.[294] According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.[295][296][297] Assange must have known[according to whom?] that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.[295][272]"

This is what we should be resetting to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now reset the text back to the long-term stable version that has been in the article for months.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the right thing to do, and I again request that this RfC -- which will resolve nothing be withdrawn so that we can discuss big-picture and detailed choices before reducing the most important ones to a poll (if needed). SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed, option C is far too vague (which is the version it refers to?). Also there should have been an option to return (as I have now added) to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I think the base version before te sanction came into effect is the last edit before it was applied which is [22] and there seems to be a standard m:The Wrong Version about that. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of DNC leak material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording of the indictment

Currently the indictment is worded as follows:

Conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information,

Conspiracy to commit computer intrusions,

seven counts of Obtaining national defense information,

nine counts of Disclosure of national defense information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate usage of "stable version"

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

According to the explanatory supplement Wikipedia:Stable version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should consider requesting full protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP violation restored without consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Assessments” section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comments on the "Assessments" section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maria Ressa's assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not an SPS, [[24]], it's an interview by Yahoo news. And again, if we have opp-eds we can have this, as this is not even written by here, its an interview.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Assange is a classic victim of 'cancel culture', so demonised that he can no longer get a hearing,

A request has been received for more information about the statement in the heading. The explanation comes earlier in the article where Cockburn says, talking about the Yahoo report:

"This riveting and important story based on multiple sources might be expected to attract extensive coverage and widespread editorial comment in the British media, not to mention in parliament. Many newspapers have dutifully carried summaries of the investigation, but there has been no furore. Striking gaps in the coverage include the BBC, which only reported it, so far as I can see, as part of its Somali service. Channel 4, normally so swift to defend freedom of expression, apparently did not mention the story at all".

He then says:

"The true reason the scoop about the CIA’s plot to kidnap or kill Assange has been largely ignored or downplayed is rather that he is unfairly shunned as a pariah by all political persuasions: left, right and centre".

How we incorporate this explanation into the article, I will leave for discussion. Given that it is based on the media response to the Yahoo report, which is itself dependant on an RfC, there may be a delay in working out the details. Burrobert (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that articles are supposed to reflect the weight in reliable sources, which at this point means mainstream media. In the years ahead, as better sources are written, we should reassess the current weight in the article, if it is different. TFD (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the article you want to use there is Cockburn writing not as a journalist but as an opinion commentator. We would need to have a third party talk about it in order for it to be WP:DUE at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, Cockburn's opinion that Assange "can no longer get a hearing" should be paraphrased to disambiguate the meaning of hearing. Cockburn apparently means that Assange cannot get anyone to listen to him. However, in this BLP, that word occurs 17 times, and in all 16 other instances it refers to a legal hearing. Without clarification, the reader might erroneously conclude that the evil UK/U.S. authorities, in their barbarous persecution, have conspired to deny Assange one or more rightful hearings in court. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Execept he is getting a hearing, it's just that this one story was not deemed fit for consideration in some news organs. Many of which have been supportive of him. News organs that do have very high standards of editorial control (hence why they are top-line RS here). Now we already have commentary on the CIA hit, and it may be possible to have a line about the mainstream media largely ignoring this, but we really need more than a an Opp-edd invoking cancel culture.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe it would be okay to say that is the 'Assessments' section as attributed opinion about Assange. There's a number of articles talking about that in different contexts for Assange from ignoring most of what happened in the extradition trial to Thordarson's retractions to this business of the CIA plotting to kidnap or murder him. WP:WEIGHT doesn't require the mainstream media for everything in the article but they do have to be reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The "Assessments" section should be limited to assessments around 2010. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Cockburn's opinion anywhere in this article is misleading, as Assange has had multiple hearings in multiple forums.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: I have searched in vain for an ad nauseam discussion about limiting the Assessments section to those around 2010. The present discussion contains Burrobert's comment to the contrary: "Most of the sources are from 2010. Let's update this," which Valjean commends as a "good point." Elsewhere there are 16 Talk:Julian Assange/Archive pages with one or more instances of the word assessment(s), but only two pages specifically relating to the Assessments section. Archive 26 does not discuss a temporal limitation. In Archive 27, Prunesqualer notes that the assessments as of 10 August 2021 "all derive from the 2010/2011 pre-asylum, pre U.S. indictment, pre imprisonment period," whereas he favored including people who were more recently "campaigning/speaking out about Assange's predicament"; and SPECIFICO criticized on NPOV grounds the absence of "assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years." Of course, you may be alluding to other pages, such as noticeboards. In any case, please direct me to the ad nauseam discussion. I trust it will be most informative. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

See [25], [26] and [27]. I remember many discussions of this, but I think they were intermixed with other discussions. Perhaps my memory is faulty. In any case, it makes more sense to include commentary with the events being commented on, rather than a jumble of comments over decades.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: I appreciate your response, but find it unhelpful. You provide links to three Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive page sections, none of which involve limiting Assessments to 2010-2011. Confusingly, in the first linked section, you comment, "I think it is reasonable to have assessment of events as they happen." That suggests, to me at least, that you were not then (April 2021) opposed to including assessments subsequent to 2010-2011. Rather, as you assert above, you believe the Assessments section should be limited to those around 2010. Perhaps, instead of intermixing with other discussions, it would be better to create a new talk page section that focuses exclusively on that single issue. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have never suggested assessments should be confined to 2010-11. What a bizarre comment!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Either your "memory is faulty," as you suggested here less than 24 hours ago, or an imposter forged this statement by you just a day before: The "Assessments" section should be limited to assessments around 2010. In either case, I agree—this is a bizarre situation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You've just missed the point of what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. If there was any point to what you said, I missed it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We should follow WP:STRUCTURE:Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. The original "Assessments" section was "folded into the narrative" to some degree in that it summed up opinions at the time that Assange became internationally famous (around 2010). The current "Assessments" section has been taken out of the narrative and is apparently supposed to cover his entire life.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section named “Children”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assange awarded or honoured with "bobbed white hair, leather jacket; Jagger-esque swagger" and an autobiography

Why are these in the "Honours and awards" section?

"In 2021, The Guardian assessed that Assange had played the part of rock star "to perfection: bobbed white hair, leather jacket; Jagger-esque swagger. To many, he was a hero—the pugnacious Aussie who gave America a good hiding by revealing what the US military had really got up to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others regarded him as an egomaniacal information thief."

and

"... received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million".

Burrobert (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is because you and your co-thinkers have adamantly opposed any logical or chronological order in the article. And now you are complaining about things like this. You caused it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No, its only cause is that yesterday an editor deleted it from one section and and added it to honours and awards. Suggesting that other editors caused it through their opposition and, presumably, some kind of voodoo, is prima facie utterly ridiculous.

That said, I'm not sure that we should have a separate "Assesments section at all. WP:STRUCTURE suggests that different views should be folded into the narrative. So perhaps we can discuss whether all these various notable views about Assange and his work should be included in the general narrative (where several already are). Cambial foliage❧ 08:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It should be folded into the narrative.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it is an award, I did not add it I just moved it, as it was part of why he was awarded a pop star award.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Here is the final clause of what you moved from Assessments to Honours and awards: …and received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million. We cite a single source to support "In 2010, Assange was named by the Italian edition of Rolling Stone as 'Rockstar of the year'." It does not mention a book deal. And none of the three references relating to the book deal mention "Rockstar of the year." If, as you infer, the book deal was part of why Assange was awarded a pop star award, we should cite a WP:RS to that effect. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have said above, we need to r4eset the whole section back to a point before all the additions and subtractions. I just moved this bot that was about the award of it contained unrelated material, then you need to ask who added it. As it originally just said " 2010, Assange was named by the Italian edition of Rolling Stone as "Rockstar of the year",[138] was made an honorary member of the Australian trade union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance,[139][140][141] and received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million". We need to go back to the version of "assessments of 12:54, 12 October 2021 .Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Given the recent editorial history of Julian Assange, I oppose resetting any section of that BLP to a point before all its additions and subtractions. Twice previously on this talk page I have protested blind reversions and oblivious restoration of the "last stable version". Such meat-cleaver approaches have nullified hours of my careful, constructive work. Please, I beg you, spare me a repetition of that fate. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Only the one section, which is being discussed and for which there was no consensus for any alterations.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Here is a side-by-side comparison (sans references) of the version you advocate versus the current Assessments section. I believe the current version is self-evidently superior.

12:54, 12 October 2021

Current

Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal", but the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law. Then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Prominent American and Canadian politicians and media personalities, including Tom Flanagan, Bob Beckel, Mike Huckabee, and Michael Grunwald, called for his assassination or execution. Support for Assange came from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, British Member of Parliament (and later Labour Party leader) Jeremy Corbyn, Spanish Podemos party leader Pablo Iglesias, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, and Argentina's ambassador to the UK, Alicia Castro. He also garnered support from many leading activists and celebrities, including Tariq Ali, John Perry Barlow, Daniel Ellsberg, Mary Kostakidis, John Pilger, Ai Weiwei, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Vaughan Smith, and Oliver Stone. In 2010, Assange was named by the Italian edition of Rolling Stone as "Rockstar of the year", was made an honorary member of the Australian trade union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million. In 2011, Assange filed for the trademark "Julian Assange" in Europe, which was to be used for "Public speaking services; news reporter services; journalism; publication of texts other than publicity texts; education services; entertainment services".

Opinions of Assange have been divided. Support for Assange has came from politicians, journalists and world leaders. In November 2010, President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev suggested through his office that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. In December 2010, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then President of Brazil, said "They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression," and Vladimir Putin, then Prime Minister of Russia, asked at a press conference "Why is Mr Assange in prison? Is this democracy?" In April 2012, interviewed on Assange's Russia Today talk show, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa praised WikiLeaks and told his host "Cheer up! Cheer up! Welcome to the club of the persecuted!" In November 2014, Spanish Podemos party leader Pablo Iglesias also gave his support to Assange. In July 2015, British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn opposed Assange's extradition to the US, and as Labour Party leader in April 2019 said the British government should oppose Assange's extradition to the US "for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan." Many leading activists and celebrities also gave Assange their support. In July 2010, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that "Assange has shown much better judgment with respect to what he has revealed than the people who kept those items secret inside the government." In October 2010, Ellsberg flew to London to give Assange his support. In November 2011, Vaughan Smith, founder of the Frontline Club, supported Assange, and in July 2012 offered his residence in Norfolk for Assange to continue WikiLeaks' operations whilst in the UK. In August 2012, historian and journalist Tariq Ali and former ambassador and author Craig Murray spoke in support of Assange outside the Ecuadorian embassy. In April 2013, filmmaker Oliver Stone stated that "Julian Assange did much for free speech and is now being victimised by the abusers of that concept". In July 2016, artist and activist Ai Weiwei, musicians Patti Smith, Brian Eno, and PJ Harvey, scholars Noam Chomsky and Yanis Varoufakis, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, and filmmaker Ken Loach were amongst those attending an event in support of Assange at the embassy. That same month, long-time supporter documentary filmmaker Michael Moore also visited Assange in the embassy. In December 2019, Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis said "I became fascinated at this young, idealistic Australian, very tech-savvy, who developed a way for whistleblowers to upload data anonymously", and said she would be giving "100 per cent of my attention and resources" to his defence. In January 2021, Australian journalist John Pilger stated that were Assange to be extradited "no journalist who challenges power will be safe". In December 2010, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal", but the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law. Then Vice President of the United States Joe Biden commented that Assange was "closer to being a hi-tech terrorist" than to the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, and said Assange had "done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world. He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends." American politicians Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin each either referred to Assange as "a high-tech terrorist" or suggested that through publishing U.S. diplomatic traffic he was engaged in terrorism. Other American and Canadian politicians and media personalities, including Tom Flanagan, Bob Beckel, Mike Huckabee, and Michael Grunwald, called for his assassination or execution.

As for your objection that "there was no consensus for any alterations," that goes far beyond the discretionary sanction in place, which reads: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. None of my 21 contributions beginning at 00:50, 19 October 2021 have reinstated challenged (via reversion) edits. Accordingly, you have no grounds for wiping out my improvements without consensus on this talk page to do so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good work. Let's settle on this version for now. It's a definite improvement. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And this is not what "no edits without consensus means". It's not "if I like it". By the way, much of it has been challenged (in fact almost all of the new text has been) and reverted. The problem is figuring out what has been challenged ina sea of edits. So we reset it and then discuss what shoulds be changed. And only do it if there is consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. It's a definite improvement. Cambial foliage❧ 09:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It gives to much emphasis to support and in my opinion quotes to many people. But then you know this. So it does not have a consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your comment appears to attempt to elide the distinction between no consensus and one editor seeking to stonewall. Cambial foliage❧ 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I in fact offered an alternative which still included a number of positive opinions. It is not me who has refused to compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing seventeen reliable secondary sources and using the misleading edit summary of "There we go, some positive statements" is not compromise, but rather an attempt to ignore WP:5P2. If you believe it is a compromise, you may find this page, this page, or even this admittedly flawed page helpful. Unless, that is, if you mean sense 3. of the verb as given by the OED: Bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behaviour. In that sense I agree that edits such as your edit linked above compromise you and would compromise the integrity of this page if it were allowed to stand. Cambial foliage❧ 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How was it misleading, were they not positive statement?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What was difficult about following the link I provided for your benefit? SUMMARYNO, first sentence:

Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading

Cambial foliage❧ 10:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop with three kinds of ad homonums (nor is a this the first time you have tried this kind of tacit, having previously stated I suppot4d your edit, when I did not). I removed material and replaced it with quotes. That is in no way misleading. If you think I am in breach of policy, report it, but stop making arguemtns based upon the user and not content, as that is agasint the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please indicate where you believe I have made an ad hominem argument about page content. With diffs. I remind you that accusations of bad faith without evidence are considered uncivil. You removed content and seventeen reliable secondary sources. You failed to mention it. That is misleading. Cambial foliage❧ 10:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:TPNO you have already misrpersented what I have said on this talk page which violates wp:npa and you are supposed to "Comment on content, not on the contributor.", stop.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So, no diffs then. Cambial foliage❧ 10:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Of all the hundreds of comments about Assange and his predicament from famous thinkers, politicians, celebrities, artists, musicians, journalists, we happen to give star billing to remarks from the President or Russian and the Prime minister of Russia. It’s almost as if someone where trying to spin a narrative which ties Assange to the “big bad Russians”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: Thank you for being precise in your objection. If you believe that including assessments of Assange by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2010—six years before Russiagate—violates WP policy, I will support your deletion of those 41 words, which editors can then debate in a new section at this talk page devoted solely to that removal. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I take it you think the inclusion of support from those two people and their positioning 1st and 3rd in the list of people quoted in the Assessments section is just coincidence? If so I’m not so sure – Russia comes up again and again in Assange article and I don’t believe an objective look at Assange’s relationship with Russia (what there is of it) warrants that – seems to me there are editors who have allowed conspiracy theories to cloud their judgements ie they have genuinely convinced themselves that Assange was in some way working for the Russians (rather than having a few overlapping interests). A reminder that Wikileaks revealed some quite uncomfortable truths about events in Russia over the years eg | here. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: The positioning is chronological, not coincidental. The entire Assessments section is now arranged chronologically. If you object to that order, please start a new section at this talk page where editors can focus on how we can best sort the assessments of Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I get the chronological order. I don’t get why plainly insincere comments from the Russians – are chosen over more sincere comments made by others at the time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: If you can cite WP:RS to support your opinion that the assessments of Assange by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2010 were "plainly insincere," then I reiterate my support for your deletion of those 41 words, which editors can then debate in a new section at this talk page devoted solely to that removal. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunes, don't keep throwing your unsupported personal opinions up on the talk page. It impedes collaborative discussion and it's a huge waste of volunteer editors' time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know whether OR is relevant, but I agree with Speci that this tangent discussion is a waste of time (and very, very silly). Basketcase put the comments in chronological order. That’s all. If you know of other secondary reliable sources (as per WP:BLPBALANCE) that report comments made by others at the time, by all means add them in; there can be no reasonable objection provided they are presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone and not given disproportionate space.Cambial — foliage❧ 07:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The present order seems to work fine, and I'd oppose deletion of the Russian comments as a violation of NPOV. Notable allies of Assange should get their say, and Assange's actions had helped Russia, so of course they're grateful. We don't limit coverage to critics. -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As I noted above, we have included assessments of Assange by Russian President Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Putin in 2010—six years before Russiagate. That was also two years before Assange's TV show on the Russian government-funded network RT. So I'm not sure it's true that "Assange's actions had helped Russia" when Medvedev and Putin offered those assessments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Russia considered a major enemy of the United States? It follows that Assange's actions in 2010 would be viewed with glee by the Russians as they were very helpful to Russian intelligence and Russia's interests. -- Valjean (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP|SYNTH claim re. Dmitry Medvedev

Our article currently says “In November 2010, President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev suggested through his office that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize” yet here is what the sources we base that on say:

• The Jerusalem Post article says: “ Sources in Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office have suggested that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently incarcerated in solitary confinement on rape charges, should win the Nobel peace prize, The Guardian reported on Thursday. While Medvedev was in Brussels for a Russia-EU summit, the source told Russian news agencies that "public and non-governmental organizations should think of how to help [Assange]. Maybe nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."”
• The Guardian article(which the above Jerusalem Post article apperars to be based on) says: ““ Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder. In what appears to be a calculated dig at the US, the Kremlin urged non-governmental organisations to think seriously about "nominating Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate". "Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him," the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: "Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate."

Nowhere do the sources actually say that Medvedev himself suggested “through his office” or otherwise that Assange get a peace prize – he may well have instructed the “source” to do so, but we cannot prove that - and to inferring otherwise is to indulge in WP|SYNTH. I changed the wording accordingly to say: “In November 2010, a source from inside the office of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.” However my edit was reverted to the WP|SYNTH version by SPECIFICO. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is why we need to reset back to the last consensus version and get agreement here for any edits.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

On this page there is rarely (if ever) a truly “consensus version” so it may be difficult to identify a widely accepted “last consensus version”. We also have quite a bit of work invested in the new version – I see no reason why we shouldn’t simply do what we usually do, and continue to edit the section, polishing out the problems – The misleading/synth wording of the Medvedev sentence is easily put right (someone just needs to reverse SPECIFICO's reversion. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus Required" may be imperfect, but it is more flexible than full protection. Meanwhile, it would be a good start if you'd read WP:SYNTH so that you can express your concerns on a more policy-based footing. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:SYNTH which says it’s ok to write misleading information in BLPs. Medvedev did not publicly suggest “that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize” – the man was perfectly capable of saying the words himself and had numerous platforms on which to do so but he didn’t choose to It is ridiculous that you think it acceptable to say in a BLP that he did. Please undo your revert at the earliest opportunity. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And there's nothing in the NBA Rulebook that says so, either. Please don't cite WP:SYNTH again unless and until you are able to cite it correctly. Read WP:SYNTH. If you did read it but do not understand it, that's quite unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

So we can say someone "suggested [a thing] through his office" even when they have actually said no such thing and the R.S. only have an unnamed "source" saying the thing. Welcome to Wiki in Wonderland. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIR you need to either a) Read and understand WP:SYNTH, or b) refrain from invoklng it falsely and with no valid basis. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Be careful with such PAs. Prunesqualer seems to understand SYNTH and is applying it correctly. -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose Slatersteven's perpetual meat-cleaver solution "to reset back to the last consensus version" in order to resolve a tiny contentious passage. In this instance, a mere 3–4 words are in dispute: whether to change through his office to from inside the office. Please, let's deal with that by, as Prunesqualer recommends, "simply doing what we usually do, and continue to edit the section, polishing out the problems" via consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with that approach, if I understand you correctly. When there is dispute over content, the solution is not bold editing, but discussion and development of a consensus version on the talk page which is then installed to (nearly) everyone's satisfaction. Such content is usually protected from edit wars because most of the editors will protect it. -- Valjean (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Valjean: The relevant discretionary sanction in place directs: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. It does not dictate that discussion and development of a consensus version must precede editing of content that has not been challenged via reversion. Please, is there a policy basis for your alternative approach? Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 as far as I can see the current version breaches the WP:SYNTH rules and as such should be removed regardless of discretionary sanctions. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022, the approach I proposed is based on experience and the desire to keep editorial disputes on this talk page. They should not spill over to the article. BRD seeks to achieve this end by recognizing that the moment disagreement is evident in the article editing, the disagreement should immediately be moved to the talk page and stay there until a consensus is achieved. An editorial battle shouldn't leave even a tiny puff of smoke in the article. Keep the shooting here. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Valjean: But that's exactly what happened in this case. Prunesqualer made a small edit of a sentence that had not been disputed since the relevant discretionary sanction was imposed, and 46 minutes later SPECIFICO reverted it; 48 minutes thereafter, Prunesqualer created this talk page section to discuss the disagreement until consensus is achieved. I can't see what you're objecting to. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, except when it involves Schiff/Yahoo/Hearings??🤦‍♀️. Prunes, there's no SYNTH exception. You must be thinking of BLP exception. SYNTH is a content issue. Anyway it is not SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s saying something the sources don’t say – It’s SYNTH Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not a " mere 3–4 words are in dispute", almost all of the section is in dispute, just over three or 4 separate threads. This is why it needs resetting and then we have one thread discussing it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: You have no support for resetting. You are the only editor advocating that. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

So, almost all of the section is in dispute, not just 3 or 4 words, we need to stop having a thread every time an edit in the section is reverted, it is just confusing matters.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the hard work Basket has done to organize the text, I think the whole section needs to be blanked and a new consensus version decided on talk. Failing that, I reluctantly support a reset to the status quo ante. The article needs to be written in summary style, not play-by-play or a scrapbook from which readers are left adrift to form their own conclusions. Surely by now there are RS secondary and tertiary summaries of how the world has viewed and discussed Assange and his story. time to pull this all together in a coherent NPOV summary. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose blanking the whole section. That's not editing, it's vandalism. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither blanking, nor reverting to some unspecified time in the past (when the section clearly breached NPOV, BLPBALANCE, STRUCTURE etc) is remotely appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism -- which is a defined term on WP. It would be just putting the ship in drydock while we get it seaworthy. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And where, pray tell, is "putting the ship in drydock while we get it seaworthy" defined in Wikipedia policies or guidelines? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree WP:SYNTH does not apply, putting sentences together to imply something not in the sources. it is just straightforward WP:OR saying something that is not in the sources. NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikileaks-julian-assange-_n_794965 "ussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have pledged support for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and have gone as far as to suggest the beleaguered site's frontman be honored with a Nobel Peace Prize.". https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/A-Nobel-prize-for-Assange-sought/article15587925.ece "Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize", https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/russia-give-julian-assange-a-nobel-prize/343071/ ""Russia is embracing", https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2010/12/russia-suggests-assange-nobel-031313 "Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize", It seems all the RS are treating this as an official statement.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted Prunesqualor Edits

Since I contribute to the Assange article quite regularly, and since nearly every edit I make these days gets reverted, often within minutes of it being made, I thought it might save time to have a section dedicated to these edits and reversions (I can always renew the section every few months when the clean up bots archive the old ones). The latest edit I made was an addition to the “Assessments” section and read:

• “U.S. Philosopher and civil rights activist Cornel West said of Assange: “He has been simply laying bare some of the crimes and lies of the American empire.””

It was reverted with the following summary: “I think we have enough support, it is now much larger than the opposition section”. However:

• 1/ It has been pointed out by more than one editor on this page that we should not have to keep support for Assange and criticism in some sort of artificial balance (though in fairness I personally think a rough balance is desirable).
• 2/ Even if such a balance where called for, there is nothing to stop other editors adding to the quotes/persons critical of Assange to redress that balance.

Given the above, and since Cornel West is a notable person, his quote is directly about Assange, and the RS from which it is sourced is impeccable I would be grateful if another editor would reinstate my edit. Thank you. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to expand an already large section with every person who offers support (which is exactly what I said I was afraid would happen (more than once) in threads above this).Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I would be happy to see the reduction of the section and a redressing of the support/contra balance by the simple removal of the Putin and Medvedev comments. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

PS It is enlightening to examine the detail of the claim that “support, it is now much larger than the opposition section”. Firstly we don’t actually have an “opposition section” (or a support one) there is mush mangling of of both in the three paragraphs we have. Secondly some of the “support” that we have chosen to prominently include is from people generally considered in the west to be undesirables – something akin to “damning with faint praise”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, we have a lot more support than we do opposition, we already have more, it does not need expanding anymore. Note the page is under consensus required not 1RR. So no editor should reinstate this until there is consensus. What does this tell us we do not already know, that we need to know?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be double standards here because we don’t have consensus to include the Medvedev material which apart from the WP:SYNTH issue is WP:UNDUE since the comment was not made by Medvedev himself (just a lackey) and was clearly not very sincere - so why is it of significance to Assange’s life? Presumably if I now delete that sentence on the above grounds no-one is supposed to reinstate until we have consensus? (or would treating other peoples edits the same way mine get treated be shockingly bad form?) Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not the same kinds of figure, so the cases are not anaolgous. And you already know my opinion of what should be done with that section. And this is another example of why I think that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed - You are quite correct “They are not the same kinds of figure” - Cornel West is much more important (and sincere) than an underling in the office of Dmitry Medvedev who may or may not have been mouthing the disingenuous sentiments of his boss. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

See my reply in the correct section, this is not about the Russians.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And as you agree they are not comparable stop trying to compare them, and make a case based upon the merit of the inclusion, and not what other editors are saying in other threads (and stop casting aspersions about users, deal with content, not the person saying it, and AGF).Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the WP:SYNTH issue has now been dealt with my case for removing the Medvedev sentence is weakened – so I’ll drop that (however if anyone tries to pretend that sentence comes under the heading of “support” for Assange - coming as it does from an undesirable boo hiss Russian - I shall take issue and seek it’s removal). As for the Cornel West material it belongs because West is a high profile respected figure who is a passionate supporter of Julian Assange and has actively campaigned for his release, as a Google of “Cornel West Assange” will reveal one example being | here where West said the following: “Yeah, let me first say that it is a blessing, honor and privilege to sit here with my dear brother Gabriel and brother John, who are biologically and lovingly connected to my very dear brother, Julian. I have a deep love and respect for him. I had dialogue with him when he was there in the Embassy of Ecuador back eight years ago... ”. (Please note this is not material I intend to include merely to show the importance of Assange to West). Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We should not and can't have quotes from every single high profile figure who has commented on Assange. We have to draw a line somewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Again I have to say, this is just what I was afraid of (and said so) a while back about a death by a thousand lines. We had a line you had a line they add a counter line until you have 15 paragraphs. The section needs reducing, not expanding (hell the whole article does).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In 2016 Wikileaks published some DNC emails that where leaked by someone else and where published also by other people and apparently that warrants a section nearly twice the size of the section dedicated to “Assessments” of his entire life and work, I mean honestly it’s bonkers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)A

No, as the 2016 DNC hack has been covered by a large number of RS, you want to include an opinion covered by one RS. As I said before the "assessments" section should not just end up being a list of people, rather it should discuss how he has been assessed, with a few choice quotes for the purposes of illustration. It is not my fault if all people want to do is have a list of names, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So instead of arguing to add one line every few days, how about suggesting how we can reduce the article? adding lines does not reduce the size of oversized sections, and can be argued to be an example of false balance. Well we have some stuff saying he did this now we need to balance that with people talking about unrelated stuff to balance that, which says how great he is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

To be clear I’m saying the DNC leaks section does not warrant being twice the length of the Assessments section, and I am arguing for the inclusion of a single sentence which is supported by a single RS – nothing wrong with that, but you make a false comparison between my one sentence and the entire DNC section, what’s that about? You say you want the article reduced but resist the deletion of the insincere Medvedev sentence and don’t back me up when I seek to reduce the overblown DNC section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Err, you raised the DNC section, not me. And this is not about reducing the DNC section, so please stop with these constant whataboutisms. We are discussing the line you want to add, nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Moorever I have said (more than once) that we should reset the “Assessments” section back to a much smaller size (thus removing the Medvedev sentence as well) and being from scratch to create a more tightly written section (as in fact my edit of that section had done). It is not my fault if people keep on adding to it, rather than trying to get it back to a more compact state (in fact even here I make the same point about " a death by a thousand lines", this is what I was talking about. I am not the one adding one line here, and another lien there, and have said (more than once) that needs to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I and others have already made it clear we are against resetting the Assessment section so please drop that bone.

• I think the Assessment section is too short you think it too long. We must agree to differ on that.
• I think the Medvedev sentence is insincere tosh – you think it belongs. We must agree to differ on that.
• I think the Cornel West support (with quote) is worthy of inclusion – you don’t. We must agree to differ on that.

Not much more to say between you and I for the present. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunes, please help us stay focused here by removing your personal distress about getting reverted and placing it on your user talk page or a separate linkable user space page -- then you can retitle the section to indicate whatever article content (apparently the laundry list of Assange mentions) is to be discussed here. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this content above, do we really need another thread about it?Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

David House material

The Subsection “US criminal investigation” includes the following information:

"Computer expert David House, an acquaintance of Manning who met Assange in London after the soldier was arrested in May 2010,[119] testified for 90 minutes before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia in July 2018." 

I added the following sentence immediately after:

“House, who testified in exchange for immunity, later said that: “This is not an investigation borne out of a concern for national security, It is an investigation borne out of retribution and revenge against Mr. Assange over the [2010] leak that he precipitated, and how this leak impacted the careers of politicians in Washington, D.C.” 

This addition was reverted with the following explanation: “UNDUE opinion of non-notable person” I would ask the following:

• If David House, is “non-notable” then: why does the preceding sentence remain in the article?
• Why did a grand jury give him 90 minutes of testimony?
• Why is it worth noting how long he testified but not that he testified “in exchange for immunity”?

In the name of consistency I suggest we either get rid of the David House material altogether or reinstate my edit which gives some context to his testifying. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• By all means, feel free to remove the rest of the House content and all the other play-by-play about the trial, per WP:NOTNEWS. The significant facts will be apparent in due time. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You talk about “the House content and all the other play-by-play about the trial” however the David House material in question does not refer to a “trial” but rather a grand jury investigation – and WP:NOTNEWS hardly applies as the investigation took place in July 2018. I would rather wait for feedback from other editors as to whether to delete all the David House material before acting but I hope you can see the inconsistency in your reverting my material and not the other House text. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In the sentence that begins Computer expert David House, I support changing the final clause to testified for 90 minutes in July 2018 before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, in exchange for immunity, about his relationship with Assange and about the 2010 war log disclosures. On grounds of WP:NOT (vehicle for propaganda), I oppose including House's March 2019 partisan smears in The Washington Post about prosecutors' motives. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 I appreciate your constructive input. There may be differences regarding who’s “partisan smears” get allowed in the article eg we have allowed Judge Michael Snow’s attack on Assange: “a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" who has "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse". But not Houses attack on the US prosecution. Seems like double standards to me. But if others won’t agree on that, since we currently say nothing about the substance of House’s testimony, or his views on the case, perhaps we would be better just dropping the whole House sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Medvedev/Kremlin Source

I edited this bit to conform it to the two cited sources, neither of which attributed the opinion directly to Medvedev. (recently Steven found another source that does attribute it to Medvedev, so we may be discussing that in the future.) Be that as it may, in this subsequent edit, the key statement of both citations was removed -- namely, that the suggestion of a Nobel Prize was devised to "help" Assange in his struggles, not to honor him for the actual merits of his deeds. Fpr the avoidance of doubt, I am asking here whether anyone objects to wording that accurately reflects the cited sources, making clear that the sources were suggesting helping Assange, not honoring him? SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The notion that that is the key statement of the sources, despite it being in neither the headline nor the byline of any of several reliable sources, is your own invention. Even spookily useful idiot Luke Harding couldn’t get his editor at the now-properly-neutered Grauniad to put it in the byline. On the issue of attribution, I think we could attribute it to the Kremlin fairly; the idea that the source in Medvedev’s office might have been acting without the authorisation of Medvedev himself seems unlikely - and would surely be seriously unwise in the precarious position of a Russian civil servant. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As a somewhat experienced editor, you should not need to be told that headlines, even in reliable publications, are not RS for encyclopedia content. Headlines are not written by the journalists we trust for WP content. Headline writing is a separate role at RS publications. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your edit of my conformed-to-source recognition of previous complaints about attribution to Medvedev himself, seein' as how y'all are now prepared to attribute it to da Kremlin. Further, it is the key point because of a Nobel Prize was mooted as a mere propaganda or public relations ploy then as {Ping|Stevenslater}} has pointed out, this whole Nobel bit is not meaningful assessment of Assange, per se. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you on about? No-one’s suggesting using something from the headline or byline that isn’t in the text. The headline and byline of multiple articles do factor in determining what constitutes the important information in those sources. Rather than using, say, the presumption of one editor based on, at best, nothing. mere propaganda or public relations ploy - now we really are getting into the arena of OR. This is the talk page; post as much of your original research as you like. Just don’t expect other editors to take it very seriously. If we were to interpret Spook Harding’s reference to a ‘calculated dig’ in those terms, the thing to do would be not to include the content at all, given the obvious implication of insincerity such an interpretation would carry. I’m not opposed to doing so (removing the whole thing). But deciding to use your own narrow view on what is key, ignoring what the sources highlight, is not the way forward. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia practice and norms concerning headlines and Verification.you can start your readinbg here. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ll not be doing so. As ever with your discussions here Specifico, please remember to only link to policies that are actually pertinent to the issue at hand, rather than talk discussions somewhere between tangential and zero relevance. The policy is HEADLINES, it says If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. What is in the body? The first sentence: Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder. Obviously the author considers this key; hence they put it first. It’s also considered key information by the editors of six publications. Does the rest of the article suggest this was not really about Assange but only a calculated dig at the U.S.? Perhaps. If so, and it is insincere and merely a dig at the U.S., it doesn’t belong in a section about views that are actually about Assange. The section, silly as it is, is about views on Assange, not about "times his name was invoked in diplomatic point-scoring". It might be appropriate as a footnote in U.S.-Russia relations, but likely not. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You are seriously misrepresenting the two cited sources, but I'm sure that any editors who wish to comment will check what they actually say. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I’m not. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this content above, do we really need another thread about it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"His youngest child, a son"

Under "Personal life", it says, "In 2015, in an open letter to French President Hollande, Assange said that his youngest child, a son, was French, as was the child's mother". The English language sources I have seen just say "child", not "son". Is "son" a correct translation?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The cited source states, in French: Mon plus jeune enfant et sa mère sont français. Unless I am mistaken, that translates to: "My youngest child and his mother are French." (Emphasis added.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not right. Sa in that context could mean "his" or "her".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

An April 2019 story on the English-language website of RFI, which is owned by the Government of France, recounts (emphasis added):

Back in 2015, Assange wrote an open letter to then-president Francois Hollande, published in Le Monde, warning his life was in danger and asking for help.

"My youngest child and his mother are French."

Have you found any English-language source that translates Assange's French statement as "her" mother? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No, as I said, the English-language sources I have seen do not give the sex of the child.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case we should abide by the English-language source that I cited, which translates Assange's French statement as "his" mother. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• It remains true that we don't know how many children Assange has, even if indications of this have been removed from the text and the infobox. According to Robert Manne in this article, Assange has a daughter born around 2006. If the above is right, then Assange has at least five children: Daniel + daughter + French son + Gabriel + Max. I think it would be better not to have a total in the infobox if there is no definitive number known.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I removed the Infobox's children parameter due to uncertainty as to number. I favor adding his daughter to Personal life, citing Robert Manne, but could not work out how to word it, given that Manne's account is so sketchy. Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose we could say, "Assange reported the birth of a daughter in 2006-2007".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Except it's unclear from Robert Manne whether Assange's daughter was born in 2006-2007 or Assange simply revealed it then—perhaps years after the fact. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Misleading sentence.

The article reads:

On 11 April 2019, Assange's asylum was withdrawn following a series of disputes with the Ecuadorian authorities.

I assume that it was the British authorities who disputed with the Ecuadorian authorities? If so, then the sentence suggests that Ecuadorian president withdrew the asylum under the pressure of the British authorities, which is not true. Note that the word "following" is ambiguous. But even if we replace it with "after", the sentence will remain unclear, though less misleading. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No it was between him and the Ecuadorian authorities, which if you bother to read the article you would see.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you admit that the sentence was misleading. You are right that I did not bother to read the [whole] article. But just because something is well explained in the further part of the article does not mean that we can start the article with misleading sentences. The article lead can (and should) be less detailed but not evidently misleading. BTW, thank you for so quick response. Now I promise, I will read the whole article :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

??? No, it wasn't misleading. It was indeed the Ecuadorian, not British, authorities. -- Valjean (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, to be misleading it would have had to say something that was not true, it did not. It did not say who it was he was in dispute with, but it did not mislead anyone into thinking it was anyone it was not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:Slatersteven I thought that those disputes were between the British and Ecuadorian authorities, without Assange. Maybe it was misleading only to me. I suspect that my brain works differently. English is my second language, and I could use it as a convenient excuse, but I have similar problems in my native language. I simply try to apply pure logic to understand what I read. But sometimes logic is not enough without some language instinct or intuition. I wonder how many readers could read that sentence like I did. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for a discussion of your application of logic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:Slatersteven Of course, you are right; but, please, read my last sentence. All I want is to know how other readers interpret the wording in question. This would allow me to write better, more readable sentences while editing Wikipedia articles. Anyway, I understand that our discussion is over. Regards :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The cited source explains the disputes. I have revised the sentence to better describe this. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided is fantastic. Thanks for your edit. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to get feedback from our readers and although we strive to make articles as clear and unambiguous as possible, there's great value in hearing specific issues that we overlooked. Thank you to both IP and Basket. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:SPECIFICO You have made me feel much better, and I am beginning to believe in myself. Thank you so much :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of talk page as a blog and scrapbook

@Burrobert: it appears to me that your voluminous posts of random internet clippings and your personal opinions, including some sensitive BLP content, to this page are inappropriate. I am posting this here in case anyone cares to refute this reaction. Otherwise, Burrobert, please relocate such content to a userspace page or off Wiki. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And this would have been best on their talk page, not here. THis talk page is about this article and not that user.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I explained my reason for posting here because the issue affects all editors and article improvement. Do you have any substantive reaction? SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You have my reaction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see a problem with people drawing attention to material which may be discussed - with a view to putting something in the article - others may prefer to just insert stuff in the article, then wait for the likely reversion and consequent discussion here – but I really can’t see a problem with Burrobert’s approach, where’s there’s harm in a few well intentioned and researched lines among this vast cacophony? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And the original research personal opinions and BLP comnmentary postings? If there were any article content proposal, citations of supporting sources would be constructive. But a dump from all corners of the internet and personal speculation is not directed to article content improvement. It's just fan-site and soapbox.I would welcome any reasoned explanation as to how mirroring the internet with no structure, thesis, or article-related proposal is appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Scrapbooking is an accurate description. But is there a policy or guideline that prohibits spamming a talk page in the article namespace this way? On 13 October 2021 I objected to Burrobert 's self-indulgent "social experiment" as a distracting waste of time. In my opinion, his robotic relentlessness has been disruptive not constructive. Yet if he insists on using this page as his own personal garbage dump (adding, to date, an indigestible 98,744 bytes pertaining to the Yahoo News investigation), we can't stop him. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes wp:not. Now take this to ANI or stop talking about it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t done the exact workings out but I would say at a glance that Burrobert’s contributions amount to about 2% of the material on this page, and of that maybe a third of that could be unkindly interpreted as straying from the topic (personally I find all of his contributions interesting). This section is unnecessary, contains obnoxious unwarranted attacks on a fellow editor, and is disruptive. No more of this please. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I complained about the 'experiment' but much of that seems to be in response to quite unreasonable demands for reliable sources so no real objections from me. Now I might start objecting if there was an editor who had a large numbers of posts but didn't contribute much except for complaints objections and WP:TLAs. NadVolum (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer: The problem is not the content of the entire page, it is the amount of non-article-improvement-directed content published in the single Yahoo! section and the subsection. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how you would react if the Watergate scandal where played out today – It was after all uncovered by two journalists working for a single news outlet lead by leaks from a single unidentified leaker - all the reporting in the immediate aftermath was based on their story (the Yahoo story remember had more journalists working from many more inside sources) – Would you have tried to keep that out of Wikipedia? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer: Your glance is grossly misleading. First, as SPECIFICO points out, we are discussing in this section not the entire talk page but only §3 Yahoo News investigation. That section by itself comprises 29% of this page (176,793 of 612,757 bytes). Burrobert's contributions totaling 98,744 bytes represent 56% of §3 and, not counting his contributions to other sections, 16% of the material on this page. A far cry from 2%, no? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

OK my "Glance” was much too casual (I just scrolled up the page about half way and went by that, as it happens, misleading impression) - none the less we don’t need to be so harsh about an editor who is (I’m guessing) highly frustrated by a consistent trend towards playing down the Yahoo story – some even tried to keep it off the page. No wonder he is pointing to more sources in an attempt to convince others of the significance of the story – perhaps if others could be more accommodating and less obstinate he wouldn’t need to fight so hard – anyway there is no call for this section (and the harsh comments) the edits in question are well up the page out of the way where those with unyielding POVs can continue to ignore them. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Prunes, your personalized speculation about me and what I might have thought 50 years ago is grossly and bizarrely off-topic. Your equivocation raising first-tier RS Washington Post in a discussion of talk-page SOAPBOX is not responsive. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ithaka

We have not yet mentioned Ben Lawrence's documentary Ithaka which will debut at the Sydney Film Festival this month. It is a feature documentary that follows John Shipton's battle to save his son, Julian Assange. It was filmed over two years in Europe and the UK and contains original music by Brian Eno. "The film follows Assange’s 76-year-old father John’s campaign for justice". "... how does somebody keep going when you’re up against this adversary? When you’re up against the most powerful force on the planet?" It would fit under "Filmography". Burrobert (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it by him?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Not by him, about him. I see now that we have put films about Julian under "Films". Is that a more approriate place? Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as a filmography is about films he has worked on.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok I’ve put an Ithaka entry in the “Further Reading” / “Films” section. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks Prunesqualor. Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

New Guardian article

Quinn, Ben (26 October 2021). "Julian Assange: what to expect from the extradition appeal". the Guardian.

The Guardian talked with Nick Vamos, a former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service, about Assanges chances and the various issues which have arisen since January. Amongst them it mentions Thordarson, and Vamos suggests that the Icelander’s apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case, although he regarded it as an unknown quantity. “Either way, it’s an issue which Assange’s lawyers will say the US must address, because the US cannot simply insist that nothing about the prosecution case has changed,” he added.

Personally I think the US is headed towads a train crash. Releasing people on medical grounds has been done a few times in the past in the UK where it is obvious they have a very bad case and need to release a person but don't want to lose face or admit to wrongdoing. NadVolum (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: At this point, the last thing we need in Assange's BLP is conjecture about the outcome of his contested extradition. As we already note, a ruling by the High Court of Justice in London is expected by the end of this month, after which the losing side can appeal to the Supreme Court; alternatively, the High Court could remand the case to the lower court to reconsider Assange's risk of suicide. Please, let's just wait for 30 days and see what actually happens, not what some ex-official quoted by The Guardian speculates. And, by the way, your personal opinion about the U.S. being headed towards a train crash violates WP:SOAPBOX. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read the aricle you'll see this is probably more relevant to a subsequent trial if any. Not that that has any bearing on what Wikipedia should do. The article currently does not mention that Thordarson was the one named as Teenager in the case. It also does not say anything about the significance of the recanting. Anything like that has been blocked on the basis that it was not been widely enough reported in the mainstream press. Well we now have quite enough reporting in the mainstream press. And we have a lawyer who was a former head of the extradition service commenting on its significance and reported in a mainstream reliable source. NadVolum (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

THis article is about Assange, not his trial, which already takes up way too much space. And until it has an impact on the court it has had no impact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Assange is in jail currently because of the charges. I think the trial is rightfully part of his biography, unless it is split off into a separate article in which case just a summary should be here. If you are concerned about the size I'm sure you could do such a split. Since there is an expert opinion in a mainstream reliable source saying Thordarson's recantation could well be critical to the case I don't think this is too trivial by reason of the size of the article to include. You have a different opinion on it, so which do you think is the more important reason for not having anything more - the size of the article or that it has had no impact or that it has nothing to do with Assange? Or do you think that a combination of factors that you said is required to make it ineligiable for inclusion? NadVolum (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: The Guardian story you cited said Thordarson's "comments may be cited this week by Assange's lawyers, though are much more likely to form a key part of a cross appeal which has been lodged, and which only comes into play if the US is successful this week." I cannot find a follow-up article by The Guardian as to whether or not Assange's lawyers did in fact cite Thordarson's comments during last week's two-day appeal hearing. If no WP:RS reported them doing so, it calls into question just how important Assange's own lawyers think Thordarson's unsworn recantation is in this case. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not call into question or indeed have any bearing on the thinking of A's lawyers. The high court hearing was on the issues raised by the lawyers acting for the U.S.; they have every reason to take pains to avoid raising in that appeal anything that would allow the defence to bring in the fraudulent testimony that the Justice Department's agents extracted from Thordarson. If and when the defence has the opportunity to cross-appeal is the point at which the issue would be raised. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Then what is the argument for adding the latest Thordarson-related opinions of Nick Vamos, as reported by The Guardian, to our BLP of Julian Assange? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You've positioned and indented this comment as though it's a reply to mine. What exactly in my comment did you interpret as making a case for the inclusion of the view of Nick Vamos? Cambial — foliar❧ 00:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe inclusion of the 26 Oct 2021 musings of the esteemed Nick Vamos is the subject of this thread. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. But you raised a tangential issue around an assumption you had made about the importance A's lawyers attach to Thordarson's fraudulent testimony, to which I responded. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not musings about whether there should be some follow ups or lets wait for a final court case to decide. As to those points a reading of the article will show that the point was not likely to form part of this stage of the extradition which is about District Judge Vanessa Baraitser blocking the extradition on health grounds. The threat by the CIA to make him suffer or to kill him is far more relevant to that than this FBI business. So can we have less of editors here making out they know better than an expert asked by the Guardian? Especially one of this standing. NadVolum (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words, there is no reason to include the 26 Oct 2021 crystal ball gazings of The Guardian′s go-to expert Nick Vamos, about an event (Assange's trial in the United States) that is by no means certain to take place, in Assange's Wikipedia BLP at this time. OK then. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We should give an indication of the significance of the recantation as most reliable soures say it is key and an actual lawyer who was in charge of the extradition service says it may be critical. If you will look at WP:CRYSTALBALL that you pointed at it says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I await consensus supporting your interpretation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On what grounds are you objecting. Crystalball? In what way am I misreading it if so? NadVolum (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's irritating to me to read discussions where one side uses egregious misinterpretations of policy. The WP:CRYSTALBALL angle was used by Trump supporters to try to stop articles from saying that his term would end on Jan. 20. But just as we can report opinions about what happened in the past, we can report opinions about what may happen in the future. The only reason to exclude Vamos' opinion would be weight, that it has not received sufficient attention. But since editors have largely ignored that issue and focus on the bogus issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL, my vote is for inclusion. TFD (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: How about WP:UNDUE? Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all…. In this case, Nick Vamos is a minority of one, unless and until you can cite other similarly situated experts who concur with his opinion that Sigurdur Thordarson's "apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case." Since you are the editor here most fixated on Siggi, I leave it to you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Nick Vamos is a minority of one is wildly inaccurate. As already discussed at length in previous sections, his view is also that of several European newspapers of wide circulation and other reliable WP:NEWSORGs, including Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, The Intercept &c. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know. Please, which of those sources quote experts similarly situated to Nick Vamos? I believe the issue here is not journalistic opinion, but legal opinion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your belief is wrong. Reliable sources is the issue. Please, which are the legal opinions giving an opposing view? Cambial — foliar❧ 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So far as I know, Nick Vamos's expert opinion that Thordarson's "apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case" is the only one published by WP:RS. That's why I asked NadVolum to cite other similarly situated experts who concur with Nick's opinion. Please, let's give Nad a chance to respond. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So one expert and multiple mainstream reliable sources characterise the witness as critical or key to the case. That’s not a minority of one. The point is that your request for other similarly situated experts is of essentially no relevance to the question of inclusion, given the wide agreement in RS. As far as I’m aware one source disagrees with that view; it’s the opposing view to the consensus that Thordarson is a key or critical element in the case that represents a minority of one. You have it completely backwards. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that in determining due weight, we should conflate journalistic opinions, however reliably sourced, with qualified legal expert opinion. Perhaps other editors support your view. We shall see. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, but as there’s no conflating of the two happening here, you can rest easy. We are simply using both, because news organisations are considered reliable sources. What is the extent of legal expert opinion giving a different view? It sure looks like none whatsoever. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I also support inclusion, along with reference to the wide consensus in reliable sources that Thordarson’s fraudulent testimony is key to the case. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We now have three editors in this thread who support inclusion of Nick Vamos's opinion as reported by The Guardian.

• NadVolum
• Cambial Yellowing
• TFD

There are two editors who oppose inclusion.

• Slatersteven
• Basketcase2022

I'm not sure this constitutes consensus, but at least the subject is attracting the attention it deserves. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It definitely isn’t consensus. Let’s see if there is any more contributions and gather wider community input if necessary. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Or just wait until this speculation becoemes fact, wp:notnews may well cover this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If there were some speculation I would agree. But the fraudulent testimony already forms a key part of the superseding indictment, as reported by multiple RS. They're not speculating: they simply read the filing. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we have an RS that says that the fraudulent testimony has been dismissed by the courts, or has been rasoed by the defense?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To what end? The fraudulent testimony has already been used by those acting for the U.S., when attempting to demonstrate that there is a case to be heard. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Because some RS have also said it was not key to the case, and so until its retraction has an impact on the case it is speculation to say it will have an impact on the case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, one RS said it was not key to the case. To quote from the non-negotiable policy that you refer or link to at least seven times in the past few weeks: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So if he was so key the US will lose, until then it is speculation. So we can afford to wait, we are not a newspaper and we do not have to report every comment, twist or turn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

1. You have a perhaps overly sanguine view on the functioning of the justice system. 2. There is no speculation ("conjecture without knowing the complete facts"/"a theory or conjecture without firm evidence"). There is analysis from reading the filing. The complete facts of what constitutes the case are a matter of public record. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If you mean I think until the courts have spoken we can't say what the courts will say, yes I have a "overly sanguine view on the functioning of the justice system". But with the above making it personal I will allow others to chip inSlatersteven (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean that. It was a reference to "So if he was so key the US will lose". Without the notional speculation on which the ostensible relevance of "notnews" relies, there is no serious policy-based objection to Nadvolum's proposed addition. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE WP:NOTNEWS WP:ONUS WP:SOAPBOX WP:BLUDGEON.WP:GUARDIAN Let's take two aspirin and call back in a month. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this competitive posting of the greatest number of irrelevant policy shortcuts? I’m not into silly games, and they’re not appropriate here: maybe play them on your talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thordarson was the first known informant to work for the FBI from inside Wikileaks: for a while he worked with and was trusted by Assange (where others in the organisation where suspicious). According to the Stundin interviews/expose he claims to have lied in testimony that appears in the US case against Assange, testimony that was presented to Judge Vanessa Baraitser and was mentioned in her 2021 Judgement – indeed he is mentioned more often in the US indictment than any other potential witness apart from Manning. He appears to be a cereal fraudster, a paedophile a diagnosed psychopath and an inveterate liar - he may well have promised immunity from conviction by the FBI in exchange for information harmful to Assange. Every regular editor working on this page knows these are important considerations in Assange’s legal case and hence in his life (his whole future hangs on this case) – why would any person of integrity wish to keep this stuff off the page? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, you write:

• Thordarson was the first known informant to work for the FBI from inside Wikileaks.

Our Assange BLP already includes:

• In August 2011, WikiLeaks volunteer Sigurdur Thordarson, working in his home country Iceland, contacted the FBI and, after presenting a copy of Assange's passport at the American embassy, became the first informant to work for the FBI from inside WikiLeaks.

You also write:

• According to the Stundin interviews/expose he claims to have lied in testimony that appears in the US case against Assange.

Our Assange BLP already includes:

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

It seems the excluded information on this point that you wish to add to our Assange BLP is:

• Thordarson appears to be a cereal [sic] fraudster, a paedophile a diagnosed psychopath and an inveterate liar - he may well have [been] promised immunity from conviction by the FBI in exchange for information harmful to Assange.

Is that your considered position as a person of integrity? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I do wish to include the later information you highlighted in green (though not only that). Have you any objections? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, thank you for asking! I do object to your weasel wording "appears to be…" and "may well have [been]…". If WP:RS report definitively that Thordarson is a cereal [sic] fraudster, a paedophile, a diagnosed psychopath and an inveterate liar who was promised immunity in exchange for information harmful to Assange, please identify those references when you propose such clinical and legal descriptions. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Just in passing could you please read the following [28] Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 PS since I clearly didn’t express myself clearly enough for you: my “Thordarson was the first known...” was driving at the point that: Thordarson was used as an informant by the FBI: a potential witness in the US indictment against Assange: His testimony was presented in Assange’s extradition hearing where Baraitser went on to include reference to it in her summing up/decision. Thordarson is seemingly a highly unreliable witness a fact that was presumably not known to the court at Assange’s first hearing – here’s the point: an injustice seems to have been done and we, if we have integrity (perhaps you’d like to scoff again at that) should be drawing attention to these facts. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know where the red link was supposed to link to. Developing a single actual relevant point would be better, having a whole lot indicates none of them was considered strong enough in itself. All I can make of it is an overall case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Other than that there was a query about if any other lawyers had commented. I did see one but it was in an interview and so counts as a primary source which is unfortunate as it had a number of relevant interviewees who actually say things:

Kristinn Hrafnsson; Ögmundur Jónasson; Bjartmar Alexandersson; Julian Hill; Alexander Mercouris; John Kiriakou (18 July 2021). "Assange on the Brink". Consortiumnews (Interview). Interviewed by Lauria, Joe. Retrieved 5 August 2021.

The lawyer in that was not a domain expert like the one in the Guardian. The question about how important the recanting is dates back to July so I can't see how WP:NOTNEWS applies. NadVolum (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any predictions about what is going to happen in this court case. We will find out soon enough. There are way too many possibilities to include in an article which is already too long.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is an assessment of the importance of the witness, what is the point of mentioning him if he has no importance in the case. And his possibly high significance is plastered over practically every mention in reliable sources. Secondly as to soon enough I wouldn't be surprised if some of those concerned are dead before a final decision is made. The current court case has nothing to do with the actual case at all, it is about Judge Baraitser decision about his health. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The article you cited is clearly about the extradition appeal. If you are seriously suggesting we include speculation about the distant future, then that is more objectionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This is trivial. It does not take an expert to know that defense attorneys say whatever it takes to try to free their clients. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. SPECIFICO talk 07:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He is not a defence attorney. He is an expert interviewed by the Guardian who in his past job would if anything been involved in prosecuting Assange. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He was speculating as to the future actions of Assange's defence attorney. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Which as "He is not a defence attorney" makes this even more speculative. He is speculating on what others might do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And the speculation that is attributed to him is a trite and generic observation about how every defence attorney might "throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks". There's nothing "expert" in that opinion. Quite the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please quote the policy or guideline that says we should not use speculation reported in reliable sources. (And please don't type in WP:RANDOMPOLICY without explaining its relevance.) It sounds like the anti-vaxxer argument: What do the experts know? TFD (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE NOTNEWS etc. I'm sure you're familiar with what they say. Not sure what vaccines have to do with it? SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked you not to "type in WP:RANDOMPOLICY without explaining its relevance". UNDUE, NOTNEWS and CRYSTALBALL say nothing about "we should not use speculation reported in reliable sources." I suggest you read them, before citing them. TFD (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you're confusing my comments with others? It should be quite clear from mine that I read the proposed RS. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you need to say wp:undue this is one persons view of what might happen (it what appears to be solicited opinion by the source), a person who is not part of the case, not even as a witness. wp:news this is just speculation published in a newspaper by someone who is not on the legal team, and so can't know what they are planning. Also we might invoke wp:crystal (see reasons above).

It is down to the courts (not us, we are not a court of issue) to decide if Assange has been unfairly treated. We are wp:not many things and one of them is not a place to wp:rightgreatwrongs. Any argument that violates either of those is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does CRYSTALBALL say that speculation cannot be published. In fact, it says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." It looks like you have decided you don't want anything that questions the charges placed against Assange to be in the article and are randomly throwing policy links without actually reading the policies first. IOW you are righting great wrongs yourself. TFD (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Its why I said might. But in this case I would argue as this person is in no way involved in the case it is ideal speculation. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ", as he is not party to the trial we do not know if his prediction will even be used by the defense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So you think that prosecutors and defense lawyers are more reliable than independent experts. I hope you are never called for jury service. TFD (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to what they intended to do, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about writing up stuff without having reliable sources. I do wish you'd get your grounds right for whatever it is you think is wrong. Or simply explain it in plain English. Nobody has been talking about whether Assange is being unfairly treated, only whether it is reasonable to put into the article the widly expressed opinion in reliable sources that Thordarson is a key witness which an expert has now in efffect also said. Both the lawyer and the newspaper are quite aware of what is right or wrong about saying whether a witness may be critical to a case and they were happy to do so. I really don't think editors here should try to override the decisions of reliable sources, especially not a mainstream and very reliable source nor a highly rated lawyer who is expert in the relevant law. NadVolum (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

" here’s the point: an injustice seems to have been done and we, if we have integrity (perhaps you’d like to scoff again at that) should be drawing attention to these facts".Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What injustice and how is that relevant? In America there is absolute Prosecutorial immunity so whatever has or will happen about this it isn't a crime. The question is a here and now one, do reliable sources consider Thordarson a key witness in the case against Assange which has had him in jail for quite a while now. NadVolum (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How should I know, I am not the one who made that argument here (It is a cut and paste).Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you cut and pasted that from but there's two parts of rightgreatwrongs, there has to be the motivation which is pretty much covered by that paste, but there is also the bit about going against Wikipedia policy which is trying to change Wikipedia to conform to one's own unverified opinion rather than going by reliable sources. I don't suppose I can do anything about changing your thoughts about my motivation, and really I'm not into duty calls, but this does have reliable sources and is referred to in headlines as well as having expert opinion on it. NadVolum (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

From this thread, it was said here, hence why I say it is not a valid argument for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, Prunesqualor said it above when they introduced some stuff unrelated to the Guardian article, and I wish they hadn't. It would have been better if you had not put it in as a reply to something I said. But actually the same applies - they've given their motivation but it does not become WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS unless they start trying to put in stuff which fails verifiability or otherwise pushes for it overly when it shouldn't really be in otherwise. The motivation on its own does not mean something should not be in - thoulgh I'd certainly like a bit more WP:NPOV around. NadVolum (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is not [{WP:NPOV]]. The article as a whole presents synthesized, undue and unverified content that does indeed appear to be what @Slatersteven: described. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

have you something to contribute to the subject of this section? As far as I can make out the single main objection to including the bit about Thordarson being a possibly critical witness is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is that your view too? NadVolum (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've stated my concern several times. Add another: WP:BLUDGEON by several editors. There's clearly no consensus to add this. Why continue to repeat empty denials? SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden administration promised...

As a matter of interest, when the article says "the Biden administration assured the Crown Prosecution Services" about how Assange would be treated, who actually does the assuring? Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A good question.- many of the reports I’ve seen about these “assurances” say that “The U.S.” or “the U.S. Government” offer them. I guess it works like other international negotiations eg trade agreements or peace treaties: all the various arms of the state - presidency, congress, judiciary etc - are treated as a single national entity for the purpose of negotiation. So I suppose these guarantees are as good as other international agreements – however, as pointed to in the article the U.S. have, in this instance, given themselves get out clauses which some experts say render the “assurances” worthless Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)