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)

The Australian state-controlled and funded news network published an article on Julian's recent extradition hearing in which it said: "Assange's defence team also referred to recent allegations the CIA and US government had considered plans to "seriously harm" him — including alleged discussions to "kidnap or poison" him while he was inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London. His lawyers urged the court to consider whether US authorities were likely to stick to their assurances in light of the claims".

The Yahoo allegations have been linked with current actions by those in charge of Assange. Julian and his partner Stella Moris said that Dominic Raab and the Governor of Belmarsh Prison have been hindering their ability to get married while Julian is in gaol. As a result, the couple are suing both Raab and the governor. The couple believe the actions of Raab and the governor may be "linked to a US-backed political war" against Assange. "In September it was revealed the CIA had drawn up plans to kidnap or kill Assange during his seven years exiled in the Embassy of Ecuador in London. The agency also spied on his family and friends and led a campaign of misinformation against him. Stella, 38, a lawyer, said: ‘Those catch-or-kill plans were not implemented but other hostile measures were and this is the sting in the tail. ‘It’s part of an enormous conspiracy against Julian which makes itself felt in all that we try to do'. "

As far as I can tell, there have not been any more significant stories related to the Yahoo report. The last one was the story above about the UK state's obstruction of Julian and Stella's wedding, which the couple believe may be "linked to a US-backed political war" against Assange. The obstruction may now have ceased, although Moris is not fully convinced since she said she "hoped" there would be no further interference. Anyway, one of the reasons for this section has now been removed because the RfC about the Yahoo report has now been closed. The various references here can still be used to expand both the Yahoo mention and other parts of Assange's bio. Over the next week or so I will go through the references, pull out the most significant items and make suggestions about how to improve Julian's bio by incorporating those into it. Burrobert (talk) 15:40, 17 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".
• Julian and his partner have linked the allegations in the Yahoo report with actions by Dominic Raab and the Governor of Belmarsh Prison to hinder their ability to get married while Julian is in gaol.

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".
• oz state media reported that Julian's lawyer referred to the allegations in the Yahoo report when asking the court to reject the US assurances about the treatment he would get if the US got its hands on him. Julian's lawyers "urged the court to consider whether US authorities were likely to stick to their assurances in light of the [Yahoo] claims".

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

Effect of the "non-state hostile intelligence service" designation

• Ryan Grim and Sara Sirota wrote that

“The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2017 gave its stamp of approval to a legal maneuver that we now know the CIA was using to hunt WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. …. In order to expand its legal options, the administration moved to designate WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” a label first unveiled by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo at an April 2017 think tank event”.

It also said the Obama administration rejected an earlier suggestion that Wikileaks, Greenwald and Poitras be designated as “information broker,” to distinguish them from journalism and publishing and strip them of First Amendment protections.

“As The Intercept reported at the time, a provision in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 stated: “It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.”.

"the final compromise bill, which included the new identification for WikiLeaks, was wrapped into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed in December 2019".

• A follow up article by Yahoo says “"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". "

• WSWS said “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.””

Burrobert (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

{{atop|This long and disjointed compilation of internet clippings has long since stopped having any reference to article content proposals or other relevance to current article improvement. As several editors have affirmed, this article talk page shiould not to be used as a scrapbook compilation of indiscriminate daily media, opinions and BLP disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)}}

Removed not in accordf with discussion at #Use of talk page as a blog and scrapbook NadVolum (talk) 16:37, 10 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)

Suggested additions to Julian's bio based on the Yahoo report and related material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans to assassinate/kidnap Assange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

References

Request for comment on Yahoo report

The following discussion 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.

---

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 [7] and The Telegraph [8]. 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 [9]. 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)

• Yes. As well as the original reporting from a reliable Wp:NEWSORG, a wide variety of other reliable mainstream news organisations reported on this. This includes major newspapers such as the British newspaper of record, The Times, as well as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Hill etc. Some, such as The Intercept used the report as the basis for further investigation into certain aspects of the plans developed for CIA management, and the reaction from other U.S. government institutions and from members of congress. Several reliable sources report information stated in the article directly. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clearly a factor here. Two editors link to the policy of WP:DUE weight, which they evidently misunderstand. The coverage suggested is DUE, as pointed out by several editors above. The multiple mainstream news organisations reporting on this indicate that the former intelligence officials are widely accepted as having made these statements and are taken seriously. We report the observations of mainstream news organisations. We do not count the number of news organisations, arbitrarily chosen, that have not reported on a news item and then look to imagine their point of view. The insubstantial argument made below on this is based on the inaccurate and discredited assertion that mainstream coverage is lacking. In fact there is widespread mainstream coverage; almost every major newspaper in the UK reported the information prominently as did the major European news organisations, along with several in the U.S. One editor also makes reference to the policy SYNTH. Quite simply, there is no aspect of the content to which this can be applied. Each of the three sentences is directly supported by one, usually several sources. Nothing has been combined to produce the text. Presumably editors referring to SYNTH simply do not understand the policy, or were at a loss to come up with a policy shortcut to refer to in looking to give their argument the appearance of substance. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:53, 16 November 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[10]. 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)

Note

Various editors have continued to reinsert various versions of Yahoo! text during this ongoing discussion and RfC. The version that's currently in the article is not the text that's being considered in the RfC, so any claim resting on that is incorrect. Moreover, the part about some unnamed CIA employee wanting an investigation by an unnamed US congressperson adds no informatin about Assange and is at best trivia, since such requests either from the public or from civil servants are commonplace in the US. But in terms of the article, at worst, the inclusion of this irrelevant detail will lead some readers to overestimate the seriouisness of this apparently insignificant and evidently idle discussion within the ranks of the CIA which -- as noted above -- is typical of the fevered inner workings of spy vs. spy: Idle chatter run amok, stopped within the Agency long before it became a real possibility. My recent edit conformed the text to the cited source and removed the trivia, both without entirely removing the Yahoo content, which I continue to oppose as UNDUE but which appears to have enough current support for some verified and BLP complisnt version to be in the article. At any rate, the current defective version should be removed. I suggest editors take a closer look at the version that was most recently reverted and reinstate it. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 16 November 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.

Reaction to RfC closure

Hope this closure, will end the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Burrobert has already signaled his intention to begin extracting content from his voluminous 196,235-byte Yahoo! News scrapbook on this talk page "to expand both the Yahoo mention and other parts of Assange's bio." This will no doubt reignite the dispute that the RfC closure addressed. Anyhow, thanks for your good faith effort in requesting said closure, even if the truce will not hold. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom may have to step in, if there's any disruptive behaviour. Good luck, to ya'll. GoodDay (talk)

Since the close has anyone contested the texts inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC to summarize AP2 section

The following discussion 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.

---

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 [[11]].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 [12] and there seems to be a standard m:The Wrong Version about that. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

No change required to conform with the preceding RfC closure

Since the present version is identical to Option D Last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021‎), no change is required to conform to the closer's decision. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I take it then, my steps to get that RFC 'officially' closed, will thus end the dispute-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay: Formal closure is welcome, but dispute over the RFC to summarize AP2 section dried up a month ago, with the most recent contribution dated 17 October 2021. Since auto-archiving is set at 30 days, the bot would have removed that section today anyway. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:46, 18 November 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 [13], [14] and [15]. 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)

@Burrobert: If you're waiting for mainstream (corporate) news media to come to Assange's defence? Keep waiting. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 19 November 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)

Prunesqualer: FTR, on 6 Sep 2021, I deleted the following sentence from our Assange BLP: Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" and he had "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse." My edit summary stated: remove judge's gratuitous insult and "no reasonable excuse" scolding, neither of which add value to his finding of guilt in an uncomplicated proceeding. My edit was reverted. There ensued a lengthy talk page discussion, initiated by me and in which you participated, that yielded no consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 Yes, I remember it well - my bringing up the issue again was in no way intended as a criticism of you (sorry if it came across that way). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As this is about Assange I am not sure what any of this tells us about Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The view 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.” expressed by an involved party (one who a grand jury considered sufficiently knowledgeable to question for 90 minutes) may be argued to tell us something about Assange’s predicament. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Who is not an expert, and Grand Juries question a lot of people. Moreover, we already say much of this, this seems to just be adding one nonnotable., nonexpert, opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway there seems little point in mentioning House giving evidence (one among several who did) without any reference to any of his testimony or opinions (notable or otherwise). I suspect everyone here would be content to drop the rather lame/vacuous/unenlightening sentence we currently have. To save further effort (hopefully) I’ll delete it - if someone wants to reinstate we can open a new discussion. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of material which countered Judge Snow’s ad hominem attack on Assange

In 2019, shortly after his arrest, Assange was subjected to a court proceeding which dealt with his relatively minor offence of skipping bail. Not only did the judge sentence Assange to very nearly the maximum sentence permitted for this (to be served in a maximum security prison - almost unheard of) but he took the opportunity to publicly harangue the defendant who, during the whole proceedings, had said nothing more than “not guilty”. Yet we have seen fit to quote this judge’s ad hominem attack "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" – defenders of Assange where scandalised by the judge’s comments (though barely any of that made the mainstream establishment/media). Craig Murray (a long time supporter of Assange, and himself a notable whistle blower) responded to the judges actions by writing an article which was highly critical of Judge Snow. I felt that quoting from that article gave some balance – however one of my fellow editors apparently thinks Murray’s remarks are “UNDUE”. Really? Murray is a high profile ex-establishment figure who knows more about Assange and his case than almost anyone else alive. To describe his input as “Undue” is outrageous. As for the other reasons given for excluding his input we are told he is “fringe” “gadfly and “controversial” – for goodness sake since when do these qualities (even if we agree with those descriptions) disbar people from being quoted. I’m getting sick of being reverted on spurious silly grounds like this and suspect the editor in question only gets away with it because he shares POVs with a sizable group of regular editors ie mob justice prevails. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your accusation that "a sizable group of regular editors" share a POV that "mob justice prevails" is grossly offensive. It reminds me of your similar accusation at your user page that Wiki's Julian Assange article is being compiled for the most part by the prosecution. Your repeated uncalled-for attacks on fellow editors must be condemned by all fair-minded contributors. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 You are undoubtedly one of the more reasonable and fair minded of those who are not keen on Assange here - but your self-declared regard for the USA in combination with comments like “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” along with some rather mocking or dismissive remarks about the man don’t suggest much love lost and several other editors here almost exclusively editing to remove Assange positive material and include Assange negative material. I think a fair minded spectator would see my point. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not about my mocking or dismissive remarks. It's about your outrageous allegations that "mob justice prevails" among editors in compiling Wiki's Julian Assange article "for the prosecution." No fair-minded spectator can support your assault on our integrity. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What on earth do you expect to achieve by pushing a POV yourself? You become just another POV pusher and make Wikipedia a worse place. Sticking in something showing some Assange supporter's opinion doesn't exactly improve the article, and they didn't say anything of note, that the judge was a jerk is pretty obvious anyway from the article. NadVolum (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could petition the Admin who wisely invoked "consensus required" and ask him to change it to "mob justice required". SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree Craig Murray's comment should be removed. If an impartial observer criticised Snow, that might be worthwhile noting. But it is not worth noting that a long-time supporter of Assange and opponent of the legal system (currently in jail himself) has done so. I don't think there was anything unusual about Assange's sentence or the judge's comments. Judge's often make harsh comments about the people they are sentencing. As Prunesqualer says, this didn't become a "mainstream" issue. I also don't see the logic of complaining that Assange was given "very nearly the maximum sentence". What would any expect, given that he was a fugitive for 7 years? If there was a mainstream source saying that Assange had received a severe sentence, that might be worth noting. But all we have is the whining of diehard Assange supporters who seem to think he should have a "Get Out of Jail Free Card". Comments like this add nothing to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't say I think much of Craig Murray's enthusiastic support for Salmond and contempt of court might have been a reasonable sentence. But for the actual thing they convicted him - giving information that could identify some of the women - any indications I've seen say that's total rubbish. Too many judges are getting high and mighty puffed out with their own grandness they can't accept criticism and do wrong things to exalt their office. NadVolum (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And in a strange link back to this article: "He commented that what he found “most shocking” was “the peculiar determination of the judges to make sure that, during the three weeks we have to lodge the appeal, I am not allowed to go to Spain to testify in the criminal prosecution for the CIA spying on Assange's legal team.” He was supposed to be a principal witness there, but don't think RS have commented on this to any great amount. NadVolum (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Samaritans sentence

The Judgement of Judge Vanessa Baraitser references Assange’s calls to the Samaritans no fewer than eight times. They formed a key part of Assange’s defence. A Google search of “Samaritans Assange” (without the quote marks) gives 145 results (excluding repeats) – most of the early ones are from notable mainstream sources. Assange’s repeated calls to the Samaritans are both verified and noteworthy. Why then is there not a single mention of the Samaritans in our article? When I did make reference I was reverted with the explanation “remove non-sequitur. No indication of its significance or relation to the narrative of this section” – yet my sentence referencing the Samaritans immediately followed “During the court proceedings defence drew attention to a prison service report stating that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's cell” – clearly the section is referencing Assange’s suicidal tendencies and mention of Assange’s calls to the Samaritans is entirely appropriate here. This is an unwarranted reversion which should be reversed. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not a non sequitur and is related to the narrative of subsection 5.5. However, its significance is not established by the cited source (The Independent), which merely states that Assange has contacted the Samaritans phone service on several occasions. This differs from the preceding sentence, which refers to a prison service report stating that a hidden razor blade had been found. The reference for that sentence (PressGazette) does not mention Assange's calls to the Samaritans. The prison service report confers significance on the razor blade because the authorities took official notice of it. If a WP:RS can be found reporting that the prison service likewise took official notice of Assange's calls to the Samaritans, that would establish significance and justify inclusion in subsection 5.5. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

At best, it is SYNTH. Please read SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 Judge Baraitser notes in her January 2021 judgement “[Assange’s] prison medical notes record numerous occasions on which he had told the In-Reach prison psychologist, Dr. Corson, and other medical staff (for example a prison nurse) that he had suicidal or self-harming thoughts, felt despairing or hopeless and had made plans to end his life. He has made frequent requests for access to the prison’s Samaritans phone. On 5 May 2019, half of a razor blade was found in his cell, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear.” It may be considered a primary source but it should establish the facts and please note we already have several RS which reference the calls to Samaritans - since when do we only include material that is not only given in RS but also explicitly details the official source of the information?. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

When you allude to RS that "explicitly detail the official source of the information," I take it you mean Baraitser noting that Assange made frequent requests for access to the prison's Samaritans phone. By itself, that does not establish significance. Why didn't the prison service officially report those requests? It's the dog that did not bark. Assange's defence team naturally played up this connection in an attempt to bolster their claim that he would be at risk of suicide if extradited to the US. But if the prison authorities did not take those requests seriously, Wikipedia should be cautious so as to maintain NPOV. We should not be in the business of promoting his defence's strategy. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the High Court's ruling on the U.S. extradition appeal is expected by the end of this month. If Assange's frequent requests for access to the prison's Samaritans phone are significant, the High Court will in all likelihood tell us that. Surely we can wait another two weeks to see how this shakes out. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

All this thumping the Samaritans and half razor is about actions that, if true, were entirely under Assange's control. Speculation by WP editors is irrelevant. For all we know, Assange's attorneys instructed him to contrive this "evidence" as the basis for their pleading. If there are significant RS that matches the proposed content -- without SYNTH, without OR interpretation -- let's see it and evauate this proposed article content. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we follow the reliable sources please rather than making up OR fantasies or appealing to future judgements for significance. Judge Baraister did halt the extradition on health grounds including this and mentions it. It contributed towards the decision and it is in reliable sources. The decision will not disappear, at most it will be overturned. NadVolum (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's overturned, the details of the razor blade caper will not be worth mention in the article. 2. If there are abundant RS discussions connecting the pivotal role of these Samaritans, calling them central to the judge's ruling, please provide the top 3. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Deciding what is, or is not, “noteworthy” is not an exact science and editors would do well to remember that. The initial Judgement by Judge Baraitser which denied extradition on the grounds of mental health is a piece of history regardless of what follows - and the evidence used to make that judgement (which is available for all to read in Baraitser’s summing up) repeatedly mentions the Samaritans calls (and the razor blade). Some parties may wish to play down the significance of those pieces of evidence - for instance the US prosecution - but I don’t think it is for us to do their job. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

So are we to conclude that you're unable to provide 3 RS references that document what you appear to believe? SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with Reuters? "UK judge rejects extraditing Julian Assange to U.S. over 'suicide risk'". Reuters. 4 January 2021. NadVolum (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Plus as to the OR about why weren't Samaritan calls recorded, calls to the Samaritans by prisoners are specifically allowed and must not be monitored. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The Samaritans obviously should be mentioned. I don't know why we are arguing about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022, what is the basis for your claim that The prison service report confers significance on the razor blade because the authorities took official notice of it. If a WP:RS can be found reporting that the prison service likewise took official notice of Assange's calls to the Samaritans, that would establish significance and justify inclusion in subsection 5.5.? Why do prison service reports have a special status?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Suicide is DUE. Samaritans is incidental. So is razorblade. SPECIFICO talk 05:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, your argument is not easy to follow here at all. How can you conclude, given the RS, that the Samaritans is unrelated and therefore undue? The RS clearly connect the two. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this would be better summarised as Dr Kopelman said that Assange was at risk of suicide. The judgment by Baraitser only mentions the razor blade three times. For some reason, editors became fixated with the razor blade, and mention of Kopelman was removed from the extradition hearing, even though Baraitser placed a lot of weight on his testimony.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Dude: An unencyclopedic detail. The issue was suicidal proclivities, not who he called or how the court verified it. SPECIFICO talk 05:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. We could sum up the hearing in one sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure some people would love to just summarize the whole article to Assange is the Son of the Son of God, praise Him, or Assange is the Spawn of the Devil, the most evil person the world ever produced, However we're supposed to follow WP:WEIGHT "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Uncyclopaedia is thataway for people who want to be their own RS. NadVolum (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum not sure there are any regular editors here who view Assange as even close to: “the Son of the Son of God, praise Him”, even in jest - I’m probably his most consistent defender on this page of late, but consider him pretty flawed (with significant saving graces). As for what his detractors on this page think I can’t say but they seem a pretty mixed bunch.

Jack Upland You said “Sure. We could sum up the hearing in one sentence”. Was that meant as a joke? We have an entire long section dedicated to Assange publishing some D.N.C. documents that someone else not Assange leaked/hacked and that others as well as Assange published – but – in Assange’s own life story/Wiki page we must condense into a few paragraphs his years in prison and protracted court proceedings involving hundreds of pages of evidence and many hours of expert testimony? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

With regard to his extradition to Sweden we sum up the hearing in one sentence. It certainly could be done. However, given that editors have chosen to give detail coverage of this extradition, I think mentioning the Samaritans is warranted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

At present there seems to be more support that otherwise for mentioning the Samaritans calls. Would it be ok to reinstate the sentence now? Or would another editor like to try a new wording? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Marianne Williamson comments

I recently inserted the following sentence into the “Appeal and other developments” section: ”Former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson argued that Thordarson’s admission would “destroy” the U.S. case against Assange and urged the Biden administration to drop efforts to extradite the publisher.” A good RS was provides yet the edit was removed on the following grounds: “insignificant opinion and prognostication by fringe figure. The outcome will be known soon enough, at which time more knowledgeable and respected analysts may offer useful opinion content . Given that Marianne Williamson is a respected figure in the US Democratic Party her intervention on the subject of Assange is surely noteworthy. To describe her as a “fringe figure” and her opinions as “insignificant” seems inappropriate. All too often in the article we give the impression that the U.S. establishment is a monolithic body who are in opposition to Assange and wish to see him extradited – yet there are people within the system who oppose their governments line. I think the Williamson material is telling because it’s an example of someone in the US political establishment who has doubts about their government’s policy towards Assange – on those grounds I’d like to see the material reinstated. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose such inclusion. It would probably be unfair to describe Marianne Williamson as a fringe personality in American popular culture, although it's revealing that her Wikipedia BLP is bannered with an alert to "multiple issues," including content written like an advertisement—not the sort of thing we'd expect to find on the page of a well-established celebrity. Her stature within the the Democratic party, however, is another matter. In 2014, she unsuccessfully ran for Congress. In 2019, she unsuccessfully ran for president. That's it: two failed campaigns. That qualifies her as a fringe political figure. You seek to inject her argument that Thordarson's admission would destroy the U.S. case against Assange, which is exactly what Edward Snowden—who like Williamson is not a college graduate, much less a lawyer—has professed. We don't quote Snowden in this regard for the obvious reason that he has no legal expertise. For the same reason, we should not quote Marianne Williamson. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors’ personal opinions about Williamson’s prominence are not relevant. The question is what do reliable sources. I presume (please correct me otherwise) that the source for this is The Hill, a generally reliable news organisation. BUT, The Hill was the only source that reported her comments, and they were the source that interviewed her. This is therefore not a secondary source, so it should not be included. If there are other reliable sources that picked up on Williamson's comments that could merit their inclusion. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. Both Prunesqualer's assertion that "Marianne Williamson is a respected figure in the US Democratic Party" and my calling her "a fringe political figure" are personal opinions. Let's see what WP:RS have to say about her political prominence and, more importantly, about her qualifications as a legal analyst. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It is of course not only Marianne Williamson and Edward Snowden who hold the view that the Thordarson revelations signal “the end of the case against Julian Assange”. I think it worthy of note that the U.S. government has chosen to push forward with their case in the face of such a large setback i.e. their most important witness (and anyone who has looked at the US superseding indictment can see that “Teenager” is the most cited potential witness) has been exposed as a inveterate liar a paedophile and a serial fraudster. Why should our article not draw attention, in some fashion, to the rather exceptional circumstance of the US pushing forward notwithstanding? So if not a quote from Marianne Williamson perhaps we can find another with the same intendment. I would also like the article to point out that Thordarson is not the only FBI/CIA “witness” against Assange who has a questionable past and been put under duress and/or incentivised into “cooperating” with US authorities (perhaps other editors could help me on that). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see there's any point in including commentary about what's going to happen in the "case against Julian Assange". Even the phrase, the "case against Julian Assange", is problematic. Assange is currently facing extradition, and the argument currently concerns his health. Assange could be extradited, and he could face an espionage trial in the USA, potentially years in the future. There is no guarantee that Thordarson would be called as a witness at that trial. In fact, if he has recanted his testimony, why would he be called? Including speculation from Williamson, Snowden, or Pamela Anderson about what will happen over the next months or years is pointless. We don't know. We don't know if there will be a trial. We don't know how it will go. All we can say is that Thordarson is not playing a prominent role (or any) in the current legal proceedings. And, by the way, the FBI like other police agencies do regularly cultivate witnesses who have criminal records, who have been involved in organised crime such as the Mafia etc, and they do use various methods to persuade people to co-operate. But, again, there is little point speculating about how the prosecution will go months or even years in advance. Lining up Assange supporters to say that this is the end of the case is really pointless. Assange and his supporters seem to have been crowing victory is nigh for some years. If this is the end of the case, we will find out soon enough. However, since the courts don't seem to be discussing Thordarson at the moment, I wouldn't hold my breath. If Thordarson turns out to be pivotal, we can acknowledge that when it becomes apparent.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 21 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)

The possessive pronoun gets the form of the following noun in French, so it is always 'sa mère', regardless of the gender of the child. All languages have these things where something is not clear without additional explanation. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:8D1A:9886:92ED:D4DA (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked for assistance at the Help Desk. It appears true that the French doesn't specify whether the French child is a son or daughter. We have one source that uses "his", but that could be just the generic use of the male gender, or a mistake. As all the other sources refer to a child, I think it is better just to say child until more information comes to light.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 23 November 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 [16] 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)

A note on reversions of my edits by SPECIFICO

SPECIFICO has made six edits on the main page in the past month. Of those six, five have been direct or manual reversions of my edits (and even the sixth was an edit to a sentence I had recently worked on). The track record before that is not good either. This is harassment and needs to stop. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

NO its not, but this may be a wp:pa, and all commentary on users needs to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer, this is not harassment. Let's stick to the content. ––Formal ^talk 12:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It may they have language or other difficulties as they often misinterpret policies. And in the latest reversion they say "remove non-sequitur. No indication of its significance or relation to the narrative of this section." to an addition saying "During the proceedings it was also revealed that Assange had contacted the Samaritans phone service on several occasions." immediately following "Other witnesses testified that the conditions of imprisonment, which would be likely to worsen upon extradition to the U.S., placed Assange at a high risk of depression and suicide which was exacerbated by his Asperger syndrome.[375] During the court proceedings defence drew attention to a prison service report stating that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's cell." The Samaritans referred to here are a help service for potential suicides in the UK rather than some hangover from the historical tribe from Judah and so are very relevant. Looking up the link Basketcase added might also have helped. NadVolum (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

“2016 U.S. presidential election” section

I would like to suggest the entire wording in the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section be replaced by the following:

“See main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

Hillary Clinton and others in the DNC behaved badly. Persons based in Russia found out about the bad behaviour by hacking the DNC offices. Using an online alias they supplied Wikileaks and others with the information, which Wikileaks and others then published. Julian Assange disliked Hilary Clinton even more than he disliked Donald Trump – The End”

That about covers it I think Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Good luck and best wishes Prunesqualor. Admire your pluck. You are . Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I oppose User:Prunesqualer's unserious and unconstructive suggestion. This entire talk page section is wasteful, disruptive, and violates both WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. If Prunesqualer fancies himself as a comedian, I strongly recommend that he not quit his day job. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we cn do without that. But that section does seem to contain a lot of unfounded opinion. I think we should be very careful about anything which isn't included in 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, after all if it was of any import why is it not in that article? It should have good justification as relating to Assange.

For instance we have '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."[210]'. Why are we including personal conspiracy thories? Similarly 'Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[222]' is not include in the article about the email leak and what qualifications have they got for their musing? Did they do a statistical study and are they even qalified to? In the light of the response to #New Guardian article above surely we should be very much more careful about checking the credentials of opinions like these? There's also a lot there that does not reference Assange but only Wikileaks. For instance why is the bit about the Access Hollywood tape in there at all? Why the reference to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz which is at best second or third hand related to Assange?

I have no desire the article be eviscated but unless there is a little more give and take rather that entrenched world war one tactics I think that will be the final result. NadVolum (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the mainstream consensus understanding that the wikileaks "drops" were timed in that way. It's hardy irrelevant personal opinion. You might check the meaning of "conspiracy theory". That's not applicable, regardless of whether you agree with the mainstream view of the timings. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Like Republican consensus on covid or climate change? The US elected Trump so does that mean those weren't conspiracy theories? The Mueller report shows if anything Assange was not contacted by Roger Stone though he had tried to. I guess it is very possible he was contacted otherwise but he had announced there would be revelations only a few days previously. And looking at when Hilary Clinton was rising in the polls and when the various drops of emails were made I can't see any correlation at all so I don't know what those political scientists saw. How Much Did WikiLeaks Hurt Hillary Clinton? is a far better source for stuff like that and they just say Wikileaks might have contributed. I would say looking at the figures that it is pretty obvious James Comey's letter really did make a difference though. The sources attribute what those people said, we shoudn't treat what they said as a definite consensus in reliable sources. They aren't mentioned in the main article about the emails so I see no reason to mention them here. NadVolum (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer: I'm more curious about the somewhat disappearance of the Podesta brothers. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Yes it’s a shame we don’t have more Assanges and leakers in the world to reveal more of what’s really going on in these corrupt times (sadly we will have less since everyone sees what happens to them). Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Thanks for the kind words – but I’ve not been very smart. By using satire I haven’t managed, as I intended, to draw attention to the absurdity of the overblown Clinton section - I have merely given people with a very different POV the opportunity to avoid the subject and concentrate on my “humour”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Tough crowd. Try the one about the Pope and Raquel Welch on the lifeboat. Burrobert (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"he was a flight risk"?

English is not my first language so the following sentence was a challenge to me.

On 6 January, Assange was denied bail on the grounds that he was a flight risk, pending an appeal by the United States.

I understand that a man can pose a risk, but how can they be a risk? Risk is a possibility, not anything material. But not only that. What is a "flight risk"? The risk caused by a journey by airplane or the mere possibility that such a journey may happen? Of course, thanks to online dictionaries, I eventually understood the sentence. However, if Wikipedia should be as clear and easy to read as possible, then why not avoid idioms, and write articles in plain language? You could have expressed the same idea in the sentence like:

On 6 January, Assange was denied bail because there was a risk that he could run away during an appeal by the United States.

Maybe the proposed sentence is not perfect but, at least, is very clear. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well given he had in fact fled the law twice, they deemed he would again. The judge ruled that the Wikileaks founder represented a flight risk and was “willing to flout” a court order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Misunderstanding. My post was about language issues, and you seem to have read only the header. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I am answering your point, the judge said he was a flight risk, so we do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven You wrote:

• No, I am answering your point, [...]

No, you did not answer my point at all. I read your answer very carefully and did not find anything that addressed my question.

• [...] the judge said he was a flight risk, so we do. '

Then we should either cite the original statement or convert it to plain language. What would you do if the original sentence was full of grammatical mistakes? Can you see the analogy? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What is there is good English. How it works is that a prisoner would be identified as being in various categories, for example 'suicide risk', 'flight risk', or 'danger to the public'. Then they would be referred to as being a suicide risk, a flight risk, or a danger to the public. NadVolum (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum Yes, "flight risk" is in good English but English itself is not very good - ambiguous and illogical, which is typical for all natural languages but, from a worldwide language, I would expect something more. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

85.193.252.19 I have linked the first occurrence of "flight risk" in Julian Assange to wiktionary. I hope that addresses your complaint. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022 Wow, I am impressed, thanks :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems a good solution. We should avoid unnecessary jargon but tryng to make things like that simpler would end at Simple English Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum Right, but think about non-native readers. Wikipedia should be for everyone, and the mere existence of Simple English Wikipedia should not be an excuse to make our articles hard to understand. After all, for someone who writes a PhD dissertation, Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. Are you afraid that something can be too easy for native speakers? Will they feel offended? Keep in mind that non-native speakers now outnumber native speakers by a ratio of 3 to 1 (check it out), and some of them are Wikipedia editors, like me. So, why not make life easier? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a common enough term in English and the appropriate one in this context. If you type "flight risk" into Google you'll get what it means immediately. Wikipedia even has a disambiguation page Flight risk where it has been used as the title of a record album, a book, and for television series episodes. It is not a real jargon term like 'group' in mathematics where just searching for the word will get you nowhere near what it means. NadVolum (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; it's not jargon. A commonly used phrase that the use of a regular dictionary would quickly alleviate any potential confusion over for those for whom English is a second language. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If people who have issues understanding English come here, and get confused. Maybe they shuls not come here but rather go to the page of their native language. We are writing for an English spelling audience, and cannot write to accommodate other languages.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If a person has problems with a phrase I'm quite happy for it to be linked like Basketcase2022 did. They can do that themselves. I wouldn't want too many such links but if a person can read practically all of the article and only has a few words or phrases they have difficulty with then maybe others might too. After all we are supposed to try and make it accessible. NadVolum (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That is why we have wiki projects in other languages, to make it accessible.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven So you suggest that I should find the same article in my native language Wikipedia. Have you ever wondered what motivates non-native English speakers to read English Wikipedia? The reason is simple and trivial. Maybe the article in English contains more information or is less biased, which especially applies to politics. But there is another reason, maybe even more important. I cannot speak for everyone but I avoid reading anything in my native language because I want to improve my language skills in English. Anyway, when a non-native speaker reads the English Wikipedia they usually have a good reason for doing so, and sending them to their native language articles is not the best idea. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It is very possible that a word or phrase a person points out should be reworded.Just because this person said English is not their first is no need to jump on them. Their English seems as good or better than a lot of native speakers and we have to remember that nearly half of all English speakers are of below average intelligence ;-) NadVolum (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yet none of those "below average intelligence" readers ever asked this. I am not jumping on them, I am jumping on the idea we need to write this page from the POV of non-English speaking users. What other phrases will cause issues, that is my point. We cannot do this every time this kind of issue is raised, so why even start? It's not as if this is technical jargon or confusing, it's not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we wait for an actual problem to arise rather than invoking some doomsday domino theory scenario thanks? I'm happy to see a new editor and I'm sorry they've wandered into a what is effectively a cold war. NadVolum (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum, I see you in the heroic cold war role of Fidel Castro, protecting the weak from the might of the rapacious imperialists. Btw, did you intend your statement "nearly half of all English speakers are of below average intelligence" to be a tautology? What about: half of all English speakers are below the median intelligence of English speakers? (More worryingly, half of all brain surgeons are below the median intelligence of brain surgeons.) Burrobert (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't say I particularly appreciate being compared to Fidel Castro. As to the tautology yes but it definitely doesn't sound anywhere near as good with median or trying to be exact. And also you then get subject to nitpicking, for instance what happens if the number of brain surgeons is odd? NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Rightho, I'll let you choose your own favourite socialist anti-imperialist to be compared to. There are a few options for covering the odd case but none of them impress: "around half of all ... ", "less than or equal to a half of all ... are above the median ". As you say, imprecision in language can have more impact. Hold on a minute ... isn't that observation in some way related to the original question posed at the start of this section? Burrobert (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A wikipedia editor trying to keep to a neutral point of view is quite good enough for me thanks. NadVolum (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Admin Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at the Admin Incidents Noticeboard with which several editors of this page may have been involved. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FTR notification here of "a discussion at ANI with which several editors of this page may have been involved" comes more than three days after Cambial Yellowing began that discussion but only a few hours after SPECIFICO observed, Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community. (Personal attack removed)Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: As in other discussions, you would do well to read policies before you invoke them. Especially before making baseless and inaccurate accusations of bad faith. Wp:APPNOTE is clear that when looking to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors it’s normal practice to message at The talk page of one or more directly related articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a question of timing, isn't it—why wait three days? Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s a question of learning what bad faith looks like before accusing others of it. Please do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Please do so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct - I have no interest in irrelevant non-issues, and I’m under no obligation to respond to your pointless questions. You are under an obligation not to make baseless accusations of bad faith. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Discus it an ANI, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI the administrator who responded to this ANI case has punted. I'm coming to realize that this is unlikely to get sorted in the usual places, he wrote yesterday. As for resolving the dispute outlined in this ANI case, an RfAR would be the way (part of it). But I'm not gonna file it. I'll leave that to others, he concluded. As the titular subject of this case, I have neither the experience nor the skills to create an RfAR in order to clear myself of wrongdoing; but other editors may wish to pursue the matter for their own objectives. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You'll just give yourself high blood pressure by wanting to clear yourself of wrongdoing. As you yourself show the admins seem to have problems coping with their main job, so they'll give your feelings short shrift unless you can show it is a bad ongoing problem which is causing disruption. NadVolum (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 has been blocked as a sock. Let's hope, the sock-master is not still socking here, with another sock. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to see they're chopping weeds, I was having a rather negative view of the whole business. NadVolum (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Baum, Gussin and Podesta speculations

I have pointed out on several occasions that the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section is too long. True the events surrounding the leaks and publishing where the subject of endless hype and speculation - especially in the US (a subject seemingly more attractive to Pro Clinton media outlets than the embarrassing contents of the e-mails). However, in real terms Assange had little impact, as the material was published by numerous other outlets (i.m.o. if we could replay history without Assange the incident would have been little different). Can we seriously look at least getting rid of some dross e.g.: “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”. and : “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”. It’s speculation, and since we already have: “The [Mueller] investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.” We don’t need less qualified speculation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly support getting rid of those. As I've pointed out before there are sources which make it pretty obvious those are pretty much personal suppositions rather than having any reasonably firm basis in fact or expert analysis. We should base any analysis on expert opinion or where RS is based on reasonably obvious facts. And I certainly dislike people who say 'may have' instead of according to our analysis as shown in xyz or even just say they have done an analysis and have come to a very likely conclusion. NadVolum (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I have long believed that Baum and Gussin should go. But I don't understand why you have created two sections on the same topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes sorry Jack Upland my earlier section strongly overlaps with this – that section was over generalised, the humour/satire in it didn’t go well and distracted people. I’m still hoping to streamline the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section (with approval), but doing so in small, well focused bites. How do you feel about the Podesta sentence being cut BTW? Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As it is very much part of Assange's alleged boas the stuff about timing is relevant, the sex tapes are not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked before about whether there was a dump of emails when Hilary Clinton rose in the polls and found none and that was substantiated by the fivethirtyeight article about Wikileaks impact on her figures. So I did something I should have tried before which is look at the Washinton Post article which is behind a paywall. And guess what? It doesn't say anything like what is in the article. They accused the newspapers of talking about the emails more when she rose in the polls! As the article says 'The media’s urgency to maintain drama in an election that was increasingly looking like a blowout made this story all but inevitable.' So can we just get rid of that business from the article thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

YOU checked?, that is OR. We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands".Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I did check the asserion that whenever she rose in the polls Wikileaks released emails because I did not think there was enough releases to form any reasonable conclusion. Have a look at [17] and see if you can guess without looking at the timeline when Wikileaks released emails if that is a basis. And I checked a fivethirtyeight [18] about any effect as they do good statistical analysis - but they had no real conclusions. And then I checked the paywalled newspaper article. The relevant point is that the newspaper article was about the newspapers putting out stories to generate a controversy as her figures went up. 'The two trends are strongly and statistically significantly correlated (.33 where the maximum positive correlation is 1.0). As Clinton’s lead in the polls goes up, the number of stories mentioning “Clinton email” follows suit. As her lead declines, the frequency of such stories declines as well.' There's no statistical analysis done on Wikileaks releases and the "But perhaps..." at the end is just some musing with the instance of the Podesta email dump without any analysis to back it up. You need more instances to make a case, has anyone been able to back it up with an actual reasoned case or analysis rather than what loos like crickets chirping to me? Did anyone else follow them up? Have we any other reliable source for the idea? NadVolum (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Your OR does not trump an RS's. Your OR can't be used to dismiss or question an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Writing "Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls" gives the impression that Wikileaks actually did do something of the sort. There is no evidence in the article they actually did so, There is no indication in the article that the authors did any study which might indicate that. There is no follow up on that. We should not have it in the article. The OR I did was simply to find out if there actually was some basis for what they said despite my feeling there was insufficient data to come to any such conclusion with any statistical significance. Perhaps there was some thing I hadn't understood which would justify what they said. I'm pretty certain now there just isn't. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it means they said it, not that it's true. And wp:OR cant be used to analyze and dismiss RS (they are wp:rs because they are assumed to do researches before they publish). What you do not seem to understand is our policies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

So you just want it in the article even though what they said about releases when Hilary Clinton was climbing in the polls is simply not borne out by the facts except in the one instance they mention and there's no explaination of the discrepancy and nobody has followed up? How does that line up with your constant calls to remove stuff because there's already too much in the article? NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And accusing me of hypocrisy is a violation of wp:npa. I am objecting because the reason for removal is flawed, and this is a serious allegation that is at the heart of the controversy surrounding Assange's actions during the election. Ohh and here is some more about his timing issue, not (maybe) this specific allegation, but the fact he timed his releases to harm Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.htmlSlatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

https://time.com/4425876/julian-assange-dnc-email-democratic-convention/.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not disputing those at all and that is already referred to in the article earlier in that section. I am referring to what Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin which is not supported by the facts nor by other reliable sources. If you think they are related then the subject is already better covered in the section. You were very happy to object to stuff by an actual expert which is more relevant and has multiple reliable source backing up their view. You continually object to proposed changes based on the article being too long. If you want to complain citing NPA I'll be very happy to provide other examples there to substantiate what I said. NadVolum (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You need an RS saying their facts are wrong. I objected to adding more material, so stop with the falsehoods now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And stop making this personal, stop with the violations of wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well you accused me of conspiracy theory because I quoted media analysis sources and then took me to ANI. And now you argue that your size argument is only for stopping anything being added but is not a reason to remove this silly business. And you expect me to assume good faith about you? NadVolum (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And it is'nt facts. It is a remark at the end of their article which is just a supposition. They don't even say they actually believe that to be true. It was true for the instance they gave but then again why wasn't it done earlier or later and why does it not seem to apply to any of the other releases? NadVolum (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Both the Trump and Clinton campaigns have 'dirty hands', fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! I'm impressed by the quality of most of the political stuff I've seen on Wikipedia, there's both whitewashing and blackwashing but they tend to keep to the facts and just omit things at worst. Like here where the 2016 U.S. presidential election section misses out that another outlet published Hillary Clintons emails first. Don't worry I'm not going to go on about that even if holes are a thing I particularly notice! NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven please note that the Baum, Gussin “article” in the Washington post is actually an opinion piece i.e. not governed by the same editorial processes as a piece produced by their own journalists, you should also note that the piece is based around speculation about the statistical spread of Wikileaks releases supposedly corresponding with increases in Clinton's lead the polls – yet neither Baum or Gussin are trained/qualified statisticians able definitively make those judgements – If you actually read the piece our sentence is based on you find they even admit their theory in only speculation. This stuff really does not belong in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Would editors also note that our article contains the line: “The [Mueller] investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.”. So we don’t need the sentences containing mere speculation from Baum/Gussin and Podesta when we have a credible and authoritative statement that Wikileaks timed releases in collaboration with Clinton’s enemies. “The stuff about timing [may indeed be] relevant” but we don’t need to repeat it over and over in the form of weak speculation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well most people within any type of study should have some grasp of statistics nowadays so I wouldn't have eliminated them on that account. Something like this should have had a bit of obviousness and not need any delicate test requiring a professional. The releases may have been coordinated - but I definitely can't see a link to a rise in Hillary Clinton's popularity like they conjectured. But yes the opinion piece bit should at least close this business down. NadVolum (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: "opinion piece bit" -- That's why the text is attributed, rather than stated in Wiki-voice. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It is covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. At best they are WP:PRIMARY sources and if you look at #3 there you'll see "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." So here a secondary source would be needed. NadVolum (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Assange/ “2016 U.S. presidential election” section alone we have (I’ve trimmed the material to save space):

• “...The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention ...”
• “...one hour later WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence.”
• “[Russians]... provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.”
• “...unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material”
• “...WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls...”

There is much other material dwelling on Assange’s dislike of Clinton. Just how many times do we need to say, in one convoluted/speculative form or another that: Wikileaks/Assange disliked Clinton and published the information they were given accordingly? Name me one significant Western news publisher which hasn’t taken sides in a US election (publishing material accordingly)? Why on earth are we going on and on about this publisher’s unexceptional act of taking sides. Please note I am not asking for the removal of all this material – just some sense of perspective – particularly as there are numerous other wiki pages which already deal with these issues - we don’t need this ludicrous overkill. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Actually I seem to recall quite a few of our articles on publishers also talk about their perceived political bias (just to answer your wp:otherstuff exits argument).Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How is what you said or WP:OTHERSTUFF exists relevant? (assuming exits should be exists) NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Using what we do (or do not do) on other pages as an argunment.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The argument is not that something should be done because the same sort of thing is done elsewhere which is what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. Please see WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Actually it is you who have just used a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument with no other justification. And I have no strong objection to your otherstuff argument but I do wish you would think a little more before just tossing out invalid policy links for what others say. They gave an argument for not having multiple repetititious opinions in a section which has a main article which describes the topic - and that has hardly anything related to this. Was disliking Hillary Clinton so worthy of note? She lost the election. We don't need unsupported conjectures here. NadVolum (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

When did I make an other stuff argument?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Actually I seem to recall quite a few of our articles on publishers also talk about their perceived political bias" NadVolum (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What? what was in response to someone claiming we do not do it, I was not the one making the comparison argument, I was pointing out it was factauly flawed. I have never said we need to include this because of other stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I have listed above five sentences, in just the Assange/ “2016 U.S. presidential election” section, which all deal with Assange/Wikileaks timing their releases to harm Clinton/help Trump. That’s overkill especially as at least two are openly speculation (the Baum/Gussin and Podesta comments/quotes) - these are the ones I asking to be removed. Surely that’s not unreasonable? Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have said why I object to blanket removals. There may be the possibility of merging and reducing, but then we would need to see what new text is being proposed. It is an accusation (made in more than one RS) that Assange timed the leaks, we should mention that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m simply asking for the removal of two of the sentences, out of the five which mention the timing or intent of the releases. So we will still have three mentions and everything else remains unchanged. The two to go will be:

• “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”.
• "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”.

Left in place will be:

• “...The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention ...”
• “[Russians]... provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.”
• “...unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material”

I hope you’ll agree that’s plenty of remaining mentions Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It needs a rewrite, not just random mentions. I have said before what we need is better porose, not just lists of who said what.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That some reliable sources said the releases were timed does not mean the releases were timed to when Hillary Clinton was rising in the polls. Can you please find another reliable source saying that? If not that should be removed, it is in no reliable secondary source as far as I can find and it is factually untrue - which somehow seems not to concern you at all but might others. As to Podesta we should not have their personal conjectured link in the biography, can we keep to stuff which is actually supported by the Mueller investigation at the very least. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

And again, your OR does trump RS, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on whoever wants to try and keep it to find a secondary source. NadVolum (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

FOr what, we are now discussing different issues. But we do have an RS, they are experts and thus SPS is allowed, you are not an expert, so your OR is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

They are not journalists and the article appeared in what would be covered by WP:NEWSBLOG andtherefore counts as a primary source. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is all over the place, we seem to now be discussing two separate issues, a specific line, and a wider issue. This is why I say we can't just have a blanket deletion based upon this thread. Rather we need a focused discussion of the wider issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The question is whether the two sentences identified should be removed from the article. The reasons from different editors may mention other things but those are the actual changes being discussed. NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Then no, as they are widely aknowlged experts commenting on their area of expertise.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:SPS? The article rellycomes under WP:NEWSBLOG but supposing they were counted as experts per WP:SPS it says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." NadVolum (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

and what SPS has to say about newsblogs "(as distinguished from newsblogs, above)," So newsblogs are not covered by it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how that invalidates the statement in WP:SPS. What policy do you want to try and justify it under? NadVolum (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You cite NEWSBLOGS, which says If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ...". Nobody's proposing otherwise, are they? SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read WP:NEWSBLOG you'll see thatit is then counted as a primary source and needs a secondary source to back it up in some way. So where is this secondary source? NadVolum (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No it does not, it says we attribute them, we do with this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No, a personal blog is SPS. This is a NEWSBLOG, as defined. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow the 'opinion piece' link there and see where it lands you. NadVolum (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the basic rule from that is such opinion pieces are okay only if a secondary source has given it some attention. NadVolum (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Quote please, as I have not seen anything that says that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Note the 'I believe'. I was giving my understanding of what the link meant since you seemed to think a newsblog could be used like a secondary source if you just attributed what it said. There is a get out for some straigtforward things but what were discussing here is not that as it is simply wrong. NadVolum (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You cited NEWSBLOG as the basis for your objection to Slatersteven's view. NEWSBLOG could not be more clear in drawing the distinction between reliably published opinion, which must be attributed, and on the other hand self-published blogs that are fraught in any BLP context. The content at issue falls in the first category, and may be used but only with attribution, which we have done. But I agree with Steven that the central objective must be to evaluate all the material related to this content and to come up with a summary narrative that concisely reflects all the sources in DUE proportion. When a long current events article such as this is written, there will be content and sources that, in hindsight, are less significant than initially believed. For example, the very repetitive Rapporteur content or the speculation concerning pending legal affairs. If this is a similar case. To arrive at a good encyclopedic summary, we should not be trimming the scrapbook, but rather we should be writing an comprehensive overview. SPECIFICO talk

Please follow the link at WP:NEWSBLOG and stop misquoting policy. If you want to discuss something else set up a separate discussion. This discussion is about whether two sentences should be removed from the article. NadVolum (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We have, and have not seen what you think you have, so we have asked you to quote it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant line from WP:NEWSBLOG with the actual link in

If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..."

Just click on "opinion piece". Both of you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to do that. NadVolum (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Both Steven and I have already emphasized that. Most recently, I did so directly above your reply "stop misquoting policy". Previously, a few inches above, I quoted the same text in blue font. SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

And did you arrive at WP:PRIMARY when you clicked on opinion piece? NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Just affirms what Steven and I have said, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". I am not expressing any opinion as to how this content should be handled, except to say that we will not get to any lasting good version by adding and subtracting references individually as you appear to contemplate. We need to come to consensus as to the weight of the mainstream narrative per all the available sources and then write content that reflects it, citing the appropriate references. The two you are challenging may or may not ultimately be useful for article content and citations, but we can't determine that in isolation. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The dispute is not over whether it was reputably published, however that is only one of six points applicable to primary sources. And you truncated even that point which continues "... but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them", and has a note saying exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Do you dispute the particular citation would be covered by point 3 of WP:PRIMARY? NadVolum (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact since you seem to accept that point 1 applies we can just concentrate on that, please see WP:REDFLAG. It is certainly surprising and it is challenged here as it seems to contradict the facts. And it is supported purely by a single primary source. And you pair apparently think it is important. NadVolum (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Their opinion is attributed. That is fully in accord with what's written at all of the links you've cited. REDFLAG is not applicable. A reliably published opinion is a valid primary source for that opinion, and that's all anyone has ever said here.I'll have no more to say on that. Our task is to present a summary of the mainstream view, which is that the releases were strategically timed. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

They said there was a particular timing. Their particular timing is what is in the article and it is disputed and is not part of any mainstream view as far as I can see, and you have not provided a secondary source to show it is supported in any way by anyone else. Yes the opinion has to be attributed, but that is just part of what is required. Attribution is necessary but not sufficient, it has to follow the requirements of WP:PRIMARY as well. The first point there says in full:

"primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

And misuse them has a note link to "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources."

So it links to REDFLAG as being applicable. NadVolum (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you appear to reject what Stevenslater and I have explained, I suggest you ask for other opinions at WP:RSN or elsewhere. Again, I have no opinion as to whether that reference should ultimately be used in an NPOV presentation of this content. It does represent the mainstream view, however. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be nice if we could settle this based on some common sense rather than interminable wiki lawyering. I repeat - we have five mentions in a single section of Assange’s/Wikileaks publishing against the interests of Clinton. If Wikileaks had done the hacking themselves, or where the only people who published the material, that might be justified. If we were writing a book length biography then maybe, but for a single encyclopaedia article covering a whole life story it’s overkill (especially as its covered in other articles). Perhaps we need a R.F.C. on this but please let’s keep it simple this time (so we may actually get a clear result). I suggest the following:

Should the following material be removed from the article (see discussion above):

• “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”.
• "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”.

Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That question has already be answered, asking it again does not change the response.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Where and when have we already had an RFC asking if those particular two pieces of text should be removed from the article? I think you are mistaken (maybe didn’t read the above comment/suggestion correctly). NadVolum I will try to open the RFC in a few days when I have more time (obviously feel free to do so yourself if able). Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I see, you were asking do we need an RFC. Unsure, as I seem to recall it being said too many are being launched here already.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC is a very bad idea at this stage. There should be discussion and rough consensus as to the central narrative if the weight of RS before getting into detail about which sources best exemplify and support it. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC Should two statements in the 2016 U.S. presidential election section be removed

Should the following material be removed from the Julian Assange#2016_U.S. presidential election (see discussion above):

• “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”.
• "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”.

NadVolum (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The section already has a number of statements about the timing of the email drops. This is about removing a couple which are pure conjecture. There is a discussion just above at Baum, Gussin and Podesta speculations.

The bit by Baum and Gossin was at the end of a newsblog article where they were amalysing how newspaper articles about the emails increased as Hillary Clinton rose in the polls - but this speculation at the end was not part of that analysis and doesn't correspond to reality and has not been referenced in any secondary source The source is "Why it's entirely predictable that Hillary Clinton's emails are back in the news". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 November 2016.

The conjecture by Podesta looks like coincidence. Assange announced only a couple of days beforehand that Wikileaks would be making a release. Roger Stone asked Corsi to ask Assange to do a drop after the Hollywood tapes, but the Mueller investigation showed no straighforward contact and the best conjecture based on that would need everyone in a line of five or six and then the release being done in the hour. The conjectured connection is simply unlikely to be true and is not needed in the biography. The source is Cohen, Marshall (7 October 2017). "Access Hollywood, Russian hacking and the Podesta emails: One year later". CNN. Retrieved 24 December 2020. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Note also they contradict each other about the reasons for timing. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal - The "might not have been a coincidence" thing is clearly unecyclopedic speculation. Completely the wrong tone. Poor writing. The Baum/Gussin thing immediately begs the question, "Who are Baum and Gussin?". It's bad enough when we start listing out a whole series of random opinions from notable commentators. It's terrible when we do it from non-notable ones. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Why are we RfC'ing this? It seems self-evident. Is someone contesting it? NickCT (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.canyons.edu/academics/politicalscience/faculty/phil-gussin.php https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty/matthew-baumSlatersteven (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is the point that these guys are a pair of non-notable academics? What the heck is "Canyons College"? Is that even a real place? NickCT (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Note these two sentences are not by the same people, or in the same source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• And? What are you trying to say? NickCT (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Re why an RfC is needed. The page is under rather strict sanctions requiring consensus on changes, and it seems to require an RfC complete with a closing decision before some editors agree a consensus has been achieved. Yes it is contested. NadVolum (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum: - Contested by whom? This is snow. NickCT (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Statements containing the words "may" and "might" are hardly useful for establishing anything truly Encyclopedic, and if there is already ample information on the timing of the email drops, readers can make up their own minds. Speculation is not helpful or neutral. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of speculative opinions per Iskandar323. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal (my reasons are given in the section above) Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. Unfounded speculation, whether by inconsequential nobody academics at mediocre institutions or by obviously biased parties, is not encylopaedic content. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal, as even the sources themselves are questionable. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)