![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Under Julian Assange#Later activities it takjs about "Assange and others at WikiLeaks hacked into Nortel to reverse it". I can't find any evidence that any part of the closure was reversed before the government said they could start up again. And it could be closed quite easily in Egypt without help from Canada! I think Andrew O'Hagan confused a story about Assanges past with the then current situation. Does anyone have evidence of any breakage of the government closure of the networks? I thought it should be easy to find. NadVolum ( talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have evidence of any breakage of the government closure of the networks?Andrew O'Hagans reporting
I thought it should be easy to find.Many Al Jazeera online archives dont go back that old, other things might be in Egyptian sources Softlem ( talk) 19:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, dont know if any sources say they were closed. I fixed the article to better follow [1]
I think Andrew O'Hagan confused a story about Assanges past with the then current situationHes an RS and
The revolution continued and Julian was satisfied, sitting back in our remote kitchen eating chocolates.sounds like details a person there would say Softlem ( talk) 21:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
No mention of Nortel and no mention of internet accessThe article is about internet access not phone access, and the only mention of phone access in the articles you cite is about a different network called Vodafone Egypt
Only says that many people could still do voice callsSo phone networks stayed up and only internet was cut off
Anyway the article by Andrew O'Hagan is just wrongThats OR and not even Assange denied it
Mubarak didn't just try he succeededThats OR unless you find a source that says Nortel closed phone networks
and there was no way hacking Nortel could do anythingThats OR. I think hackers can reverse what others hackers try to do and the RS says they did
and anyway you can't hack a network when it is all shut downThats OR and no source says it was
all shut down, O'Hagan says Mubarak and hackers
tried to close down the country’s mobile phone networkand they failed and no source says they did Softlem ( talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence for itThere is an unchallenged RS
There is no evidence for it, it would have made the news, and the details don't sound possible.An unsuccessful attempt would not make the news. Nortel was not shut down according to the RS
contradicts itnothing contradicts it Softlem ( talk) 11:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Internet in Egypt#2011 Internet shutdown talks about thisNo it talks about ISPs being shut down on mobile phones, which still had phone access and WP:RSPWP
Egypt Turns to Sole Provider, Dial-Up for Internet Access does not sound to me like the order to shut down didn't succeedIt sounds to me like it succeeded for mobile ISPs only which does not contradict O'Hagan saying
Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network. You already said that an RS
says that many people could still do voice callsand that means parts of
the country’s mobile phone networkworked Softlem ( talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Pressing the kill switch on more or less an entire nation’s internet capabilities is not unprecedented.and it says
Jon Snow said that calls could be made on mobiles
As I read it the mobile network was closed down for one day and then switched on again but for voice calls onlyIt does say that
On Saturday, Vodafone, with 28 million mobile phone customers in Egypt, and France Telecom restored mobile voice services, one day after service stopped because the government demanded the cut-offbut thats about Vodafone not every service and they already said calls could be made on networks like Noor
No one says anything about the government or hackers working for itGovernment hackers not being public is not a surprise and Assange knowing would not be a surprise
Analysts said that there is not a kill switch that can stop mobile oral communications, unlike the sending of texts and data by phone, and internet communications.and that explains why hackers would be used Softlem ( talk) 13:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
What explains about the hackers?No kill switch gives less options
And why would they attack or defend Nortel? There's no way Nortel could affect anything.Thats OR but we know Nortel was involved in their infrastructure and O'Hagan said the
service that came through Canada
And Vodafone did everything the government asked of them.Vodafone is still one company and we dont know if O'Hagan is talking about things before or after that. Maybe Mubarak tried this before or wanted to try to do it secretly after or needed hackers to do it because there was no kill switch. He just says that
At the time of the Egyptian uprising, Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, a service that came through Canada.Softlem ( talk) 14:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_to_do_when_a_reliable_source_says_something_but_no_evidence_and_it_seems_very_unlikely? you said that They were talking in Bungay ten minutes from Ellington according to what he wrote.
and he did rent there but before that he says on Monday 17 January 2011 I drove to Norfolk. It was dark and drizzly by the time I got to Ellingham Hall.
and then talks about the kitchen. He went there a lot At 10 p.m. one night I drove over to the house
and on 19 January he says he was there and some times WikiLeaks staff worked in the kitchen with laptops When we arrived, the kitchen was full of WikiLeaks staff, all gathered excitedly around a laptop.
And then Julian started coming to Bungay ‘But it can’t be the priority,’ Julian said. ‘Ending wars and starting a revolution in Libya is the priority.’ He started coming to the house in Bungay every day.
then During those days at the Bungay house I would try to sit him down with a new list of questions, and he’d shy away from them, saying he wasn’t in the mood or there were more pressing matters to deal with. I think he was just keen to get away from Ellingham Hall.
So O'Hagan went to Ellingham and Julian went to the house in Bungay Softlem ( talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what the point of all that wasI thought you thought you they werent at the same place. I guess I misread your comment, and I dont understand why you brought up Bungay and O'Hagan renting a house
I would then present my points in a *Remove as proposerIt should include both our points or well just repeat the discussion again. This doesnt say why it would be exceptional, and for
exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sourcesit was repeated by The Guardian [6] and The Independent [7] and Los Angeles Review of Books [8] and re published in O'Hagans book The Secret Life and that had a different publisher and editor than London Review of Books Softlem ( talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Is Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking in 2011 mentioned in Julian Assange#Later activities an exceptional claim that should be removed?
During my time with Assange there was a moment, it was during the uprising in Cairo, and it became obvious to Mubarak, the leader there, only too late that the revolution was essentially being organized by Blackberries, by social media, and by people fully in connection on their phones. So he closed down the Internet in the country, and I have to give him credit for it. It was an amazing thing to watch. It was new to the novel, new to the cinema, new to any sort of reportage that I’d ever encountered, was that five young people, young hackers in this house, me leaning my back against this typical English Aga, as they went to war from this house with Mubarak’s official hackers, going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier and fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them. And you saw on the big screen, as the Assange-istas won that battle, everyone holding their phones up in Tahrir Square. The Internet was back up and the revolution could continue.
going through the portals ofNortel helped somehow Softlem ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The intelligence service continues to shut down remaining ISPsand intelligence services might have used hacking. Youre guessing they didnt
Nothing about hackers doing anythingExcept from a reliable reporter who saw it and said it repeatedly, which was reprinted by multiple outlets and in a book Softlem ( talk) 09:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
CLosing down an ISP is far more easily done by just sending some police around!One takes days and never finished according to the timeline. Cutting off the source seems like it would be right away
Assange's team would not be able to contact them never mind do any hackingMore OR and assumptions. We still dont even know what day it was. O'Hagan makes it clear that there were two efforts by Mubaraks public orders and his hackers. He talked about both at the festival. But even if they were they same, Assange might have responded to the DNS block or some other part. You have to assume a lot to decide its impossible.
As to your proposal for the RfC your title is too verbosePropose
Is Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking Egypt in 2011 an exceptional claim?
and the description should also be fairly short and pretty neutral.Propose
In Julian Assange#Later activities there is a description of Assange and others hacking to keep the mobile phones working. Discussion above at #Mubarak closing mobile services. According to WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Should it be removed because the claim is extraordinary?I removed the end because the
rule of thumbin WP:Writing_requests_for_comment#Neutrality
The arguments for and against can then follow as is normal for RfC and be written by us separately.Ok. I looked and I remembered WP:Writing_requests_for_comment#Best_practices wrong. I think we should link to the different sources after the question or in a source section Softlem ( talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
questions of a technoical naturethats arguing with RSes like London Review of Books, Los Angeles Review of Books, The Guardian, The Independent and Literary Hub. None of the RSes thought O'Hagan was wrong or agree with you and Assange didnt deny it when it was printed in London Review of Books or when it was added to for a book Softlem ( talk) 09:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be asking if it is an extraordinary claim.and
This needs an outside person with a bit of technical nous to evaluate it.If its the same question as the RFC then just tag the RFC
I do find the tale of hackers of an equipment supplier in Canada doing something about Egypt when the internet connection to the rest of the world was cut off by a switch very extraordinary.Thats one thing we know they did, and according to O'Hagan its not what made them relevant. O'Hagan said the
came through Canada, what he said makes more sense when you read it. The equipment supply just confirm they did some business together so Nortel providing other services is not surprising
All those RSs you put in there are just parroting O'Hagan,attributing
they are not independentThen no source that cites WikiLeaks is independent from it, but thats not how independent sources work thats how attribution works
and there's no evidence they did any checking rather than just quoting him.The general standards and policy are why theyre on the RSP page. They have fact checking policies and they dont repeat things for no reasons. You cant challenge an RS because you dont think they did any checking when they have policies to check and no one denies the events
Oh this bit is wrong but I'm not going to say anything about being mad sad paranoid vain and jealous? There's just so many things a person can waste their time on.International hacking is an alleged crime and isnt the same as being
mad sad paranoid vain and jealous. Assange and WikiLeaks often threaten to sue journalists and outlets and sometimes just threaten them [13] And this wasnt just about Assange, it seems like other people at WikiLeaks were involved but O'Hagan just says
five young peopleand
Julian and his gangand none of its the same as
vainSoftlem ( talk) 10:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The question is whether it is an extraordinary claim, not whether it is a reliable sourceFirst its should it be removed as an exceptional claim, not is it one. Even if it is the only part that could apply is
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;and there are multiple sources including two
generally reliableRSes from WP:RSP
rather than someone just copying O'HaganThats why it was already attributed to O'Hagan and lots of things have a single source thats repeated a lot by RSes and cited by Wikipedia
Or as I said I'd be happy if someone could show what was described would have any relevance to the situation in EgyptO'Hagan said the service went through Canada. Turn off a service in Canada that goes to Egypt and it never gets to Egypt. And one description might mean that it helped them access other things but I dont know what
portalsmeans in
going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplierSoftlem ( talk) 09:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
There was no response there and it quickly turned into a wall of text. I should just resist responding to things even if I consider them very wrong.I asked you to stop BLUDGEONING and most of my replies were only that and telling you to wait for replies from the project. My first reply was only source quotes and links
There were two responses at WT:Vand
So no overall conclusionThere were a lot more than that. There were five responses.
No source is always 'reliable' in the abstract. All sources get things wrong sometimes. Hence the need to apply our own judgement on occasion (which is presumably why WP:OR does not apply to such discussions)
Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal. As forThose are all just quoting O'Hagan, that means that all these reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements that apparently differs from your own. Putting the latter over the former when writing articles is a textbook NPOV violation. Or to put it differently: WP:NPOV asks that articles should reflectall the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic- without adding "...unless these views disagree with the conclusions from your own original research." I will admit that this can, in rare cases, lead to unsatisfying situations where an editor really knows better than several RS, but honestly most of the times it is the other way around.
We care about verifiability, not truth.and
I get where you're coming from that the claim should absolutely be attributed, but it doesn't seem to be all that exceptional unless I'm missing something.
and it alleges Assange committed a crime.No one in any of the sources alleges its a crime. The wikipedia article doesnt allege its a crime. You keep saying it is Softlem ( talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
get more contributors involved in the discussionfor a reason. [14] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey guys,
I recently introduced a small tidbit of material regarding Assange's involvement with the WANK worm and the fact that he co-authored a book that detailed the WANK worm itself. See here. Both the WANK worm and the book are already discussed in his article. Another editor disagreed with my edit for multiple reasons and cited the fact that the article is a contentious topic. The contentious topic policy does not prevent an editor from introducing information to a article and my edit is neither a disputable fact nor was controversial; as I said the topic is already mentioned in the article and there seems to be no valid basis for not including my edit. Please also note that the contentious material warning is not an editing restriction per se and does not prevent constructive editing of a page; pages that are listed as contentious also do not necessarily require a discussion to edit constructively. Comments? Scorch ( talk | ctrb) 00:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
By that logic we should then remove that section.” That argument makes no sense and is not any kind of logic. You make an irrelevant value judgment that it’s a “
dull argument”; I consider it dull content. The claim that it is prominent is original research; the policy can be found here if you don’t understand why. Your edit was not minor, which you can establish for yourself at Wp:MINOR. New disputed content is not to be added a second time without affirmative talk page consensus – that’s how the consensus required sanction works. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, it's a dull argument that it isn't encyclopedic content when that entire section of the Assange article is specifically about that topic, the book is relevant, and the book is also mentioned elsewhere in his article. By that logic we should then remove that section.Your last sentence does not follow logically from the preceding one, ergo it's not a logical argument. Some content being appropriate to a brief biography does not mean other content on the same topic must also be appropriate.
The remaining content is true and can be sourced to the book.
does your edit to the content quell your mind about keeping it in the article or do you still take issue with it?I dont know if youre explaining problems before, now or both Softlem ( talk) 12:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
When, in 1989, the International Subversives, a hacker group of which Assange was a member, launched the “WANK Worm” virus to attack global military networks, they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oil: “You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war.”
Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks Softlem ( talk) 19:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.seems like something I added about WANK and the second version of it called OILZ
The code indicated that the worms evolved over time and was not written by a single person. [1] [2]Not exact same but close Softlem ( talk) 15:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
noone know who was involved, he says
No one knows who wrote the program for the wormthats not the same. He says
Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker groupSoftlem ( talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better then if we had Assange said the Melbourne hacking group was involved, but did not know who wrote the program?Better than what? If you mean add something like
Assange said the International Subversives were involved, but that no one knows who wrote the programthats exactly what I would support
admitit if he wasnt involved. That was the word Fowler used after interviewing Assange Softlem ( talk) 14:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A week since the last comment so propose replacing the current text with
Several sources suggested Assange may have been involved in the
WANK hack at NASA in 1989,
[3]
[4]
[5]: 42 which he called "the origin of hacktivism".
[6] Assange later admitted to
Andrew Fowler it came from the Melbourne hacker group, but that no one knows who wrote the program.
[7]
Its shorter and uses Fowlers words and I think is what NadVolum suggested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlemonades ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Melbourne hacker groupis clearly the International Subversives who are the only hacker group mentioned, and the only reason Assange would admit it is if he was involved which is what Fowler says and what The Monthly said
admitted involvement
the kind of weasel-worded unsupported attribution we ought to avoidThe proposed text gave three citations supporting it. WP:WEASEL says
views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.In text attribution is not needed, but we dont need that part since Assange admitted it.
Assange called the WANK hack at NASA in 1989 "the origin of hacktivism" and later admitted involvement, but said that no one knows who wrote the program.Softlem ( talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Melbourne hacker groupto which he refers is not the same as the "International Subversives". He does so in the immediately succeeding sentence. Given that you've already quoted the relevant passage, your claim otherwise is surprising.
Take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources here on talk. Your claim that AssangeAlthough nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.
admitted itand suggestion to include as much in the article is unsupported by the available sources. How about the status quo. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to your claim, in the book Fowler makes it abundantly clear that the Melbourne hacker group to which he refers is not the same as the "International Subversives". He does so in the immediately succeeding sentenceYou misread it.
he is coy about the involvement of The International SubversivesCoy means
Reluctant to give details about something sensitiveit doesnt mean he didnt say anything about it. Thats clearer when he adds
No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.Its even clearer when you read the rest of the section before that which only talks about one hacking group, the International Subversives
Take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources here on talk. Your claim that Assange admitted itI did not that is the word Fowler used and the The Monthly directly said it was the International Subvserives [16] Softlem ( talk) 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It's slightly ambiguous, but it seems like Assange meant the WANK worm came from the overall collective that was the various associated hackers in Melbourne at the time and not the International Subversives specifically.The Monthly still says [17]
When, in 1989, the International Subversives, a hacker group of which Assange was a member, launched the “WANK Worm” virus to attack global military networks, they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight OilThats not ambiguous Softlem ( talk) 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
No one knows who wrote the program for the wormand
they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oilthey might contradict each other but I thought the sentence meant "when they launched the WANK worm they made this happen" Softlem ( talk) 14:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
then that claim contradicts all of the other sourcesAt most thats new information not a contradiction
In an encyclopedic sense, it isn't really worth noting on this article anyway and has a better home on the relevant article.Sorry, that changes what you meant and local consensus
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
link)
I have removed a description of Avila from this article because it was not in the sources. It is mentioned on her own wikipage but there appears to be no source there either. It may be correct, but in order to use here we need a source which states it and which states that her memo was written in that capacity. Burrobert ( talk) 06:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It is mentioned on her own wikipage but there appears to be no source there either.Its cited on her page /info/en/?search=Renata_%C3%81vila_Pinto#cite_note-3
and which states that her memo was written in that capacity.I dont agree we need a source that says that but if theres a policy or something please tell me. But you made a good point so I wanted to check and the lawyer her wikipedia article said she worked under for the Assange and WikiLeaks case was hired in 2012 [18] so she could not have written it in that capacity and I agree with your revert [19] Softlem ( talk) 06:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This edit
[20] was made by an IP editor with no edit history and no edit summary and removed a paragraph from Personal life. The text had RSes and I think it was DUE because it talked Assanges personal life when he started WikiLeaks and he said he was directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project
The edit should be reverted Softlem ( talk) 12:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
the text seems pretty trivial.Do you mean it wasnt DUE or it needed to be edited? Softlem ( talk) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Not really dueOk thank you
as what does it really tell us about him? Why do we need to know this?Because it was before he did media I thought it revealed a little but it might be WP:CRUFT Softlem ( talk) 12:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Won't comment on the suitability for this page other than:
Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished. Otherwise there will be people adding stuff to both articles and it'll make a horrible mess.I thought making it about arrest and extradition proceedings would stop all the adds here and focus there and make it easier to start a new article about his trial if he is ever extradited Softlem ( talk) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished.Do you mean the section on Julian Assange or the SPLIT article? I want to be sure I understand Softlem ( talk) 14:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The thoughts of David Morales, a contractor for the CIA currently the subject of criminal proceedings in Spain, are not due weight for this biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
please observe
WP:CRPYou did not object to the material. You said you were adding and rewriting. Editors dont know what is a mistake if summaries are unclear. WP:SUMMARYNO If you say you adding and rewriting but remove complete paragraphs and sentences, [23] it seems like a mistake. If you say what types of edits you make it will help. Better summaries are clearer and helps find the right edits later
the word "justified" is not in the source to which this new content is cited. please don't add unsourced editorialising to this biography.It is not
unsourced editorialising. The source said
“We have been informed of suspicions that the guest [this is how Assange was alluded to] is working for the Russian intelligence services, thus the profiling of his visitors and aides,”which is a clear reason why. If the problem was "justified" you should have rewritten it like edit summary said, not removed the entire sentence
the subject of criminal proceedings in SpainAnd WP:BLPCRIME
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
are not due weight for this biography.The reasons why for the surveillance of the subject for this biography are DUE. No other reason has been given and there is not a contested view. It is in the lead of Surveillance of Julian Assange which was copied here per Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_proposal and WP:SUMMARY. According to the RS they are not
The thoughts of David Morales,but what they were
informed ofand decisions made because of that Softlem ( talk) 13:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
to whom you failed to attribute that obviously tendentious viewI didnt fail to attribute anything. Per the edit summary [24] and Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_proposal it was the lead from Surveillance of Julian Assange which readers are told is the Main article and which attributes it every time its mentioned outside the lead which is WP:SUMMARY
There is no reason to accept as fact Morales claimsThey were not claimed as fact in the article. It said it was a reason for the surveillance according to internal emails. If Assange didnt work for Russian intelligence it was still an explanation given for the surveillance
and no indication his opinion is noteworthy.The RSes cite him several times. He was in charge of the surveillance of Assange. His opinion is noteworthy and this is not his opinion, it is what the company was told and the decisions he made reported by RSes
justifiedin the main article since you objected to it Softlem ( talk) 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Hi, shall we use "dropped" or "closed" in the LEAD in reference to end of the Swedish investigation. Please see diff. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Prosecutors in Sweden have dropped an investigation into a rape allegation made against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange in 2010..
The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days: While the woman’s statement was credible, there was no proof that a crime had been committed. It is an unbelievable scandal." Melzer stated that the Swedish government refused to answer questions about its mishandling of the case, effectively "an admission of guilt." Based on his authority, then, we could write something like,
- Darouet ( talk) 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Accused by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture of mishandling Assange's case for nearly a decade, Sweden declined to respond to the allegations, and abandoned their case against Assange.
Context about "all sources" claim
|
---|
|
dropped,
discontinuedand not changing it from closed. I said that changing it needed an RfC because there was disagreement over what to change established content to.
Discontinuedis what I said should it be, is supported by primary and secondary RSes and is the official term used, not including it isnt the right way to do the RfC Softlem ( talk) 10:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
wasnt about the actual disagreement about what it should be changed to which was discontinued or dropped. If you leave out the main other option that is supported by RSes it will be a SNOWBALL always
I dont think this was on purpose but we should do best practices and "Propose the text of the RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC. Especially get feedback on whether the question is neutral from the editors who disagree with you." I wasnt here for a week but would not agree to a question that left out the option I had said we should use and was supported by primary and secondary RSes and what editor would say that an RfC that leaves out a major option at the basic of the argument is best practices?Softlem ( talk) 12:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
That's OK, it means that Softlemonades thinks that "closed" is better than "dropped".No, I said you needed an RFC to change long standing content when there was disagreement about what to change it to and that you counted consensus wrong
Apparently everybody (Softlemonades included) now thinks that "dropped" is better than "closed"I never said that. What made you think that? I want to clarify
However, if Softlemonades thinks that "discontinued" is even better than "dropped"That is what I said since my first reply on 10:43, 23 September 2023
So, let's proceed in an orderly fashion. First we finish this RfC on closed vs dropped and then, in necessary, we'll have dropped vs discontinuedI am okay with that Softlem ( talk) 02:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@
NadVolum I dont know what Wikileaks excuse is just as due as Leigh's
means
[27] It said the files were copied by supporters not by Wikileaks
Ok if it is DUE but what do I miss? Softlem ( talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In the section about Legal issues in Australia the cite about political bribery is
which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Any ideas about what has happened there or how to fix it? NadVolum ( talk) 13:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Propose we replace these sections with the leads of the main pages per WP:SUMMARY
Julian Assange#Swedish sexual assault allegations from Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
Julian Assange#Indictment and arrest from Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange
Julian Assange#Surveillance of Assange in the embassy from Surveillance of Julian Assange
Swedish sexual assault allegations total size is 15,267
Indictment and arrest total size is 41,334
Surveillance of Assange in the embassy total size is 6,620
Article total size is 353,143 and readable size is 100,921. I dont know readable size of sections. I think the three sections are 63221 or almost 18% of the article
Also propose we WP:SPLIT Assessments and Julian Assange#Honours and awards into something like Reception of Julian Assange and summarise the Assessments and Awards on this page. Assessments total size is 38,089 and Honours and awards total size is 7,435. If there is any support we tag it and start a formal discussion Softlem ( talk) 21:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it would have been better to just have an article devoted to the indictments which could cover what is in the section here in "Espionage indictment in the United States" as well as any bits which are relevant from the arrest and extradition hearings.I would support limiting Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange if thats what you mean
The hearings don't really test the indictment, that isn't really all that relevant to an extradition hearing even though it's why he is being extradited.I agree and made it a separate section. Julian Assange#Hearings on extradition to the US would stay the same on this page for this proposal but I am okay with a bigger change
Of course any thing removed from here would need checking against the sub article before removing it.To make sure it is there and content is not lost? Agree Softlem ( talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I oppose removing the awards table if that is what is being proposed, it is pretty lean already and is very encyclopedicI think the table or a text summary should stay. Agree
very encyclopedic
I see that Assessments was already removed, it was quite a lot of text.The text is there, heading name changed to Julian Assange#Reception. I agree it is a lot of text and it would be the main reason for a SPLIT Softlem ( talk) 11:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Article total size is 353,143 and readable size is 100,921
Propose splitting Julian Assange#Reception to a page like Reception of Julian Assange
Assessments from Julian Assange#2010 and 2011-2014 and 2015-2018 and 2019–present would be replaced with a summary
Julian Assange#Honours and awards would be copied to new page but not removed
Talk:Julian Assange#Trimming proposal has some talk about this. Pinging @ NadVolum @ Burrobert @ Jtbobwaysf from it Softlem ( talk) 22:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I dont think that it is necessary to copy content either, the new proposed sub-article that carries Reception does that adequately without the rehashing of the awardsI think it should be copied because
It helps to add balance to the POV that the article subject is primarily notable as a fugitive criminal spy.so it should be on both pages. But its not the reason for SPLIT and we can copy it later if it is DUE Softlem ( talk) 11:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Softlemonades: can you please explain why we should copy the awards content to the new sub-article? It is common for sub-article content to be duplicated on the main article, but I am not knowledgeable of the reverse (which you seem to be proposing). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
can you please explain why we should copy the awards content to the new sub-article?Because its part of his reception and adds balance. I think its DUE for both articles Softlem ( talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think awards is not reception, it is quite a bit above that and wouldnt want to mix the twoDisagree but can keep it out of the SPLIT and only do part we consensus on and talk later at new page about adding awards Softlem ( talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Some former colleagues have criticised his work habits, editorial decisions and personality cleanup needed.first Softlem ( talk) 09:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist. [1] [2] [3] [4] Journalists at the Associated Press, [5] CNN, [6] The Sydney Morning Herald, [7] The LA Times, [8] National Review, [9] The Economist, [10] and The Washington Post [11] argued he was not a journalist. Other journalists at The Independent, [12] The Intercept, [13] the Committee to Protect Journalists, [14] and The Washington Post [15] wrote that he was a journalist or that his actions were still protected.Softlem ( talk) 13:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
If no one objects I will finish SPLIT Monday Softlem ( talk) 13:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Commentary about Julian Assangeis good
Reception ofbecause Reception of WikiLeaks but anything is ok if WP:POVNAMING and WP:CRITICISM Softlem ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
References
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/23/assa-m23.html TimurMamleev ( talk) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Barr makes repeated reference to rape “charges” against Assange—charges that have never existed!It only quotes her not making those references, he would have been charged if he had gone back to Sweden, and what does that have to do with your point?
For nearly nine years, bogus “rape” and “sexual molestation” allegations against Assange have been wielded by Sweden and Britain to smear the WikiLeaks founder and secure his extradition to the US.Not bogus and Assange did more smearing than anyone Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Conspiracy_theories #Statements by Assange #Statements by Assange's lawyers
Assange was always willing to travel to Sweden to answer the allegations against him, but Swedish authorities refused to guarantee against his onward extradition under fast-track “temporary surrender” arrangements in place with the US.They cant promise not to extradite on charges that did not exist and if he was extradited to Sweden would have needed British and Swedish legal approval to send him to the US Softlem ( talk) 12:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"assange" "political prisoner"
If his real crime is ruffling the feathers of the powerful then the answer is yes ... As he languishes in Belmarsh this Christmas, Mary Dejevsky wonders why a man whose only conviction is breaching bail is being held in a category A prison
I started to add that he said he was a political prisoner to main article, it was already there. Softlem ( talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
If hes a hackeris more
core to the convtroversey surrounding the article subjectthan
if hes a political prisonerand has been for his whole life but we dont call him that we just say he was convicted and has new charges. It already says hes in prison and why, saying in the lead he calls himself a political prisoner breaks NPOV and is
unduly self-servingSoftlem ( talk) 12:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner.No he isnt
But prominent claims about the subject should be mentioned in the introI agree but this isnt a prominent claim. He made it and two people compared it, one of them saying HE compared it. Thats not notable
Whether he should be called a hacker or a journalist are separate issues. Let's stick to the point.RFCs decided both and had good logic. Same logic goes here. Thats the point
He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner.Hes described as a lot of things but thats not what hes famous for
The claim that he is a political prisoner has been widespread for YEARS.Then give secondary RSes that dont attribute to him, the ones that were already posted werent enough for the lead
If it is a prominent claim and view about Assange it belongs in the lead for Reception of Julian Assange not this lead
Theres a subarticle about this, we dont put every prominent claim and view about Assange in the lead here. And lead follows body so we add to section and sub article first then this lead if there is enough Softlem ( talk) 13:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland I dont understand the changes to the early section of the article. I think his career before wikileaks should be kept from his early life and wikileaks
I tried the compare tool but it didnt show all the edits Softlem ( talk) 00:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
He was hacking when he was 16, so I think that's part of his early lifeHe was convicted in his twentys and early leaks and activism was later. I dont think putting it in Early life helps readers and articles arent divided by age
Hacking prior to wikileaks is not related to wikileaksAgree and maybe theres a better heading than Before Wikileaks but I dont think Early life fits for almost 30 years, a trial, conviction, leaks, activism and more
I think perhaps just change 'Early life and education' to 'Early life' might be best.Agree thats better
Well I definitely think 'Before Wikileaks' being put so early was wrongI dont understand but I dont have more Softlem ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe the edit by Burrobert [30] is far more consistent with NPOV than the reversion by SPECIFICO in the main article which has now been reverted. If the judge makes a number of rulings it is just wrong to cherrypick some and not report others which are just as important and are just as prominent in the source. NadVolum ( talk) 00:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to add a section that that specifically covers his current situation? 86.184.224.11 ( talk) 20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This section consists only of two instances, from a decade and more ago, where Assange could be charged in Australia. Do we really need to take up space with this? If he is actually charged, we can address the issues at that point. Jack Upland ( talk) 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Walkabout links to a page that defines it as an Aboriginal rite of passage. Assange is not an Aborigine. I think (from Robert Manne's article) he spent time sleeping rough in a national park. I don't know the best way to phrase this. Jack Upland ( talk) 02:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
sleeping rough” is not in the source, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
User @ Lacebugger updated the page to report today's death of Assange, without adding any source that Assange is, in fact, dead. Mago Mercurio ( talk) 03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The claim of "deserve to die" is obviously pretty inflammatory (and had a bearing on the indictment). Andrew O'Hagan reports that Assange denied ever having made this claim. Given the only source is Leigh and Harding, who were in a legal dispute with Assange over precisely this issue, this is not appropriate to include. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
There's good evidence Leigh lied- as far as I can tell, there is no evidence of this, just the claim of Goetz and Assange. Will you please strike it?
A fair amount of text related to Assange's world view was recently removed from the article because the editor was "Not convinced that this is an improvement - and we need more evidence that these views are sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion". The article currently contains little information about Assange's views. The only time recently that (some) editors showed enthusiasm for including Assange's views was in relation to a (possibly) imaginary statement that would cast him in a poor light. I will break up the text into small packets, provide sources for each and ask editors to decide whether the text would improve the article. To keep the discussion from becoming confused, I will start a separate talk section for each item. The first packet is the sentence
"Assange described WikiLeaks as an activist organisation and said that "The method is transparency, the goal is justice".
Apparently this was a motto on WikiLeaks' website when it was founded. Here are some sources which support the inclusion of this sentence:
Burrobert ( talk) 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Are there any reasons why Wikipedia cannot highlight the shameful way that media outlets are willing allow Julian Assange (their one-time hero) to rot in jail, while at the the same time rushing to report the death of a (relatively minor) ACTORvist in Russia? 95.147.153.31 ( talk) 10:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Richard-of-Earth: i noted your removal of Spoilerceaser ( talk · contribs)'s add to the lead. We did indeed reach consensus that this term would not be used in teh first sentence of the lead. However, there was a lot of support for this content to be in the lead in some way and that was summarized in the close. I have added that to the lead in the 3rd paragraph in a neutral way. I think we should be doing something to add this to the lead given the continued interest by editors to have it there. This content is clearly WP:DUE in the lead, as we are summarizing the key point of notoriety of this subject. We can run another RFC on this if you feel it shouldn't be there. I think this can also reasonable assuage the editors that are seeking to the be the lead, but dont know that we already have had an rfc on it (as you correctly point out). Spoilerceaser, please do not keep adding this to the first sentence, you will likely get a ban for it if you continue. Hopefully this is enough to meet your goals, noting this is a somewhat controversial point on this article (an already controversial article). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
not to describe Assange as a journalist in Wikipedia's voice. That is the current consensus and I think it applies to anywhere on Wikipedia. Your edit does not violate that and I have no objection to it. Spoilerceaser, your does. You added it to the short description which is in Wikipedia's voice. I reverted and told you why and then you just did it again with no discussion or rationalization. So I have reverted it again. It is not edit warring on my part to enforce the consensus of an RFC nor to remove disruptive editing. As editors we are suppose to be working together to improve Wikipedia. I personally do not care for Assange and I do not think he should be described as a journalist. However, I feel he should be afforded the same protection that journalists receive for his actions in regard to Wikileaks as a publisher and contact point for whistleblowers. It is not like he was selling this information to the enemies of any state or using the information for extortion. The way he is being treated is shameful and an abuse of the justice system that is suppose to protect us, not suppress freedom of the press. He is still not a journalist as far as I am concern. Richard-of-Earth ( talk)
We can have another RFC, but until the old one is overturned it stands. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Has there ever been a journalist with more awards and accolades? No. Explore this interactive map showcasing Julian Assange’s awards for journalism, local honours and accolades: https://freeassange.org/free-assange-interactive-map/ -- 91.54.26.201 ( talk) 05:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I find it entitely absurd that a man who has won as many journalism awards isnt good enough to be considered a journalist by wikipedia https://freeassange.org/free-assange-interactive-map/
. I woild like to propose that we vote on this again 94.205.38.119 ( talk) 20:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Assange has won multiple awards for publishing and journalism.Softlem ( talk) 13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Under Julian Assange#Later activities it takjs about "Assange and others at WikiLeaks hacked into Nortel to reverse it". I can't find any evidence that any part of the closure was reversed before the government said they could start up again. And it could be closed quite easily in Egypt without help from Canada! I think Andrew O'Hagan confused a story about Assanges past with the then current situation. Does anyone have evidence of any breakage of the government closure of the networks? I thought it should be easy to find. NadVolum ( talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have evidence of any breakage of the government closure of the networks?Andrew O'Hagans reporting
I thought it should be easy to find.Many Al Jazeera online archives dont go back that old, other things might be in Egyptian sources Softlem ( talk) 19:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, dont know if any sources say they were closed. I fixed the article to better follow [1]
I think Andrew O'Hagan confused a story about Assanges past with the then current situationHes an RS and
The revolution continued and Julian was satisfied, sitting back in our remote kitchen eating chocolates.sounds like details a person there would say Softlem ( talk) 21:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
No mention of Nortel and no mention of internet accessThe article is about internet access not phone access, and the only mention of phone access in the articles you cite is about a different network called Vodafone Egypt
Only says that many people could still do voice callsSo phone networks stayed up and only internet was cut off
Anyway the article by Andrew O'Hagan is just wrongThats OR and not even Assange denied it
Mubarak didn't just try he succeededThats OR unless you find a source that says Nortel closed phone networks
and there was no way hacking Nortel could do anythingThats OR. I think hackers can reverse what others hackers try to do and the RS says they did
and anyway you can't hack a network when it is all shut downThats OR and no source says it was
all shut down, O'Hagan says Mubarak and hackers
tried to close down the country’s mobile phone networkand they failed and no source says they did Softlem ( talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence for itThere is an unchallenged RS
There is no evidence for it, it would have made the news, and the details don't sound possible.An unsuccessful attempt would not make the news. Nortel was not shut down according to the RS
contradicts itnothing contradicts it Softlem ( talk) 11:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Internet in Egypt#2011 Internet shutdown talks about thisNo it talks about ISPs being shut down on mobile phones, which still had phone access and WP:RSPWP
Egypt Turns to Sole Provider, Dial-Up for Internet Access does not sound to me like the order to shut down didn't succeedIt sounds to me like it succeeded for mobile ISPs only which does not contradict O'Hagan saying
Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network. You already said that an RS
says that many people could still do voice callsand that means parts of
the country’s mobile phone networkworked Softlem ( talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Pressing the kill switch on more or less an entire nation’s internet capabilities is not unprecedented.and it says
Jon Snow said that calls could be made on mobiles
As I read it the mobile network was closed down for one day and then switched on again but for voice calls onlyIt does say that
On Saturday, Vodafone, with 28 million mobile phone customers in Egypt, and France Telecom restored mobile voice services, one day after service stopped because the government demanded the cut-offbut thats about Vodafone not every service and they already said calls could be made on networks like Noor
No one says anything about the government or hackers working for itGovernment hackers not being public is not a surprise and Assange knowing would not be a surprise
Analysts said that there is not a kill switch that can stop mobile oral communications, unlike the sending of texts and data by phone, and internet communications.and that explains why hackers would be used Softlem ( talk) 13:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
What explains about the hackers?No kill switch gives less options
And why would they attack or defend Nortel? There's no way Nortel could affect anything.Thats OR but we know Nortel was involved in their infrastructure and O'Hagan said the
service that came through Canada
And Vodafone did everything the government asked of them.Vodafone is still one company and we dont know if O'Hagan is talking about things before or after that. Maybe Mubarak tried this before or wanted to try to do it secretly after or needed hackers to do it because there was no kill switch. He just says that
At the time of the Egyptian uprising, Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, a service that came through Canada.Softlem ( talk) 14:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_to_do_when_a_reliable_source_says_something_but_no_evidence_and_it_seems_very_unlikely? you said that They were talking in Bungay ten minutes from Ellington according to what he wrote.
and he did rent there but before that he says on Monday 17 January 2011 I drove to Norfolk. It was dark and drizzly by the time I got to Ellingham Hall.
and then talks about the kitchen. He went there a lot At 10 p.m. one night I drove over to the house
and on 19 January he says he was there and some times WikiLeaks staff worked in the kitchen with laptops When we arrived, the kitchen was full of WikiLeaks staff, all gathered excitedly around a laptop.
And then Julian started coming to Bungay ‘But it can’t be the priority,’ Julian said. ‘Ending wars and starting a revolution in Libya is the priority.’ He started coming to the house in Bungay every day.
then During those days at the Bungay house I would try to sit him down with a new list of questions, and he’d shy away from them, saying he wasn’t in the mood or there were more pressing matters to deal with. I think he was just keen to get away from Ellingham Hall.
So O'Hagan went to Ellingham and Julian went to the house in Bungay Softlem ( talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what the point of all that wasI thought you thought you they werent at the same place. I guess I misread your comment, and I dont understand why you brought up Bungay and O'Hagan renting a house
I would then present my points in a *Remove as proposerIt should include both our points or well just repeat the discussion again. This doesnt say why it would be exceptional, and for
exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sourcesit was repeated by The Guardian [6] and The Independent [7] and Los Angeles Review of Books [8] and re published in O'Hagans book The Secret Life and that had a different publisher and editor than London Review of Books Softlem ( talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Is Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking in 2011 mentioned in Julian Assange#Later activities an exceptional claim that should be removed?
During my time with Assange there was a moment, it was during the uprising in Cairo, and it became obvious to Mubarak, the leader there, only too late that the revolution was essentially being organized by Blackberries, by social media, and by people fully in connection on their phones. So he closed down the Internet in the country, and I have to give him credit for it. It was an amazing thing to watch. It was new to the novel, new to the cinema, new to any sort of reportage that I’d ever encountered, was that five young people, young hackers in this house, me leaning my back against this typical English Aga, as they went to war from this house with Mubarak’s official hackers, going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier and fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them. And you saw on the big screen, as the Assange-istas won that battle, everyone holding their phones up in Tahrir Square. The Internet was back up and the revolution could continue.
going through the portals ofNortel helped somehow Softlem ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The intelligence service continues to shut down remaining ISPsand intelligence services might have used hacking. Youre guessing they didnt
Nothing about hackers doing anythingExcept from a reliable reporter who saw it and said it repeatedly, which was reprinted by multiple outlets and in a book Softlem ( talk) 09:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
CLosing down an ISP is far more easily done by just sending some police around!One takes days and never finished according to the timeline. Cutting off the source seems like it would be right away
Assange's team would not be able to contact them never mind do any hackingMore OR and assumptions. We still dont even know what day it was. O'Hagan makes it clear that there were two efforts by Mubaraks public orders and his hackers. He talked about both at the festival. But even if they were they same, Assange might have responded to the DNS block or some other part. You have to assume a lot to decide its impossible.
As to your proposal for the RfC your title is too verbosePropose
Is Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking Egypt in 2011 an exceptional claim?
and the description should also be fairly short and pretty neutral.Propose
In Julian Assange#Later activities there is a description of Assange and others hacking to keep the mobile phones working. Discussion above at #Mubarak closing mobile services. According to WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Should it be removed because the claim is extraordinary?I removed the end because the
rule of thumbin WP:Writing_requests_for_comment#Neutrality
The arguments for and against can then follow as is normal for RfC and be written by us separately.Ok. I looked and I remembered WP:Writing_requests_for_comment#Best_practices wrong. I think we should link to the different sources after the question or in a source section Softlem ( talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
questions of a technoical naturethats arguing with RSes like London Review of Books, Los Angeles Review of Books, The Guardian, The Independent and Literary Hub. None of the RSes thought O'Hagan was wrong or agree with you and Assange didnt deny it when it was printed in London Review of Books or when it was added to for a book Softlem ( talk) 09:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be asking if it is an extraordinary claim.and
This needs an outside person with a bit of technical nous to evaluate it.If its the same question as the RFC then just tag the RFC
I do find the tale of hackers of an equipment supplier in Canada doing something about Egypt when the internet connection to the rest of the world was cut off by a switch very extraordinary.Thats one thing we know they did, and according to O'Hagan its not what made them relevant. O'Hagan said the
came through Canada, what he said makes more sense when you read it. The equipment supply just confirm they did some business together so Nortel providing other services is not surprising
All those RSs you put in there are just parroting O'Hagan,attributing
they are not independentThen no source that cites WikiLeaks is independent from it, but thats not how independent sources work thats how attribution works
and there's no evidence they did any checking rather than just quoting him.The general standards and policy are why theyre on the RSP page. They have fact checking policies and they dont repeat things for no reasons. You cant challenge an RS because you dont think they did any checking when they have policies to check and no one denies the events
Oh this bit is wrong but I'm not going to say anything about being mad sad paranoid vain and jealous? There's just so many things a person can waste their time on.International hacking is an alleged crime and isnt the same as being
mad sad paranoid vain and jealous. Assange and WikiLeaks often threaten to sue journalists and outlets and sometimes just threaten them [13] And this wasnt just about Assange, it seems like other people at WikiLeaks were involved but O'Hagan just says
five young peopleand
Julian and his gangand none of its the same as
vainSoftlem ( talk) 10:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The question is whether it is an extraordinary claim, not whether it is a reliable sourceFirst its should it be removed as an exceptional claim, not is it one. Even if it is the only part that could apply is
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;and there are multiple sources including two
generally reliableRSes from WP:RSP
rather than someone just copying O'HaganThats why it was already attributed to O'Hagan and lots of things have a single source thats repeated a lot by RSes and cited by Wikipedia
Or as I said I'd be happy if someone could show what was described would have any relevance to the situation in EgyptO'Hagan said the service went through Canada. Turn off a service in Canada that goes to Egypt and it never gets to Egypt. And one description might mean that it helped them access other things but I dont know what
portalsmeans in
going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplierSoftlem ( talk) 09:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
There was no response there and it quickly turned into a wall of text. I should just resist responding to things even if I consider them very wrong.I asked you to stop BLUDGEONING and most of my replies were only that and telling you to wait for replies from the project. My first reply was only source quotes and links
There were two responses at WT:Vand
So no overall conclusionThere were a lot more than that. There were five responses.
No source is always 'reliable' in the abstract. All sources get things wrong sometimes. Hence the need to apply our own judgement on occasion (which is presumably why WP:OR does not apply to such discussions)
Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal. As forThose are all just quoting O'Hagan, that means that all these reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements that apparently differs from your own. Putting the latter over the former when writing articles is a textbook NPOV violation. Or to put it differently: WP:NPOV asks that articles should reflectall the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic- without adding "...unless these views disagree with the conclusions from your own original research." I will admit that this can, in rare cases, lead to unsatisfying situations where an editor really knows better than several RS, but honestly most of the times it is the other way around.
We care about verifiability, not truth.and
I get where you're coming from that the claim should absolutely be attributed, but it doesn't seem to be all that exceptional unless I'm missing something.
and it alleges Assange committed a crime.No one in any of the sources alleges its a crime. The wikipedia article doesnt allege its a crime. You keep saying it is Softlem ( talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
get more contributors involved in the discussionfor a reason. [14] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey guys,
I recently introduced a small tidbit of material regarding Assange's involvement with the WANK worm and the fact that he co-authored a book that detailed the WANK worm itself. See here. Both the WANK worm and the book are already discussed in his article. Another editor disagreed with my edit for multiple reasons and cited the fact that the article is a contentious topic. The contentious topic policy does not prevent an editor from introducing information to a article and my edit is neither a disputable fact nor was controversial; as I said the topic is already mentioned in the article and there seems to be no valid basis for not including my edit. Please also note that the contentious material warning is not an editing restriction per se and does not prevent constructive editing of a page; pages that are listed as contentious also do not necessarily require a discussion to edit constructively. Comments? Scorch ( talk | ctrb) 00:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
By that logic we should then remove that section.” That argument makes no sense and is not any kind of logic. You make an irrelevant value judgment that it’s a “
dull argument”; I consider it dull content. The claim that it is prominent is original research; the policy can be found here if you don’t understand why. Your edit was not minor, which you can establish for yourself at Wp:MINOR. New disputed content is not to be added a second time without affirmative talk page consensus – that’s how the consensus required sanction works. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, it's a dull argument that it isn't encyclopedic content when that entire section of the Assange article is specifically about that topic, the book is relevant, and the book is also mentioned elsewhere in his article. By that logic we should then remove that section.Your last sentence does not follow logically from the preceding one, ergo it's not a logical argument. Some content being appropriate to a brief biography does not mean other content on the same topic must also be appropriate.
The remaining content is true and can be sourced to the book.
does your edit to the content quell your mind about keeping it in the article or do you still take issue with it?I dont know if youre explaining problems before, now or both Softlem ( talk) 12:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
When, in 1989, the International Subversives, a hacker group of which Assange was a member, launched the “WANK Worm” virus to attack global military networks, they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oil: “You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war.”
Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks Softlem ( talk) 19:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.seems like something I added about WANK and the second version of it called OILZ
The code indicated that the worms evolved over time and was not written by a single person. [1] [2]Not exact same but close Softlem ( talk) 15:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
noone know who was involved, he says
No one knows who wrote the program for the wormthats not the same. He says
Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker groupSoftlem ( talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better then if we had Assange said the Melbourne hacking group was involved, but did not know who wrote the program?Better than what? If you mean add something like
Assange said the International Subversives were involved, but that no one knows who wrote the programthats exactly what I would support
admitit if he wasnt involved. That was the word Fowler used after interviewing Assange Softlem ( talk) 14:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A week since the last comment so propose replacing the current text with
Several sources suggested Assange may have been involved in the
WANK hack at NASA in 1989,
[3]
[4]
[5]: 42 which he called "the origin of hacktivism".
[6] Assange later admitted to
Andrew Fowler it came from the Melbourne hacker group, but that no one knows who wrote the program.
[7]
Its shorter and uses Fowlers words and I think is what NadVolum suggested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlemonades ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Melbourne hacker groupis clearly the International Subversives who are the only hacker group mentioned, and the only reason Assange would admit it is if he was involved which is what Fowler says and what The Monthly said
admitted involvement
the kind of weasel-worded unsupported attribution we ought to avoidThe proposed text gave three citations supporting it. WP:WEASEL says
views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.In text attribution is not needed, but we dont need that part since Assange admitted it.
Assange called the WANK hack at NASA in 1989 "the origin of hacktivism" and later admitted involvement, but said that no one knows who wrote the program.Softlem ( talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Melbourne hacker groupto which he refers is not the same as the "International Subversives". He does so in the immediately succeeding sentence. Given that you've already quoted the relevant passage, your claim otherwise is surprising.
Take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources here on talk. Your claim that AssangeAlthough nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.
admitted itand suggestion to include as much in the article is unsupported by the available sources. How about the status quo. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to your claim, in the book Fowler makes it abundantly clear that the Melbourne hacker group to which he refers is not the same as the "International Subversives". He does so in the immediately succeeding sentenceYou misread it.
he is coy about the involvement of The International SubversivesCoy means
Reluctant to give details about something sensitiveit doesnt mean he didnt say anything about it. Thats clearer when he adds
No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.Its even clearer when you read the rest of the section before that which only talks about one hacking group, the International Subversives
Take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources here on talk. Your claim that Assange admitted itI did not that is the word Fowler used and the The Monthly directly said it was the International Subvserives [16] Softlem ( talk) 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It's slightly ambiguous, but it seems like Assange meant the WANK worm came from the overall collective that was the various associated hackers in Melbourne at the time and not the International Subversives specifically.The Monthly still says [17]
When, in 1989, the International Subversives, a hacker group of which Assange was a member, launched the “WANK Worm” virus to attack global military networks, they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight OilThats not ambiguous Softlem ( talk) 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
No one knows who wrote the program for the wormand
they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oilthey might contradict each other but I thought the sentence meant "when they launched the WANK worm they made this happen" Softlem ( talk) 14:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
then that claim contradicts all of the other sourcesAt most thats new information not a contradiction
In an encyclopedic sense, it isn't really worth noting on this article anyway and has a better home on the relevant article.Sorry, that changes what you meant and local consensus
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
link)
I have removed a description of Avila from this article because it was not in the sources. It is mentioned on her own wikipage but there appears to be no source there either. It may be correct, but in order to use here we need a source which states it and which states that her memo was written in that capacity. Burrobert ( talk) 06:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It is mentioned on her own wikipage but there appears to be no source there either.Its cited on her page /info/en/?search=Renata_%C3%81vila_Pinto#cite_note-3
and which states that her memo was written in that capacity.I dont agree we need a source that says that but if theres a policy or something please tell me. But you made a good point so I wanted to check and the lawyer her wikipedia article said she worked under for the Assange and WikiLeaks case was hired in 2012 [18] so she could not have written it in that capacity and I agree with your revert [19] Softlem ( talk) 06:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This edit
[20] was made by an IP editor with no edit history and no edit summary and removed a paragraph from Personal life. The text had RSes and I think it was DUE because it talked Assanges personal life when he started WikiLeaks and he said he was directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project
The edit should be reverted Softlem ( talk) 12:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
the text seems pretty trivial.Do you mean it wasnt DUE or it needed to be edited? Softlem ( talk) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Not really dueOk thank you
as what does it really tell us about him? Why do we need to know this?Because it was before he did media I thought it revealed a little but it might be WP:CRUFT Softlem ( talk) 12:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Won't comment on the suitability for this page other than:
Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished. Otherwise there will be people adding stuff to both articles and it'll make a horrible mess.I thought making it about arrest and extradition proceedings would stop all the adds here and focus there and make it easier to start a new article about his trial if he is ever extradited Softlem ( talk) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished.Do you mean the section on Julian Assange or the SPLIT article? I want to be sure I understand Softlem ( talk) 14:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The thoughts of David Morales, a contractor for the CIA currently the subject of criminal proceedings in Spain, are not due weight for this biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
please observe
WP:CRPYou did not object to the material. You said you were adding and rewriting. Editors dont know what is a mistake if summaries are unclear. WP:SUMMARYNO If you say you adding and rewriting but remove complete paragraphs and sentences, [23] it seems like a mistake. If you say what types of edits you make it will help. Better summaries are clearer and helps find the right edits later
the word "justified" is not in the source to which this new content is cited. please don't add unsourced editorialising to this biography.It is not
unsourced editorialising. The source said
“We have been informed of suspicions that the guest [this is how Assange was alluded to] is working for the Russian intelligence services, thus the profiling of his visitors and aides,”which is a clear reason why. If the problem was "justified" you should have rewritten it like edit summary said, not removed the entire sentence
the subject of criminal proceedings in SpainAnd WP:BLPCRIME
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
are not due weight for this biography.The reasons why for the surveillance of the subject for this biography are DUE. No other reason has been given and there is not a contested view. It is in the lead of Surveillance of Julian Assange which was copied here per Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_proposal and WP:SUMMARY. According to the RS they are not
The thoughts of David Morales,but what they were
informed ofand decisions made because of that Softlem ( talk) 13:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
to whom you failed to attribute that obviously tendentious viewI didnt fail to attribute anything. Per the edit summary [24] and Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_proposal it was the lead from Surveillance of Julian Assange which readers are told is the Main article and which attributes it every time its mentioned outside the lead which is WP:SUMMARY
There is no reason to accept as fact Morales claimsThey were not claimed as fact in the article. It said it was a reason for the surveillance according to internal emails. If Assange didnt work for Russian intelligence it was still an explanation given for the surveillance
and no indication his opinion is noteworthy.The RSes cite him several times. He was in charge of the surveillance of Assange. His opinion is noteworthy and this is not his opinion, it is what the company was told and the decisions he made reported by RSes
justifiedin the main article since you objected to it Softlem ( talk) 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Hi, shall we use "dropped" or "closed" in the LEAD in reference to end of the Swedish investigation. Please see diff. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Prosecutors in Sweden have dropped an investigation into a rape allegation made against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange in 2010..
The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days: While the woman’s statement was credible, there was no proof that a crime had been committed. It is an unbelievable scandal." Melzer stated that the Swedish government refused to answer questions about its mishandling of the case, effectively "an admission of guilt." Based on his authority, then, we could write something like,
- Darouet ( talk) 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Accused by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture of mishandling Assange's case for nearly a decade, Sweden declined to respond to the allegations, and abandoned their case against Assange.
Context about "all sources" claim
|
---|
|
dropped,
discontinuedand not changing it from closed. I said that changing it needed an RfC because there was disagreement over what to change established content to.
Discontinuedis what I said should it be, is supported by primary and secondary RSes and is the official term used, not including it isnt the right way to do the RfC Softlem ( talk) 10:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
wasnt about the actual disagreement about what it should be changed to which was discontinued or dropped. If you leave out the main other option that is supported by RSes it will be a SNOWBALL always
I dont think this was on purpose but we should do best practices and "Propose the text of the RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC. Especially get feedback on whether the question is neutral from the editors who disagree with you." I wasnt here for a week but would not agree to a question that left out the option I had said we should use and was supported by primary and secondary RSes and what editor would say that an RfC that leaves out a major option at the basic of the argument is best practices?Softlem ( talk) 12:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
That's OK, it means that Softlemonades thinks that "closed" is better than "dropped".No, I said you needed an RFC to change long standing content when there was disagreement about what to change it to and that you counted consensus wrong
Apparently everybody (Softlemonades included) now thinks that "dropped" is better than "closed"I never said that. What made you think that? I want to clarify
However, if Softlemonades thinks that "discontinued" is even better than "dropped"That is what I said since my first reply on 10:43, 23 September 2023
So, let's proceed in an orderly fashion. First we finish this RfC on closed vs dropped and then, in necessary, we'll have dropped vs discontinuedI am okay with that Softlem ( talk) 02:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@
NadVolum I dont know what Wikileaks excuse is just as due as Leigh's
means
[27] It said the files were copied by supporters not by Wikileaks
Ok if it is DUE but what do I miss? Softlem ( talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In the section about Legal issues in Australia the cite about political bribery is
which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Any ideas about what has happened there or how to fix it? NadVolum ( talk) 13:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Propose we replace these sections with the leads of the main pages per WP:SUMMARY
Julian Assange#Swedish sexual assault allegations from Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
Julian Assange#Indictment and arrest from Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange
Julian Assange#Surveillance of Assange in the embassy from Surveillance of Julian Assange
Swedish sexual assault allegations total size is 15,267
Indictment and arrest total size is 41,334
Surveillance of Assange in the embassy total size is 6,620
Article total size is 353,143 and readable size is 100,921. I dont know readable size of sections. I think the three sections are 63221 or almost 18% of the article
Also propose we WP:SPLIT Assessments and Julian Assange#Honours and awards into something like Reception of Julian Assange and summarise the Assessments and Awards on this page. Assessments total size is 38,089 and Honours and awards total size is 7,435. If there is any support we tag it and start a formal discussion Softlem ( talk) 21:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it would have been better to just have an article devoted to the indictments which could cover what is in the section here in "Espionage indictment in the United States" as well as any bits which are relevant from the arrest and extradition hearings.I would support limiting Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange if thats what you mean
The hearings don't really test the indictment, that isn't really all that relevant to an extradition hearing even though it's why he is being extradited.I agree and made it a separate section. Julian Assange#Hearings on extradition to the US would stay the same on this page for this proposal but I am okay with a bigger change
Of course any thing removed from here would need checking against the sub article before removing it.To make sure it is there and content is not lost? Agree Softlem ( talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I oppose removing the awards table if that is what is being proposed, it is pretty lean already and is very encyclopedicI think the table or a text summary should stay. Agree
very encyclopedic
I see that Assessments was already removed, it was quite a lot of text.The text is there, heading name changed to Julian Assange#Reception. I agree it is a lot of text and it would be the main reason for a SPLIT Softlem ( talk) 11:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Article total size is 353,143 and readable size is 100,921
Propose splitting Julian Assange#Reception to a page like Reception of Julian Assange
Assessments from Julian Assange#2010 and 2011-2014 and 2015-2018 and 2019–present would be replaced with a summary
Julian Assange#Honours and awards would be copied to new page but not removed
Talk:Julian Assange#Trimming proposal has some talk about this. Pinging @ NadVolum @ Burrobert @ Jtbobwaysf from it Softlem ( talk) 22:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I dont think that it is necessary to copy content either, the new proposed sub-article that carries Reception does that adequately without the rehashing of the awardsI think it should be copied because
It helps to add balance to the POV that the article subject is primarily notable as a fugitive criminal spy.so it should be on both pages. But its not the reason for SPLIT and we can copy it later if it is DUE Softlem ( talk) 11:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Softlemonades: can you please explain why we should copy the awards content to the new sub-article? It is common for sub-article content to be duplicated on the main article, but I am not knowledgeable of the reverse (which you seem to be proposing). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
can you please explain why we should copy the awards content to the new sub-article?Because its part of his reception and adds balance. I think its DUE for both articles Softlem ( talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think awards is not reception, it is quite a bit above that and wouldnt want to mix the twoDisagree but can keep it out of the SPLIT and only do part we consensus on and talk later at new page about adding awards Softlem ( talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Some former colleagues have criticised his work habits, editorial decisions and personality cleanup needed.first Softlem ( talk) 09:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist. [1] [2] [3] [4] Journalists at the Associated Press, [5] CNN, [6] The Sydney Morning Herald, [7] The LA Times, [8] National Review, [9] The Economist, [10] and The Washington Post [11] argued he was not a journalist. Other journalists at The Independent, [12] The Intercept, [13] the Committee to Protect Journalists, [14] and The Washington Post [15] wrote that he was a journalist or that his actions were still protected.Softlem ( talk) 13:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
If no one objects I will finish SPLIT Monday Softlem ( talk) 13:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Commentary about Julian Assangeis good
Reception ofbecause Reception of WikiLeaks but anything is ok if WP:POVNAMING and WP:CRITICISM Softlem ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
References
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/23/assa-m23.html TimurMamleev ( talk) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Barr makes repeated reference to rape “charges” against Assange—charges that have never existed!It only quotes her not making those references, he would have been charged if he had gone back to Sweden, and what does that have to do with your point?
For nearly nine years, bogus “rape” and “sexual molestation” allegations against Assange have been wielded by Sweden and Britain to smear the WikiLeaks founder and secure his extradition to the US.Not bogus and Assange did more smearing than anyone Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Conspiracy_theories #Statements by Assange #Statements by Assange's lawyers
Assange was always willing to travel to Sweden to answer the allegations against him, but Swedish authorities refused to guarantee against his onward extradition under fast-track “temporary surrender” arrangements in place with the US.They cant promise not to extradite on charges that did not exist and if he was extradited to Sweden would have needed British and Swedish legal approval to send him to the US Softlem ( talk) 12:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"assange" "political prisoner"
If his real crime is ruffling the feathers of the powerful then the answer is yes ... As he languishes in Belmarsh this Christmas, Mary Dejevsky wonders why a man whose only conviction is breaching bail is being held in a category A prison
I started to add that he said he was a political prisoner to main article, it was already there. Softlem ( talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
If hes a hackeris more
core to the convtroversey surrounding the article subjectthan
if hes a political prisonerand has been for his whole life but we dont call him that we just say he was convicted and has new charges. It already says hes in prison and why, saying in the lead he calls himself a political prisoner breaks NPOV and is
unduly self-servingSoftlem ( talk) 12:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner.No he isnt
But prominent claims about the subject should be mentioned in the introI agree but this isnt a prominent claim. He made it and two people compared it, one of them saying HE compared it. Thats not notable
Whether he should be called a hacker or a journalist are separate issues. Let's stick to the point.RFCs decided both and had good logic. Same logic goes here. Thats the point
He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner.Hes described as a lot of things but thats not what hes famous for
The claim that he is a political prisoner has been widespread for YEARS.Then give secondary RSes that dont attribute to him, the ones that were already posted werent enough for the lead
If it is a prominent claim and view about Assange it belongs in the lead for Reception of Julian Assange not this lead
Theres a subarticle about this, we dont put every prominent claim and view about Assange in the lead here. And lead follows body so we add to section and sub article first then this lead if there is enough Softlem ( talk) 13:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland I dont understand the changes to the early section of the article. I think his career before wikileaks should be kept from his early life and wikileaks
I tried the compare tool but it didnt show all the edits Softlem ( talk) 00:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
He was hacking when he was 16, so I think that's part of his early lifeHe was convicted in his twentys and early leaks and activism was later. I dont think putting it in Early life helps readers and articles arent divided by age
Hacking prior to wikileaks is not related to wikileaksAgree and maybe theres a better heading than Before Wikileaks but I dont think Early life fits for almost 30 years, a trial, conviction, leaks, activism and more
I think perhaps just change 'Early life and education' to 'Early life' might be best.Agree thats better
Well I definitely think 'Before Wikileaks' being put so early was wrongI dont understand but I dont have more Softlem ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe the edit by Burrobert [30] is far more consistent with NPOV than the reversion by SPECIFICO in the main article which has now been reverted. If the judge makes a number of rulings it is just wrong to cherrypick some and not report others which are just as important and are just as prominent in the source. NadVolum ( talk) 00:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to add a section that that specifically covers his current situation? 86.184.224.11 ( talk) 20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This section consists only of two instances, from a decade and more ago, where Assange could be charged in Australia. Do we really need to take up space with this? If he is actually charged, we can address the issues at that point. Jack Upland ( talk) 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Walkabout links to a page that defines it as an Aboriginal rite of passage. Assange is not an Aborigine. I think (from Robert Manne's article) he spent time sleeping rough in a national park. I don't know the best way to phrase this. Jack Upland ( talk) 02:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
sleeping rough” is not in the source, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
User @ Lacebugger updated the page to report today's death of Assange, without adding any source that Assange is, in fact, dead. Mago Mercurio ( talk) 03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The claim of "deserve to die" is obviously pretty inflammatory (and had a bearing on the indictment). Andrew O'Hagan reports that Assange denied ever having made this claim. Given the only source is Leigh and Harding, who were in a legal dispute with Assange over precisely this issue, this is not appropriate to include. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
There's good evidence Leigh lied- as far as I can tell, there is no evidence of this, just the claim of Goetz and Assange. Will you please strike it?
A fair amount of text related to Assange's world view was recently removed from the article because the editor was "Not convinced that this is an improvement - and we need more evidence that these views are sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion". The article currently contains little information about Assange's views. The only time recently that (some) editors showed enthusiasm for including Assange's views was in relation to a (possibly) imaginary statement that would cast him in a poor light. I will break up the text into small packets, provide sources for each and ask editors to decide whether the text would improve the article. To keep the discussion from becoming confused, I will start a separate talk section for each item. The first packet is the sentence
"Assange described WikiLeaks as an activist organisation and said that "The method is transparency, the goal is justice".
Apparently this was a motto on WikiLeaks' website when it was founded. Here are some sources which support the inclusion of this sentence:
Burrobert ( talk) 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Are there any reasons why Wikipedia cannot highlight the shameful way that media outlets are willing allow Julian Assange (their one-time hero) to rot in jail, while at the the same time rushing to report the death of a (relatively minor) ACTORvist in Russia? 95.147.153.31 ( talk) 10:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Richard-of-Earth: i noted your removal of Spoilerceaser ( talk · contribs)'s add to the lead. We did indeed reach consensus that this term would not be used in teh first sentence of the lead. However, there was a lot of support for this content to be in the lead in some way and that was summarized in the close. I have added that to the lead in the 3rd paragraph in a neutral way. I think we should be doing something to add this to the lead given the continued interest by editors to have it there. This content is clearly WP:DUE in the lead, as we are summarizing the key point of notoriety of this subject. We can run another RFC on this if you feel it shouldn't be there. I think this can also reasonable assuage the editors that are seeking to the be the lead, but dont know that we already have had an rfc on it (as you correctly point out). Spoilerceaser, please do not keep adding this to the first sentence, you will likely get a ban for it if you continue. Hopefully this is enough to meet your goals, noting this is a somewhat controversial point on this article (an already controversial article). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
not to describe Assange as a journalist in Wikipedia's voice. That is the current consensus and I think it applies to anywhere on Wikipedia. Your edit does not violate that and I have no objection to it. Spoilerceaser, your does. You added it to the short description which is in Wikipedia's voice. I reverted and told you why and then you just did it again with no discussion or rationalization. So I have reverted it again. It is not edit warring on my part to enforce the consensus of an RFC nor to remove disruptive editing. As editors we are suppose to be working together to improve Wikipedia. I personally do not care for Assange and I do not think he should be described as a journalist. However, I feel he should be afforded the same protection that journalists receive for his actions in regard to Wikileaks as a publisher and contact point for whistleblowers. It is not like he was selling this information to the enemies of any state or using the information for extortion. The way he is being treated is shameful and an abuse of the justice system that is suppose to protect us, not suppress freedom of the press. He is still not a journalist as far as I am concern. Richard-of-Earth ( talk)
We can have another RFC, but until the old one is overturned it stands. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Has there ever been a journalist with more awards and accolades? No. Explore this interactive map showcasing Julian Assange’s awards for journalism, local honours and accolades: https://freeassange.org/free-assange-interactive-map/ -- 91.54.26.201 ( talk) 05:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I find it entitely absurd that a man who has won as many journalism awards isnt good enough to be considered a journalist by wikipedia https://freeassange.org/free-assange-interactive-map/
. I woild like to propose that we vote on this again 94.205.38.119 ( talk) 20:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Assange has won multiple awards for publishing and journalism.Softlem ( talk) 13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)