Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

New Guardian article

Quinn, Ben (26 October 2021). "Julian Assange: what to expect from the extradition appeal". the Guardian.

The Guardian talked with Nick Vamos, a former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service, about Assanges chances and the various issues which have arisen since January. Amongst them it mentions Thordarson, and Vamos suggests that the Icelander’s apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case, although he regarded it as an unknown quantity. “Either way, it’s an issue which Assange’s lawyers will say the US must address, because the US cannot simply insist that nothing about the prosecution case has changed,” he added.

Personally I think the US is headed towads a train crash. Releasing people on medical grounds has been done a few times in the past in the UK where it is obvious they have a very bad case and need to release a person but don't want to lose face or admit to wrongdoing. NadVolum (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: At this point, the last thing we need in Assange's BLP is conjecture about the outcome of his contested extradition. As we already note, a ruling by the High Court of Justice in London is expected by the end of this month, after which the losing side can appeal to the Supreme Court; alternatively, the High Court could remand the case to the lower court to reconsider Assange's risk of suicide. Please, let's just wait for 30 days and see what actually happens, not what some ex-official quoted by The Guardian speculates. And, by the way, your personal opinion about the U.S. being headed towards a train crash violates WP:SOAPBOX. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read the aricle you'll see this is probably more relevant to a subsequent trial if any. Not that that has any bearing on what Wikipedia should do. The article currently does not mention that Thordarson was the one named as Teenager in the case. It also does not say anything about the significance of the recanting. Anything like that has been blocked on the basis that it was not been widely enough reported in the mainstream press. Well we now have quite enough reporting in the mainstream press. And we have a lawyer who was a former head of the extradition service commenting on its significance and reported in a mainstream reliable source. NadVolum (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

THis article is about Assange, not his trial, which already takes up way too much space. And until it has an impact on the court it has had no impact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Assange is in jail currently because of the charges. I think the trial is rightfully part of his biography, unless it is split off into a separate article in which case just a summary should be here. If you are concerned about the size I'm sure you could do such a split. Since there is an expert opinion in a mainstream reliable source saying Thordarson's recantation could well be critical to the case I don't think this is too trivial by reason of the size of the article to include. You have a different opinion on it, so which do you think is the more important reason for not having anything more - the size of the article or that it has had no impact or that it has nothing to do with Assange? Or do you think that a combination of factors that you said is required to make it ineligiable for inclusion? NadVolum (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: The Guardian story you cited said Thordarson's "comments may be cited this week by Assange's lawyers, though are much more likely to form a key part of a cross appeal which has been lodged, and which only comes into play if the US is successful this week." I cannot find a follow-up article by The Guardian as to whether or not Assange's lawyers did in fact cite Thordarson's comments during last week's two-day appeal hearing. If no WP:RS reported them doing so, it calls into question just how important Assange's own lawyers think Thordarson's unsworn recantation is in this case. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not call into question or indeed have any bearing on the thinking of A's lawyers. The high court hearing was on the issues raised by the lawyers acting for the U.S.; they have every reason to take pains to avoid raising in that appeal anything that would allow the defence to bring in the fraudulent testimony that the Justice Department's agents extracted from Thordarson. If and when the defence has the opportunity to cross-appeal is the point at which the issue would be raised. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Then what is the argument for adding the latest Thordarson-related opinions of Nick Vamos, as reported by The Guardian, to our BLP of Julian Assange? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You've positioned and indented this comment as though it's a reply to mine. What exactly in my comment did you interpret as making a case for the inclusion of the view of Nick Vamos? Cambial — foliar❧ 00:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe inclusion of the 26 Oct 2021 musings of the esteemed Nick Vamos is the subject of this thread. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. But you raised a tangential issue around an assumption you had made about the importance A's lawyers attach to Thordarson's fraudulent testimony, to which I responded. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not musings about whether there should be some follow ups or lets wait for a final court case to decide. As to those points a reading of the article will show that the point was not likely to form part of this stage of the extradition which is about District Judge Vanessa Baraitser blocking the extradition on health grounds. The threat by the CIA to make him suffer or to kill him is far more relevant to that than this FBI business. So can we have less of editors here making out they know better than an expert asked by the Guardian? Especially one of this standing. NadVolum (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

In other words, there is no reason to include the 26 Oct 2021 crystal ball gazings of The Guardian′s go-to expert Nick Vamos, about an event (Assange's trial in the United States) that is by no means certain to take place, in Assange's Wikipedia BLP at this time. OK then. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We should give an indication of the significance of the recantation as most reliable soures say it is key and an actual lawyer who was in charge of the extradition service says it may be critical. If you will look at WP:CRYSTALBALL that you pointed at it says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I await consensus supporting your interpretation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On what grounds are you objecting. Crystalball? In what way am I misreading it if so? NadVolum (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's irritating to me to read discussions where one side uses egregious misinterpretations of policy. The WP:CRYSTALBALL angle was used by Trump supporters to try to stop articles from saying that his term would end on Jan. 20. But just as we can report opinions about what happened in the past, we can report opinions about what may happen in the future. The only reason to exclude Vamos' opinion would be weight, that it has not received sufficient attention. But since editors have largely ignored that issue and focus on the bogus issue of WP:CRYSTALBALL, my vote is for inclusion. TFD (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: How about WP:UNDUE? Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all…. In this case, Nick Vamos is a minority of one, unless and until you can cite other similarly situated experts who concur with his opinion that Sigurdur Thordarson's "apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case." Since you are the editor here most fixated on Siggi, I leave it to you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Nick Vamos is a minority of one is wildly inaccurate. As already discussed at length in previous sections, his view is also that of several European newspapers of wide circulation and other reliable WP:NEWSORGs, including Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, The Intercept &c. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's good to know. Please, which of those sources quote experts similarly situated to Nick Vamos? I believe the issue here is not journalistic opinion, but legal opinion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your belief is wrong. Reliable sources is the issue. Please, which are the legal opinions giving an opposing view? Cambial — foliar❧ 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So far as I know, Nick Vamos's expert opinion that Thordarson's "apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case" is the only one published by WP:RS. That's why I asked NadVolum to cite other similarly situated experts who concur with Nick's opinion. Please, let's give Nad a chance to respond. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So one expert and multiple mainstream reliable sources characterise the witness as critical or key to the case. That’s not a minority of one. The point is that your request for other similarly situated experts is of essentially no relevance to the question of inclusion, given the wide agreement in RS. As far as I’m aware one source disagrees with that view; it’s the opposing view to the consensus that Thordarson is a key or critical element in the case that represents a minority of one. You have it completely backwards. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that in determining due weight, we should conflate journalistic opinions, however reliably sourced, with qualified legal expert opinion. Perhaps other editors support your view. We shall see. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, but as there’s no conflating of the two happening here, you can rest easy. We are simply using both, because news organisations are considered reliable sources. What is the extent of legal expert opinion giving a different view? It sure looks like none whatsoever. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I also support inclusion, along with reference to the wide consensus in reliable sources that Thordarson’s fraudulent testimony is key to the case. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We now have three editors in this thread who support inclusion of Nick Vamos's opinion as reported by The Guardian.

• NadVolum
• Cambial Yellowing
• TFD

There are two editors who oppose inclusion.

• Slatersteven
• Basketcase2022

I'm not sure this constitutes consensus, but at least the subject is attracting the attention it deserves. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It definitely isn’t consensus. Let’s see if there is any more contributions and gather wider community input if necessary. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Or just wait until this speculation becoemes fact, wp:notnews may well cover this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If there were some speculation I would agree. But the fraudulent testimony already forms a key part of the superseding indictment, as reported by multiple RS. They're not speculating: they simply read the filing. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we have an RS that says that the fraudulent testimony has been dismissed by the courts, or has been rasoed by the defense?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To what end? The fraudulent testimony has already been used by those acting for the U.S., when attempting to demonstrate that there is a case to be heard. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Because some RS have also said it was not key to the case, and so until its retraction has an impact on the case it is speculation to say it will have an impact on the case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, one RS said it was not key to the case. To quote from the non-negotiable policy that you refer or link to at least seven times in the past few weeks: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So if he was so key the US will lose, until then it is speculation. So we can afford to wait, we are not a newspaper and we do not have to report every comment, twist or turn.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

1. You have a perhaps overly sanguine view on the functioning of the justice system. 2. There is no speculation ("conjecture without knowing the complete facts"/"a theory or conjecture without firm evidence"). There is analysis from reading the filing. The complete facts of what constitutes the case are a matter of public record. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If you mean I think until the courts have spoken we can't say what the courts will say, yes I have a "overly sanguine view on the functioning of the justice system". But with the above making it personal I will allow others to chip inSlatersteven (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean that. It was a reference to "So if he was so key the US will lose". Without the notional speculation on which the ostensible relevance of "notnews" relies, there is no serious policy-based objection to Nadvolum's proposed addition. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE WP:NOTNEWS WP:ONUS WP:SOAPBOX WP:BLUDGEON.WP:GUARDIAN Let's take two aspirin and call back in a month. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this competitive posting of the greatest number of irrelevant policy shortcuts? I’m not into silly games, and they’re not appropriate here: maybe play them on your talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thordarson was the first known informant to work for the FBI from inside Wikileaks: for a while he worked with and was trusted by Assange (where others in the organisation where suspicious). According to the Stundin interviews/expose he claims to have lied in testimony that appears in the US case against Assange, testimony that was presented to Judge Vanessa Baraitser and was mentioned in her 2021 Judgement – indeed he is mentioned more often in the US indictment than any other potential witness apart from Manning. He appears to be a cereal fraudster, a paedophile a diagnosed psychopath and an inveterate liar - he may well have promised immunity from conviction by the FBI in exchange for information harmful to Assange. Every regular editor working on this page knows these are important considerations in Assange’s legal case and hence in his life (his whole future hangs on this case) – why would any person of integrity wish to keep this stuff off the page? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, you write:

• Thordarson was the first known informant to work for the FBI from inside Wikileaks.

Our Assange BLP already includes:

• In August 2011, WikiLeaks volunteer Sigurdur Thordarson, working in his home country Iceland, contacted the FBI and, after presenting a copy of Assange's passport at the American embassy, became the first informant to work for the FBI from inside WikiLeaks.

You also write:

• According to the Stundin interviews/expose he claims to have lied in testimony that appears in the US case against Assange.

Our Assange BLP already includes:

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

It seems the excluded information on this point that you wish to add to our Assange BLP is:

• Thordarson appears to be a cereal [sic] fraudster, a paedophile a diagnosed psychopath and an inveterate liar - he may well have [been] promised immunity from conviction by the FBI in exchange for information harmful to Assange.

Is that your considered position as a person of integrity? Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I do wish to include the later information you highlighted in green (though not only that). Have you any objections? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, thank you for asking! I do object to your weasel wording "appears to be…" and "may well have [been]…". If WP:RS report definitively that Thordarson is a cereal [sic] fraudster, a paedophile, a diagnosed psychopath and an inveterate liar who was promised immunity in exchange for information harmful to Assange, please identify those references when you propose such clinical and legal descriptions. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Just in passing could you please read the following [1] Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 PS since I clearly didn’t express myself clearly enough for you: my “Thordarson was the first known...” was driving at the point that: Thordarson was used as an informant by the FBI: a potential witness in the US indictment against Assange: His testimony was presented in Assange’s extradition hearing where Baraitser went on to include reference to it in her summing up/decision. Thordarson is seemingly a highly unreliable witness a fact that was presumably not known to the court at Assange’s first hearing – here’s the point: an injustice seems to have been done and we, if we have integrity (perhaps you’d like to scoff again at that) should be drawing attention to these facts. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know where the red link was supposed to link to. Developing a single actual relevant point would be better, having a whole lot indicates none of them was considered strong enough in itself. All I can make of it is an overall case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Other than that there was a query about if any other lawyers had commented. I did see one but it was in an interview and so counts as a primary source which is unfortunate as it had a number of relevant interviewees who actually say things:

Kristinn Hrafnsson; Ögmundur Jónasson; Bjartmar Alexandersson; Julian Hill; Alexander Mercouris; John Kiriakou (18 July 2021). "Assange on the Brink". Consortiumnews (Interview). Interviewed by Lauria, Joe. Retrieved 5 August 2021.

The lawyer in that was not a domain expert like the one in the Guardian. The question about how important the recanting is dates back to July so I can't see how WP:NOTNEWS applies. NadVolum (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any predictions about what is going to happen in this court case. We will find out soon enough. There are way too many possibilities to include in an article which is already too long.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is an assessment of the importance of the witness, what is the point of mentioning him if he has no importance in the case. And his possibly high significance is plastered over practically every mention in reliable sources. Secondly as to soon enough I wouldn't be surprised if some of those concerned are dead before a final decision is made. The current court case has nothing to do with the actual case at all, it is about Judge Baraitser decision about his health. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The article you cited is clearly about the extradition appeal. If you are seriously suggesting we include speculation about the distant future, then that is more objectionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This is trivial. It does not take an expert to know that defense attorneys say whatever it takes to try to free their clients. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. SPECIFICO talk 07:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He is not a defence attorney. He is an expert interviewed by the Guardian who in his past job would if anything been involved in prosecuting Assange. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He was speculating as to the future actions of Assange's defence attorney. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Which as "He is not a defence attorney" makes this even more speculative. He is speculating on what others might do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And the speculation that is attributed to him is a trite and generic observation about how every defence attorney might "throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks". There's nothing "expert" in that opinion. Quite the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please quote the policy or guideline that says we should not use speculation reported in reliable sources. (And please don't type in WP:RANDOMPOLICY without explaining its relevance.) It sounds like the anti-vaxxer argument: What do the experts know? TFD (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE NOTNEWS etc. I'm sure you're familiar with what they say. Not sure what vaccines have to do with it? SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I asked you not to "type in WP:RANDOMPOLICY without explaining its relevance". UNDUE, NOTNEWS and CRYSTALBALL say nothing about "we should not use speculation reported in reliable sources." I suggest you read them, before citing them. TFD (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you're confusing my comments with others? It should be quite clear from mine that I read the proposed RS. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you need to say wp:undue this is one persons view of what might happen (it what appears to be solicited opinion by the source), a person who is not part of the case, not even as a witness. wp:news this is just speculation published in a newspaper by someone who is not on the legal team, and so can't know what they are planning. Also we might invoke wp:crystal (see reasons above).

It is down to the courts (not us, we are not a court of issue) to decide if Assange has been unfairly treated. We are wp:not many things and one of them is not a place to wp:rightgreatwrongs. Any argument that violates either of those is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does CRYSTALBALL say that speculation cannot be published. In fact, it says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." It looks like you have decided you don't want anything that questions the charges placed against Assange to be in the article and are randomly throwing policy links without actually reading the policies first. IOW you are righting great wrongs yourself. TFD (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Its why I said might. But in this case I would argue as this person is in no way involved in the case it is ideal speculation. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ", as he is not party to the trial we do not know if his prediction will even be used by the defense.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So you think that prosecutors and defense lawyers are more reliable than independent experts. I hope you are never called for jury service. TFD (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to what they intended to do, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about writing up stuff without having reliable sources. I do wish you'd get your grounds right for whatever it is you think is wrong. Or simply explain it in plain English. Nobody has been talking about whether Assange is being unfairly treated, only whether it is reasonable to put into the article the widly expressed opinion in reliable sources that Thordarson is a key witness which an expert has now in efffect also said. Both the lawyer and the newspaper are quite aware of what is right or wrong about saying whether a witness may be critical to a case and they were happy to do so. I really don't think editors here should try to override the decisions of reliable sources, especially not a mainstream and very reliable source nor a highly rated lawyer who is expert in the relevant law. NadVolum (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

" here’s the point: an injustice seems to have been done and we, if we have integrity (perhaps you’d like to scoff again at that) should be drawing attention to these facts".Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What injustice and how is that relevant? In America there is absolute Prosecutorial immunity so whatever has or will happen about this it isn't a crime. The question is a here and now one, do reliable sources consider Thordarson a key witness in the case against Assange which has had him in jail for quite a while now. NadVolum (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How should I know, I am not the one who made that argument here (It is a cut and paste).Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you cut and pasted that from but there's two parts of rightgreatwrongs, there has to be the motivation which is pretty much covered by that paste, but there is also the bit about going against Wikipedia policy which is trying to change Wikipedia to conform to one's own unverified opinion rather than going by reliable sources. I don't suppose I can do anything about changing your thoughts about my motivation, and really I'm not into duty calls, but this does have reliable sources and is referred to in headlines as well as having expert opinion on it. NadVolum (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

From this thread, it was said here, hence why I say it is not a valid argument for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, Prunesqualor said it above when they introduced some stuff unrelated to the Guardian article, and I wish they hadn't. It would have been better if you had not put it in as a reply to something I said. But actually the same applies - they've given their motivation but it does not become WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS unless they start trying to put in stuff which fails verifiability or otherwise pushes for it overly when it shouldn't really be in otherwise. The motivation on its own does not mean something should not be in - thoulgh I'd certainly like a bit more WP:NPOV around. NadVolum (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is not [{WP:NPOV]]. The article as a whole presents synthesized, undue and unverified content that does indeed appear to be what @Slatersteven: described. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

have you something to contribute to the subject of this section? As far as I can make out the single main objection to including the bit about Thordarson being a possibly critical witness is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is that your view too? NadVolum (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I've stated my concern several times. Add another: WP:BLUDGEON by several editors. There's clearly no consensus to add this. Why continue to repeat empty denials? SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden administration promised...

As a matter of interest, when the article says "the Biden administration assured the Crown Prosecution Services" about how Assange would be treated, who actually does the assuring? Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A good question.- many of the reports I’ve seen about these “assurances” say that “The U.S.” or “the U.S. Government” offer them. I guess it works like other international negotiations eg trade agreements or peace treaties: all the various arms of the state - presidency, congress, judiciary etc - are treated as a single national entity for the purpose of negotiation. So I suppose these guarantees are as good as other international agreements – however, as pointed to in the article the U.S. have, in this instance, given themselves get out clauses which some experts say render the “assurances” worthless Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A note on reversions of my edits by SPECIFICO

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

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

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

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

"he was a flight risk"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Slatersteven You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC to summarize AP2 section

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

---

Propose to summarize Julian Assange#2016 U.S. presidential election section that is subject of extended WP:TE

Option A. Proposed text: "During the U.S. 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted a searchable database of emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016 and were widely cited in press during the election. Assange spoke negatively of both candidates stating "The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers." On 7 October, Assange posted a press release on WikiLeaks exposing the second batch of emails, these from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Oct 7 email leak was attributed to the Russian government but Assange stated the Russian government was not the source of the DNC and Podesta emails, and accused the Clinton campaign of "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russian involvement."

Option B. Summarize to any other one-paragraph summary of similar size to Option A that contains no quotations of anyone except the article subject. (There is no need to add additional proposed paragraphs to this RFC, that can be done is a subsequent RFC if necessary.)

Option C. Leave it as is or expand it.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Option D Last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021‎).Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Given that the last stable version (as of 12:01, 8 October 2021‎) is identical to the present version, Option C should be revised to say only "Expand it." As they are now worded, options C and D are not mutually exclusive because Option C says "Leave it as is or expand it." Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Option A noting Option B is an acceptable second choice as I am largely indifferent to the text, other than stating that it should not have any quotes by anyone who is not the article subject and should be a summary of the main article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C last stable version As only giving Assanges POV is a violation of wp:NPOV and (I would argue) wp:BLP. Note as a result of all the tooing and throwing there is not "Leave it as is" as such I have to say the version of 6th October, and start again. [[Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is kind of my point, but I said "the version of 6th October", in other words before this round of edit and counter edit. But in terms of this content (and this content alone) this version of the text [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: There must be some mistake. The talk page section on which we are commenting is an RfC proposing to summarize subsection 4.6 2016 U.S. presidential election. The diff to which you have linked shows an edit to subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments. Please explain. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, there is no mistake, the last consensus version was the version that is in the article at that point. I have no idea when that version was added, which is why I gave a date, and no a diff.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Of course I could just post the text of the last consensus version, the long-standing version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Slatersteven: Please forgive my newcomer's confusion. I had expected the diff to display the corresponding text in 2-column format, and failed to scroll down to the formatted article content. However, when I did so, I discovered that for the first two paragraphs of subsection 5.6 Appeal and other developments, which are the subject of this RfC, what you are calling the last stable version is identical to the present version. In other words, you are voting for both Option C (Leave it as is or expand it) and Option D (Last stable version). Is that correct? Thank you for bearing with me. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  No I am not as I have struck my vote for C, and have explained why, it is meaningless as there is not one version it can refer to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option A or B The 2016 U.S. election section is greatly overblown – The issues dealt with already have their own Wiki article and are covered in numerous other articles - As I said earlier: “regarding Julian Assange’s part in the 2016 U.S. election. Wikileaks published some information, which other outlets also published, and Assange made some not very sensible comments at the time”. Hardly earth shattering. Whenever party politics rears its ugly head then issues get exploited and “spun” out of recognition. Hillary’s 2016 loss, and the alleged causes, are a classic example. Option A restores the coverage in Assange’s article to something like its proper size/importance – and we leave the link to the Main article: “2016 Democratic National Committee email leak” for readers who wish to learn more. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C / last stable version as a starting point. Strenuous opposition to both A and B, or to any proposal to reduce it to a single paragraph, and to the RFC as a whole; A and B go drastically beyond anything that was remotely discussed in the section above or any versions that have been seriously proposed, which fails both WP:RFCBEFORE and common sense - it makes no sense to leap straight from a dispute over a much more modest reduction to the section to such a drastic one. Numerous severe omissions here, most particularly "attributed to the Russian government", which drastically understates the sources and which is unacceptably vague about who is doing the attribution and the omission of any mention whatsoever of the Access Hollywood tape; numerous sources indicate that Assange was pushed by Stone to release the Podesta emails in response to it:
  • Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
  • The Senate Intelligence Committee notes that Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone called up author Jerome Corsi the day that the Trump Access Hollywood tape was released and may have encouraged him to put pressure on Julian Assange to release stolen emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta in direct response.
  • When Trump’s campaign learned about devastating recordings of the candidate boasting about sexual assault in October, Stone told his contact, Jerome Corsi, to get Julian Assange to “drop the Podesta emails immediately.” (WikiLeaks did so.)

The exact wording can be workshopped but none of the proposed versions remotely reflect this central background. More generally, this is a core event in Assange's biography and reputation; trying to condense it to a single paragraph is completely unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Please provide diff to what you consider the last stable version. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

By last stable version I don't intend to refer to one specific diff (because I merely think it should be used as a starting point, with tweaks discussed and hammered out individually rather than the fairly drastic cuts we've seen since then; I'm not suggesting we go back to that version and then keep it unchanged forever - I agree there are some parts that could be mildly trimmed or tweaked, as well as some things I'd want to add.) But it would probably be something around this version, immediately before Prunesquealer started making wholesale removals. (Note that this is just in reference to that section; the rest of the article was not necessarily stable.) As I mentioned above, I don't agree that the section as a whole is too big or undue, and therefore I oppose large-scale cuts premised on that; there are parts that could be condensed, reworded, or refocused, but too much was changed, too quickly, and this up-and-down RFC on such drastic cuts isn't remotely adequate to affirm them, especially given how the other two proposals are woefully inadequate and "C" is worded in a way that makes it hard to express opposition to the cuts in general (ie. I want to make it unambiguous that by supporting "C" I am opposing most of the recent cuts and saying we need to go back to the drawing board on most of them, undo every removal that hasn't received a clear consensus, and proceed with a presumption that the section will merely be tweaked and not drastically trimmed or overhaulled, since I fear some people might misinterpret it as an endorsement of where things were when the RFC started - which meant there was no option that did not endorse the drastic and clearly contentious cuts that are actually the focus of the dispute the RFC was notionally meant to resolve.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• C And then chop it down to the bits that refer to Assange personally. Or B and add a bit to give context or avoid POV. But A is just unreadable. I had a look at Podesta emails and it doesn't mention Stone or Corsi. If they're so important they should be put in that article first, but do mention the business about Corsi denying contacting Assange even when offered a plea bargain. NadVolum (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• A - Indeed, it's accurate & correctly elaborate. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option C / leave it as is with consensus to move some of the info to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak as right now if we go with Option A then we loose out on some of the sources/content that isn't in the main article. Dawiston (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

RfC should not mention allegation of WP:TE. It's not neutral, and it's not relevant to the RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion (III)

• Comment I have proposed this RFC due to the above ad nauseam arguments and TE that goes on relating to this problematic section. Other editors have imposed various types of DS on this article, and my suggestion is that limiting the scope of the section to simply a summary will have sufficient power to stop the AP2 arguing on this article. We have an existing policy in place that a section who subject has a main article, the section should simply be a summary. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• The 1st half of the current 3rd paragraph is the only part of the current text I see as problematic, as it isn't about Assange's role with the Podesta emails, but instead tried to associate Assange with Trump and the Access Hollywood tape in a way that the sources don't. Iffy★Chat -- 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The sources absolutely do; see the sources I cited above. Numerous sources state that Stone instructed Jerome Corsi to contact or put pressure on Assange directly, and no sources (that I am aware of) contest it. --Aquillion (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Mentioning that isn't appropriate on this article as none of the sources directly link Corsi (and therefore Stone and Trump) to Assange. That's where the chain is broken. Iffy★Chat -- 11:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes the best the Mueller report has is something about Roger Stone contacting Jerome Corsi contacting Ted Malloch who might have contacted Nigel Farage who might have contacted someone else to contact Julian Assange. Which is at six degrees of separation :-) Oops only five! Gosh! NadVolum (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

      The sources I cited above directly make that link. Disagreeing with them and expressing the opinion, as an editor, that they shouldn't make that link has no bearing; they unequivocally do. Vanity Fair directly says "Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta." I'm unaware of any sources directly contradicting this; we can mention that Corsi denied it, but we cannot use that as a reason to exclude something that multiple high-quality sources cover as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - FWIW, Clinton wasn't the Secretary of State during the 2016 campaign. She resigned that post on February 1, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  The phrasing used in both the existing text (twice) and in the proposed replacement Option A is emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. Nowhere is candidate Clinton misidentified as the serving Secretary of State. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this RfC is highly premature. We have not even discussed and identified possible problems and solutions with respect to the current text. An RfC should be the last step in deciding on an improvement, not a very general first step before the structure and detail of the issue has been identified. This RfC really should be withdrawn for now and, if necessary, a more constructive one launched after the issues and alternatives are clear. @Jtbobwaysf: SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC) By the way, there has been no "extended TE" on this section. Attention turned to it roughly 24 hours ago, and if not for a series of ill-advised removals that should have been anticipated would be challenged, there would have been nothing but (one hopes) a talk page proposal or two. Things don't happen quickly in difficult articles, but they can often happen right if everyone is patient. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the text of the long standing version.

"2016 U.S. presidential election Main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak During the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted a searchable database of emails sent or received by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request in February 2016.[260][261] The emails were a major point of discussion during the presidential election and prompted an FBI investigation of Clinton for using a private email server for classified documents while she was US Secretary of State.[262]

In February 2016, Assange wrote: "I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. ... she certainly should not become president of the United States."[263] On 25 July, following the Republican National Convention, Assange said that choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea. "Personally, I would prefer neither."[264][265][266] In an Election Day statement, Assange criticised both Clinton and Trump, saying that "The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers."[267]

Image of Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaking at Democratic national Convention Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chairwoman following WikiLeaks releases suggesting bias against Bernie Sanders. On 22 July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in which the DNC seemingly presented ways of undercutting Clinton's competitor Bernie Sanders and showed apparent favouritism towards Clinton. The release led to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and an apology to Sanders from the DNC.[268][269] The New York Times wrote that Assange had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention because he believed Clinton had pushed for his indictment and he regarded her as a "liberal war hawk".[270]

On 7 October, the Washington Post published a story on the Access Hollywood tape, a recording of a Trump interview conducted by television host Billy Bush in 2005, in which Trump described his habit of sexually assaulting women.[271] Also on 7 October, shortly after the Post article was released, Assange posted a press release on WikiLeaks exposing a second batch of emails with over 2,000 mails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.[272] Podesta, in an interview with CNN, stated "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence."[273]

In mid-October, the Ecuadorian government severed Assange's Internet connection because of the leaks.[274] In December, Assange said the connection had been restored.[275]

Cybersecurity experts attributed the attack to the Russian government.[276] The Central Intelligence Agency, together with several other agencies, concluded that Russian intelligence agencies hacked the DNC servers, as well as Podesta's email account, and provided the information to WikiLeaks to bolster Trump's election campaign.[277] As a result of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, 12 Russian GRU military intelligence agents were indicted on 13 July 2018 for the attack on the DNC mail-server. According to the Mueller report, this group shared these mails using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0 with WikiLeaks and other entities.[278] The investigation also unearthed communications between Guccifer 2.0, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, in which they coordinated the release of the material.[272]

In interviews, Assange repeatedly said that the Russian government was not the source of the DNC and Podesta emails,[279][280][281] and accused the Clinton campaign of "a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria" about Russian involvement.[282] On the eve of the election, Assange addressed the criticism he had received for publishing Clinton material, saying that WikiLeaks publishes "material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere," that it had never received any information on Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson's campaign.[283][284] Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[285]

A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said that WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government, focusing instead on hacks relating to the US presidential election.[286] WikiLeaks said that, as far as it could recall, the material was already public.[286]

In April 2018, the DNC sued WikiLeaks for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and US federal statutes. It accused WikiLeaks and Russia of a "brazen attack on American democracy".[287] The Committee to Protect Journalists said that the lawsuit raised several important press freedom questions.[288] The suit was dismissed with prejudice in July 2019. Judge John Koeltl said that WikiLeaks "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and were therefore within the law in publishing the information.[289]

In a July 2016 interview on Dutch television, Assange hinted that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result. Seeking clarification, the interviewer asked Assange whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder," to which Assange answered, "No. There's no finding. So, I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."[290] WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder and wrote,[291]

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

Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[292][291][293] and set off a spike in attention to the murder. Assange's statements lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet.[294] According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source.[295][296][297] Assange must have known[according to whom?] that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material.[295][272]"

This is what we should be resetting to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now reset the text back to the long-term stable version that has been in the article for months.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the right thing to do, and I again request that this RfC -- which will resolve nothing be withdrawn so that we can discuss big-picture and detailed choices before reducing the most important ones to a poll (if needed). SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed, option C is far too vague (which is the version it refers to?). Also there should have been an option to return (as I have now added) to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I think the base version before te sanction came into effect is the last edit before it was applied which is [3] and there seems to be a standard m:The Wrong Version about that. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

No change required to conform with the preceding RfC closure

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

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

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

“2016 U.S. presidential election” section

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

“See main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

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

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

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

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

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

For instance we have 'Podesta, in an interview with CNN, stated "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence."[210]'. Why are we including personal conspiracy thories? Similarly 'Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[222]' is not include in the article about the email leak and what qualifications have they got for their musing? Did they do a statistical study and are they even qalified to? In the light of the response to #New Guardian article above surely we should be very much more careful about checking the credentials of opinions like these? There's also a lot there that does not reference Assange but only Wikileaks. For instance why is the bit about the Access Hollywood tape in there at all? Why the reference to the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz which is at best second or third hand related to Assange?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment on Yahoo report

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

---

Should we include

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

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

Yes

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes as DUE, notable, and well sourced text. Just a procedural note - this currently has overwhelming consensus for inclusion and should not be removed while the RFC runs. The onus is now on the small handful of editors who are continually reverting this information to gain consensus for removal. The removal of this text over the last few days has been disruptive and a huge time sink. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Yahoo news investigation generated lots of coverage in many RS, including The Guardian [4] and The Telegraph [5]. These RS have not questioned Yahoo news reliability. At only two sentences it cannot be considered to have undue weight (compare to the extradition hearings which are described in 11 paragraphs). BLP is irrelevant as no individuals are mentioned in the proposed text. Alaexis_¿question? 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alaexis: "Pompeo" was the US Director of the CIA. He is a natural person. That is the BLP violation, implicating him in an alleged scheme to murder a civilian. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

    Well, you are entitled to your own opinion about the reliability of Yahoo news, inner workings of the CIA and ex-Trump-era parties, but as long as no RS make these points they remain your opinions and aren't relevant for this discussion. Come on, Pompeo himself did not deny this [6]. Alaexis_¿question? 17:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) The reliability of the article

2) Whether the proposed text meets WP:DUE

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

Here's what I think:

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

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

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

• Yes. As well as the original reporting from a reliable Wp:NEWSORG, a wide variety of other reliable mainstream news organisations reported on this. This includes major newspapers such as the British newspaper of record, The Times, as well as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Hill etc. Some, such as The Intercept used the report as the basis for further investigation into certain aspects of the plans developed for CIA management, and the reaction from other U.S. government institutions and from members of congress. Several reliable sources report information stated in the article directly. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clearly a factor here. Two editors link to the policy of WP:DUE weight, which they evidently misunderstand. The coverage suggested is DUE, as pointed out by several editors above. The multiple mainstream news organisations reporting on this indicate that the former intelligence officials are widely accepted as having made these statements and are taken seriously. We report the observations of mainstream news organisations. We do not count the number of news organisations, arbitrarily chosen, that have not reported on a news item and then look to imagine their point of view. The insubstantial argument made below on this is based on the inaccurate and discredited assertion that mainstream coverage is lacking. In fact there is widespread mainstream coverage; almost every major newspaper in the UK reported the information prominently as did the major European news organisations, along with several in the U.S. One editor also makes reference to the policy SYNTH. Quite simply, there is no aspect of the content to which this can be applied. Each of the three sentences is directly supported by one, usually several sources. Nothing has been combined to produce the text. Presumably editors referring to SYNTH simply do not understand the policy, or were at a loss to come up with a policy shortcut to refer to in looking to give their argument the appearance of substance. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Yahoo

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

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

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

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

In the last couple of days, articles about the CIA looking at the possibility of a kidnap have appeared in The Independent (Patrick Cockburn in the Voices section) and Al Jazeera[7]. And there was an article about it in The Sunday Times on 27 September. My feeling is that more articles will appear, increasing the amount of article space justified by the story. Are there editors resisting inclusion? It looks to me that there's sufficient coverage for an RfC not to be needed, if that's what the issue is.     ←   ZScarpia   14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

Various editors have continued to reinsert various versions of Yahoo! text during this ongoing discussion and RfC. The version that's currently in the article is not the text that's being considered in the RfC, so any claim resting on that is incorrect. Moreover, the part about some unnamed CIA employee wanting an investigation by an unnamed US congressperson adds no informatin about Assange and is at best trivia, since such requests either from the public or from civil servants are commonplace in the US. But in terms of the article, at worst, the inclusion of this irrelevant detail will lead some readers to overestimate the seriouisness of this apparently insignificant and evidently idle discussion within the ranks of the CIA which -- as noted above -- is typical of the fevered inner workings of spy vs. spy: Idle chatter run amok, stopped within the Agency long before it became a real possibility. My recent edit conformed the text to the cited source and removed the trivia, both without entirely removing the Yahoo content, which I continue to oppose as UNDUE but which appears to have enough current support for some verified and BLP complisnt version to be in the article. At any rate, the current defective version should be removed. I suggest editors take a closer look at the version that was most recently reverted and reinstate it. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

References

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

Reaction to RfC closure

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

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

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

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