Talk:Jeremy Hammond

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

External Links

Anyone else feel that the External Links section has become a world of its own (needing to be cropped). --

Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Update

Ok, since this article is biographic about an individual I just commented out all the extra links that were in the external links section because they weren't looking nice there (seemed like an advertisement}. I noticed somebody put up a red link to hackbloc which I'm taking to mean that someone wants to create an article about hackbloc, so if that happens, maybe the extras could be moved to it. Please reply if you are going to replace the links. --
Kerowren 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

LulzSec Asking for link reinstatement

Can we get his Board of Prison link reinstated? Vis a vis the LulzSec takedown.

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Jeremy&Middle=&LastName=Hammond&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=27&x=97&y=19

This is cogent because he was technically still on a 3 year parole with stipulations not to participate in something like this when LulzSec formed. So there are indications of parole violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.222.101 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a staging ground for personal conflict

It appears that this page has attracted some attention. Somebody has taken it upon themselves to use Wikipedia as a platform to 'warn the world about this dangerous individual'. Unfortunately, this appears to be based solely on their own personal experience of him, which is original research. It's also written in a very partisan tone. Perhaps as a result of this, someone else has come along and taken on the role of defendant.

I'm struck by Wikipedia's apparent tolerance of this abuse. This should be an encyclopedia article about an anarchist, a founder of a website, and a convicted computer criminal. Those are the only hard facts, and all this extra "neutrality disputed" and "citation needed" crud is nothing more than shots fired between opposing factions in some external dispute.

Can somebody please put an end to this stupidity and restore some of my faith in Wikipedia? Alternatively, I'm willing to engage in one of those lame, drawn-out revert wars between accountless IPs. I don't give a gently caress about 'Jeremy Hammond', whoever he is. Just something about people grinding their axes in inappropriate places rubs me the wrong way. 82.27.63.151 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I an totally agree with this, and apoligize for not helping enough. However I personally refrained from changing the article because I am close to the situation and I'd believe it would make it biased in favour of Hammond. I believe this may also be the reason others have refrained from changing biased information. --EJFox 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good now. Well, as far as I can tell none of the offending material has actually been removed, but at least it's written in an encyclopedic tone from a more neutral point of view. There's still a lot of complete and utter unsourced hearsay, but it no longer appears to try to impose a point of view onto readers of the article. I'll let somebody else cry about the lack of citations, as that doesn't tick me off like personal vendettas spilling over into inappropriate places. So in conclusion, this article still sucks, but thanks to Edivorce it sucks a lot less.
Somebody definitely feels very strongly about this serious internet business though. 82.27.63.151 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Supporter

I added some additional materials related to Jeremy's works, because a lot of what was written seem to be by people who did not know jeremy personally. I also fixed up a lot of gaping inaccuracies and mischaracterizations, most of which seem to be made by archaios or others who have personal disagreements with Jeremy. Archaios was also working with Jeremy on the scheme which jeremy was busted for, but archaios betrayed Jeremy and turned over logs and other evidence which was used to convict Jeremy, saving himself. Others seem to be right wing republican/protestwarrior types who keep making prison rape jokes and equally insulting and tasteless comments. So be wary that there are those who are trying to paint Jeremy in a negative light when those who have met and known Jeremy personally understand how dedicated and passionate Jeremy is. He will be missed for the two years in prison and when he gets out he will be well received by supporters. - situationist

Yep, because Jeremy should ONLY be painted in a positive light. Why? Because how else will he fool everybody into believing he's harmless? I DO know Jeremy personally, this is one of the reasons I have a personal problem with him. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bleeding heart whitewash this guy and turn him into some kind of wannabe saint/hero. He's not a saint. He's not a hero. He's a stupid script kiddie who got himself caught, tried to weasel out, and went to jail for his crime as he should have.65.182.189.106 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both don't seem to get it. Knowing Jeremy personally is a bad thing. It's considered original research, which isn't acceptable. I don't care if he's a knight in shining armor or a useless script kiddie; Wikipedia isn't the place to argue that. Tautologous (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Article

I have been a WP editor for a year. I have never engaged in edit wars. I have had nothing to do with any unpleasantness in this matter. I created this article last week after going to hackthissite.org to inquire about testing port scanning software. It was there I first learned about Mr. Hammond. I thought his story was interesting and sought more information on WP. I was surprised to find no article as it seemed a inherently notable topic. So I wrote a stubbish one. I made no reference to any earlier versions, as I did not know they existed. It is highly unlikely that this article bears much in common with any deleted article. I have sourced the article appropriately for a stub and feel the article should not be deleted. I don't mean to make it difficult, and I understand that an article about hackers and parody protesters could be draw people who might be difficult. But the fact remains it is notable. The recent plea/sentencing also adds material. I understand that JH is young, and an article about criminal activity that has not been proven/admitted is problematic. With the plea entered this is no longer the case. I do not have a negative opinion of JH. If anything I mildly admire him. I have no animosity toward his victims. I believe in debate and free speech and believe this topic raises interesting points Edivorce 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Deletion template from the article for the reasons indicated immediately above. I think this is the correct process per

WP:Prod. Please advise me if any further steps are required to prevent deletion or if new measures are taken by others to pursue deletion. Edivorce 05:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Thanks for reopening the article, It was a damn shame that the previous one got removed. Knowing jeremy personally I can tell you that he is a very inspiring and intelligent person,( albeit at times a bit too over-enthousiastic )

If it could help I can probably dig up some of his writings and some videos of his speech at defcon. -- scenestar

His video is already there. And he was removed previously because he is, essentially, just a stupid script kiddie determined to wrap himself in glory.

NPOV dispute

There are several contentious points made within this article, both for and against Hammond. The claim regarding hacktivism for a start; I removed another NPOV, uncited claim that the anonymous informant "pretended to be anarchist and sympathetic to his cause", and that he was "associated with Protest Warrior." Such unsubstantiated claims and my predilection to consider Mr. Hammond's actions as far from notable (see Articles for Deletion entry) must be seriously considered when updating this article; I hope that this can be resolved in a timely manner, irrespective of the contentious nature of the subject. Archaios 06:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's great, but I find that your opinions are far from unbiased, regarding the fact that Hammond's sentencing guide contains this information 'On or about February 3rd, 2005, Alfia received an online message from "Archaios" (pronounced "Arch Chaos"). Archaios stated that Jeremy Hammond and some of his associates compromised the ProtestWarrior server and obtained the entire database of credit cards and member information. Archaios was cooperating with Alfia because he was upset with Hammond for letting an associate take the fall for a hack in which Hammond had shared responsibility.' and the fact that you have let it known that you are working for Alfia would mean that 'the informant' ie you is in fact 'associated with Protest Warrior'. You'll have to forgive me for not taking you seriously. --EJFox 07:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly willing to admit my involvement. However, this is not relevant to the defamatory points made. First and foremost, my political ideology was and is based on a superset of autonomist Marxism, anarchosyndicalism. To claim that this was a mere masquerade is absurd. Second, my "association with protest warrior" never existed, and does not to this day. As for the reason I acted informant? Do not engage in idle conjecture. There is no evidentiary foundation even for the position disclosed in the court records. This article is non-NPOV. This must be rectified. Archaios 08:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the NPOV Dispute Over? All references to the person Archaios purports to be (no offense meant but this is not self authenticating, although I tend to believe him) have been removed. This would seem to resolve his principal concern. What is the proper procedure for removing the tag? People from different viewpoint are working together to edit the article. I don't think it needs to be stigmatzed by the template. I will invite User:Archaios to reply.Edivorce 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, I'm going to remove it. --EJFox 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding Original Research

I'm glad to have people who are knowledgeable and passionate about this topic representing a range of views on the matter. This subject seems rich in terms of issues relating to free expression and effort to suppress the exercise of the same by others. All of this on a variety of levels that makes it fascinating. We have to keep in mind that we need to avoid original research including information we have personal knowledge about (not a problem in my case). I know this might sound silly but can we develop sources, even for information we might feel we know in an intimate manner? This is inline with with the task of editing for an encyclopedia.Edivorce 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Hammond was imprisoned "for the theft of 60,000 credit card numbers [....] the credit card numbers were used by Anonymous to make $700,000 worth of fraudulent donations". In other words, he stole or helped to steal $700,000, which is a pretty serious crime whatever one thinks about hackers and activism. But is it supported to Wikipedia standards? An allegation by Kevin Poulson surely does not qualify! Sayitclearly (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Toledo Blade Article

Please do not re-add that link.
It does nothing to add or detract from this subject's notability, since he is not named anywhere within the body of the article. So to assume that it is even relavant to this discussion would be incorrect.
Aside from the vague reference to "five Chicago-area activists" he is not alluded to-even obliquely-anywhere within the context of that story, and the story itself is certainly not related in any substantive way to Jeremy Hammond.
Before re-adding an irrelevant article please take your dispute to this discussion page. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy killer. As noted in the edit by another user, he is both pictured and noted in the caption. The arrests talk about him and others, making it relevant to him. Please research more before you become defensive and seemingly aggressive. Thank you for trying to help. --EJFox 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restitution

I added a sentence concerning the lack of an award of restitution as part of the Judges sentence. This seems needed to balance the inclusion of 2.5 M alleged by prosecutor. Ohterwise I don't think we need to include "things the Judge didn't do".Edivorce 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

Hey guys, I know it's a touchy issue. But I happen to feel that 'Political Activist' is the most appropriate occupation here. Because although he was convicted for computer-related crimes his foremost convictions were in political activism. In the google video linked at the bottom of this page he mentions that "hacking can be a tool to put the people on top". First an activist, second a hacker, third a convicted hacker. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Ejfox (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

I changed it to web developer from "criminal hacker." One of the sources indicated JH was currently employed coding PHP for shopping cart apps. I thought that would make him a web developer. Did he have any paid positions as an activist? I don't care if you change it back to political activist. I don't think he made a living (or any money at all) as a criminal. Obviously nobody is trying to hide his conviction. Just don't think we need to pile onEdivorce 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL @ 'paid positions as an activist'. AIUI, political activism, not the side job, is what made the impact. If you want to include side jobs, how about putting that under a section 'Employment'? However, if you feel that putting up Wikipedia entries for 'web developers' is worthwhile, you'll surely have a lot of work to do, as the number of web developers these days is quite large. Maybe you can start with an entry on 'Garrett Smith' who maintained comp.lang.javascript FAQ for years (for free, to boot!).67.169.93.56 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. can we get license info/clearance on photo?
Hey, sorry I didn't mean you to think that that comment was pointed at you personally. It wasn't. It was just a general announcement. I guess I muddled my words by lack of using a thesaurus, of course he was 'convicted' in the law sense. But I was trying to say that his foremost priorities were political activism, I guess. As per whether he made a living being a political activist... has anyone who's truly made a political difference been paid properly for it? =P


Perhaps we could have multiple 'occupations'? I'll have to look into it. Thanks, --EJFox 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freejeremy.com

I took the liberty of removing the freejeremy.com link. The site was removed, supposedly after abuse of the commenting system by Protect Warriors, and is now the home page of a male porn star who is definitely not Hammond. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 71.14.76.237 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

Good call, thanks. Keep up the good work. --EJFox 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as one with intimate knowledge of why the original FreeJeremy "protest" site went away, and why the current one is in place, I can tell you that it had NOTHING to do with ProtestWarrior whatsoever. It was several individuals in the Chicago hacker scene that did this. Following a falling out with them, Jeremy tried circumventing them and breaking into their systems. For a while, they simply contented themselves with uncovering everything they could about Jeremy. Then, for a short time, there was an attempt at detente with him, since they weren't really angry enough yet to start making his life difficult. After Jeremy broke the detente, they were. Logs of Jeremy essentially stepping people through breaking into servers at his place of employment mysteriously found their way into his employer's hands. Byebye job! Then, various domains owned/run by Hammond went away. This is what happens when you register a domain with false contact information (essentially a fool's form of obfuscation) and people report it. No criminal defacement. No breaking into someone else's computers with pre-scripted PHP tools. No DOS attacks. Merely a couple e-mails to the right places. Minimal effort, maximal effect. The original FreeJeremy site was "cunningly" registered to the Chicago branch office of the FBI. The current site is there DELIBERATELY because of Hammond. And this time, the domain is PROPERLY obfuscated, by the registrar's service.
That's all well and good, but what was your point in adding this? It is unsourced, and appears to only be a rant against Jeremy and adds very little to the point that the user made. That the site was removed. The page is definitely home to a porn star, and not Hammond and that is pretty much all that matters. Please refrain from posting seemingly biased, unsourced rants that add little to the conversation at hand. --EJFox 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It's unsourced". That's why I didn't put it in the main page. Seeing as I'm one of the individuals responsible for making the sites go away, it does make me an authority on why they did. The original post said the site was removed after abuse by PW. There was an implication there that either the PW guys got the site removed, or that it was removed by those in control of the FJ.com site itself. My post was merely for clarifiction on why the link now points to something other than a protest site. If it seems biased, well, I'm VERY close to the issue. Again, that's why the clarification didn't get pushed to the main page, and that's why there's a discussion page. If it's any consolation, you don't have to LIKE what I'm saying. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 69.33.30.187 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
You can't really expect to be credited as an " authority" on anything based on an annon ip and your own say so. Even if what you say is true your not an authority in an encyclopedic sense. Still I appreciate your playing out your need for attenuated glory on the discussion page rather than article. Also please sign your posting with four tildes (~) so that others don't have go behind you to incidate your IP. Thankfully we seem to have bots who do this now. Although I recognize your need for both credit and stealth you might want to get a user account. Although nothing is wrong with anon ip editing, two postings from two different ip addresses does not help you establish any kind of credibility. Edivorce 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if I wanted to be credited as an authority, I'd have put this up on the main page. As for being an authority in the encyclopedic sense, I'm personally indifferent to it. Again, this is what the DISCUSSION page is for. As for seeking "glory"... Well, if you really think that's what this is. As for the posting of the tildes. I apologize for that. Sloppy of me. And, as for getting a user account, if I were seeking "glory", that'd probably be a good idea. I'm not. Hence the various IP addresses. Basically I'm minimalizing my surface area for any form of further retaliation. As for credibility, I'm indifferent as to the state of your belief in me. If you disbelieve me, that's your prerogative.69.33.30.187 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell?

is this a joke or just a typo?

[..]On March 7, 2008, Hammond's apartment in Chicago was raided by FBI agents[...] —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 85.102.53.42 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

That "joke" was made by User:X1ngbox on January 11, 2007. I fixed it.Edivorce 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism

Someone posted an inappropriate image containing an image macro made out of a photo included in a magazine article. Please be aware that some evildoers are out to take their personal feuds out to wikipedia. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by User:81.68.125.220 (talk • contribs). Edivorce 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Security Risk Section

Please provide appropriate citations supporting this section. Also language is POV. Please make more neutral in tone. This is biography of a living person (see

WP:BLP) and the sourcing and neutrality needs to be rigorous. I will removing this section if this is not promptly accomplished. I will provide a notice to the anon's talk page. Thanks. Edivorce
17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) This also applies to the "History" section.Edivorce 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've just stumbled on this page after googling the word "archaios", and this entire page appears to have been penned by Jeremy Hammond's disgruntled former allies, for the sole purpose of discrediting him. There are few citations, and much of it violates NPOV. I disagree with your leaving the offending paragaphs in there to be fixed, because frankly I don't believe that any reliable sources exist for this kind of information. I'm taking them out. You can put them back in if you're willing to take responsibility for such poorly written, unsourced material. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 82.27.63.151 (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
Most of the page, actually, seems to be written by Jeremy himself (or perhaps his girlfriend? HTS users who worship him?) Surely not the ones who know him in real life. It seems that most of the biographies and stories told are just as censored as this article. I won't stop reposting that information. Why? Because it is sourced. I see it everyday with kids I know. I saw it when he lied to me about his past and put tons of unknowing kids in danger. I saw it when he backed people into corners and demanded that they stop telling people about how he turned over the tape. Why? Not because he didn't do it, because he admitted that right away each time, but because they wouldn't let him into conferences anymore. Because he wasn't allowed in people's houses or at their shows. I'm sure if he weren't in prison, everything would've been deleted right away anyway. The purpose of the sections were to provide a look into why people don't like Jeremy, instead of glorifying all that he does, which is exactly what the people who wrote this article wanted. - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article. A whole lot of people from different viewpoints have contributed. I don't want to glorify Mr. Hammond, who I never met. Nor do I want to slander him. Mostly I think he (and event that pertain) is/are interesting more than good, although I don't see any great evil in the guy. I don't object to negative information. If Jeremy provided a tape that exonerated him, and did not directly implicate other, accept for the crime of being "anarchist" I don't see how that makes him a snitch. His counsel would be very insistent about this, and rightly so. Please try to have perspective here. I'm trying to understand and I think it's interesting and important. Please elaborate on this talk page. I will look carefully at the sources. Edivorce 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Edivorce, I didn't mean to be so abrasive and jump to so many accusations. Here's the issue: there are a lot of thoughts and issues that deal with Jeremy Hammond. He does get blamed for a lot of things he didn't do, but he also has done some really risky things as well. The idea of posting to this article was not to slander him, but rather to show different viewpoints and try to explain why so many people "have it out for him". Their reasons are legitimate and present a lot of different feelings and backgrounds. Events and people aren't all one-dimensional, and the only real sources I can provide for things that have happened, especially because it's not well-documented, are articles with discussions on Jeremy and the CAN press release. Since summer 2004, Chicagoland Anarchist Network has dissolved, but it did a lot for the community. I recognize Jeremy's attempts to work for good, and I'm not indicating that they weren't well-intentioned. I'm just trying to speak for a lot more of the people here and get it out in a less aggressive way. Again, I can't post the Chicago ABCN statement, because I was asked not to by another member of the network. I will work to find more information and sources, but honestly, this is a really hard subject to cover in the way Wikipedia does, because there are so many different levels, stories and outcomes. Maybe it would just be better to delete the entire article. - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully and with interest read the CAN statement on Indy Media. I am impressed with both their and your grasp of the complexities involved. Certainly the fact that some members of the Chicago Anarchist community have concerns about Jeremy's conduct belongs in the article. That the video was of a planned event in a public place and that its only useful purpose to law enforcement is to identify membership/involvement, not criminal activities just makes snitch an inappropriate moniker. Also that Jeremy expresses remorse over violating this community's, in my opinion heightened expectation of loyalty, makes him rather sympathetic. But I think I better understand the views all around.
We currently have two redundant/conflicting/shifting sections in the article, History and Security Risk. I would propose combining them into one, appearing where "History" currently sits and title it "North Halsted Street Incident." This would fit the chronology. I would further propose a NPOV description of the parade and bust; That it also includes a sentence about Jeremy turning over the tape; That it covers the Anarchist community's discussion of this conduct as possible inappropriate cooperation with authorities; It should include Jeremy's admission of fault and remorse; It should also indicate that others view these actions as perfectly acceptable. Let me know what you think of this proposal. If no one objects, and no one else tries their hand at making the edits I will do so in a few days. Edivorce 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. How do you say

WHITEWASH

?—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by User:65.182.189.107 (talk • contribs
).

Halsted Three

In regards to the halsted three incident noted by an anonymous visitor I recalled the incident and pulled up some articles at least discussing the points made. One is an Indymedia article regarding Jeremy Hammond's 'snitching' and an article regarding the three's arrest. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Ejfox (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Changed some things...

I added two sections, "History" and "Security Risks". These include information that is true, but you will not hear from either Jeremy or his supporters. I also added to "Other Activism", and changed some of the information on the Toledo arrests; as I was one of the seven arrested in the group with Jeremy. The charges were of contempt of court, not disorderly conduct. I think it is important for people to recognize how much they are putting themselves in harm's way by befriending and supporting Jeremy, especially those who consider themselves activists. Among all the chaos that surrounds this situation, there are a lot of truths. Jeremy seems like he has his heart in the right place when it comes to his friends, but he is horribly jaded when it comes to everything else... He deliberately puts others at risk with the choices he makes, all for this sort of martyr status he wants to portray. The last thing I ever heard him say? "I've got nothing to lose!" - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more links, specifically ones to discussion on Chicago Indymedia between activists on how they feel about Jeremy. Also, I received a copy of the statement put out by Chicago ABCN, but was asked by a member of the network not to put it directly onto the internet, as neither of us can speak for the network as a whole; there is obviously a chance that some members of the International ABCN do not even know who Jeremy is, and it is important not to make singular decisions for such a large group. - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Changes

I made a specific proposal for addressing some problems with the current state of the article. They can be found in the "Security Risk" section above on this talk page. Edivorce 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Jeremy

I'm not sure if this was the right page, but I think there used to be a picture of Jeremy (posing w/ his laptop). What happened to it and/or is there one that can be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.163.100 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute?

Gty450,

Please refrain from making reckless edits to the article. While there are doubtless many ways it could be improved, you've removed everything from the page that could be considered critical of Hammond or suggesting that he is on probation and even gone so far as to remove links to such information. You've made these and other edits without any explanation besides "lies of the state" -- a reason that few other Wikipedia editors are going to find sufficient. The page you saw before you edited was a compromise reached through a consensus process by people who felt the article needed to be more critical of Hammond and people who felt it ought to be less. If you want to contribute to this page, you should participate in this

consensus
process.

Also, please refrain from making series of edits whose only purpose is to make it difficult for future editors to revert your edits. This is abuse and can get your account blocked. --SgtSchumann (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: everything in a biography of a living person should have sources.
WP:BLP Anything that isn't sourced may be removed and should be removed if it's derogatory. That even applies to felons. Let's not add or restore anything for which we don't have an adequate citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for the reminder. I've started re-adding some of the material with appropriate citations. I'd like to note, however, that some of the material that has been surreptitiously removed without explanation is not derogatory by any stretch of the imagination. --SgtSchumann (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even positive material should be sourced. There are several references listed at the end, if may just be a matter of checking them and adding inline citations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This applies only to content in the body of an article. There are some things, however, like pictures and external links that cannot have citations added to them, yet these were also surreptitiously removed. It's good to supply sources. It's also good to be vigilant to protect against reckless editing. --SgtSchumann (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP. I think the picture was deleted for lack of proper license. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Description of David Irving as a Holocaust denier

For some reason I cannot fathom, User:Pottsf seems unwilling to use plain language to describe David Irving in this article. Instead of referring to him simply as a Holocaust denier, Pottsf insists on the bizarre circumlocution "a writer on the history of World War II in Europe who has been imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Austria (where doing so is a crime)". His initial apparent justification for doing so was that "Irving has never even been charged in the US". I feel it incumbent upon myself to remind Pottsf that:

  • Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a U.S. one.
  • Irving was convicted of and imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Austria, and was found by a British court, in a trial Irving himself brought, to be "an active Holocaust denier". It is therefore in no way imaginable defamatory and a violation of BLP to describe him as a Holocaust denier.
  • This is an article about Hammond, not Irving; therefore, when describing Irving, we need to use the briefest words possible that are true, and both define Irving's fame and describe Hammond's interest in him. "Holocaust denier" fits the bill. "a writer on the history of World War II in Europe who has been imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Austria (where doing so is a crime)" does not.

Other views? Jayjg (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of weaseling.Galassi (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's a Holocaust denier, and is best (now) best known as such; the brief description suffices. However, is it necessary? One could omit the characterization completely, and let the user just click on the link to find out who this David Irving is that Mr. Hammond was attempting to disturb. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure anyone can be charged in the US with being a Holocaust denier, so this sounds like a device to ensure that no one could ever be labled a Holocaust Denier. Irving certainly is one, so let's just call him that. If Wikipedia can have a link on Holocaust Denial, there must be people who do it. If we cannot call anyone a Holocause Deniar, do we have to delete the article on Holocaust Denial? I hope not! But where else would this end? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Irving a Holocaust denier is not defamatory given both the court convictions and the numerous reliable sources describing him as such. Irving's history and status also seem contextually relevant to the narrative under discussion. So it should be kept in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is our source for the incident:
Whitney, Craig A.. "Holocaust denier sparks tension at Edelweiss".NorridgeHarwoodHeightsNews. December 7, 2009. Accessed 2009-12-19.
If nothing else, we're just repeating the language used by that source.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seems clear enough IMHO. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The writer of the source doesn't say that he's a Holocaust denier, it repeats an allegation from an anti-Semitism-fighting organization. Does Irving admit that he is a Holocaust denier? Does he reject it? If he doesn't admit it, then the best you can say is that, citing a reliable source, he has been convicted of Holocaust denial and has been described as a Holocaust denier by an organization that fights anti-Semitism. The readers can check the sources and make up their own minds. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was found by a British court of law to be a Holocaust denier. A British court of law is not "an organization that fights anti-Semitism". The BBC News and The Guardian are also not "organizations that fight anti-Semitism". Please read the entire discussion above, starting at the first comment. A plethora of other reliable sources are also available, though hardly necessary. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word "accused" in front of Holocaust denier as the label for Irving, which should resolve any BLP concerns. I think it's irrefutable that he has been accused of being a Holocaust denier. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "convicted", since it's also irrefutable that he's been convicted of Holocaust denial, as the reliable sources I've added point out. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me with those sources. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "David Irving, a historian found guilty in the UK and Austria of crimes relating to denial of the WWII holocaust of Jews" be about right? There's not a lot of debate about what Irving has written about the holocaust, or what the legal outcomes have been. There may be a debate to be had about freedom of speech, but that doesn't seem pertinent to the question of why Hammond confronted Irving.Wessexunderwater (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Aliases

Hammond frequently uses the names Insurgency and Tylerknowsbest in his IRC usage (records from the US Pirate Party IRC show him using that back to 2007) as well as his email using the alias of Tyler Durden (as in Fight Club). Since these appear to be his regular, modern-day aliases, why do they keep being removed from the article? 68.215.153.112 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are unsourced. See
WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah, nice. Now comes the whitewash. Eh Jayjg?

Wonder why you're so interested in this all of the sudden. Especially the documentation of Jeremy as a convicted felon?

That WAS sourced, yet you pulled it. Maybe a bit of personal interest eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.30.187 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's his problem? Why cant wikipedia mention aliases related to Jeremy Hammond?? These aliases are relevant especially considering wikipedia lists alias founders for HackThisSite which is founded by Jeremy Hammond.--Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.16.61 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references in line

References should be placed in line so that they attribute themselves directly to information written --RichardMills65 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Claims

I just scanned this article, but there are a few very iffy legal claims made here that are NNPOV & backed up by nothing.

"The arrests were largely due to entrapment by the FBI." Does whoever wrote this have any understanding of the legal definition of entrapment? I doubt it. Many acts that ordinary people would consider "entrapment" aren't entrapment under the law. More importantly, has entrapment been proved in court? Not according to this article. Whether Hammond was actually entrapped is not our place to speculate. That's for a court to determine, not the personal opinion of editors who support Hammond (of which I'm one).

Another: "This conflict of interest, by law, should have disqualified Judge Preska from sitting on the case in the first place." According to whom? Democracy Now!? Give me an unbiased break. We have no place declaring that this judge should have recused himself, particularly when we phrase it as an explicit legal claim. Again, it's not a matter of whether he morally, ethically or even legally should have recused himself. It's a matter of whether Wikipedia, an unbiased source of information, can authoritatively make that claim. Hell no we can't. We're an encyclopedia, not a law firm, & I very much doubt this was written by a lawyer (& even if it was, it still has no place here).

These kinds of statements are not only unsupported & potentially wrong, they tilt the article heavily in Hammond's favor. This should be the last place to litigate whether he was right or wrong.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead & edited. I changed the entrapment sentence & removed the disqualification claim. I also removed the citations they relied upon. Both cited to Democracy Now! articles/interviews that are pure biased opinion & speculation, not fact. I'm not going to do it, but this article needs a NPOV tag, if only to try to put a stop to this litigation of Hammond's guilt/innocence.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HackThisSite founder

Who is xec96 ? This alias is listed as founder in HackThisSite and clicking on xec96 comes to Jeremy Hammond and the other founders dont have wikipedia pages. Is Jeremy Hammond xec96 ? --Anonymous

Yes. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support section

Added a Support section including statements of support from prominent figures.

--Farmsworth (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA article

This article was written by the National Security Agency and/or CIA. Wikipedia is not the "democratic" encyclopedia that you think it is. It is run by imperialist, Finance/industrial capitalist interests and the national security state apparatus that exists to protect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article succinctly and insightfully highlights our on-going and ruthless suppression of free thought, and needs to be suppressed. Jimmy, can you identify OP, who has foolishly assumed non-signature=anonymity. Your continued funding is assured, Barack/GWB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexunderwater (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 08:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Hammond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremy Hammond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jeremy Hammond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jeremy Hammond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jail discrepancy

In the article it claims he is being held "... at the Federal Correctional Institution, Memphis, in Tennessee"

but according to https://www.freejeremy.net/ "(he) is currently serving his ten-year sentence at a medium-security federal prison in Manchester, Kentucky."


Which one is it? Kentucky or Tennessee?

I feel the https://www.freejeremy.net/ source is more reliable than an "inmate finder", and will likely make the edit to the page if no-one finds any issue with this.

Political prisoners are often moved around the country so it’s likely both at different times. With some research you could probably pin down the dates he was at which prison if it’s relive the to the article. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Issues in Technology and Security

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 6 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aidand3132 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aidand3132 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will be happy to help if you need it and I am able. :) SP00KYtalk 16:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Hammond&oldid=1211094289"