Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Joe Biden - shooting gesture

The article currently says: "US Vice President Joe Biden argued that Assange was 'closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers', and made a two-handed rifle-shooting gesture", with a link to a photo of him doing the gesture.

This is really vile and must be removed. This proves again to me that one should double check in so-called primary sources, as I do, and not rely on secondary and tertiary reports alone, no matter how reputiable they are deemed to be. I watched the whole video of the Meet the Press interview with Joe Biden. Quite apart from the fact that Biden did not exactly "argue" that Assange was a hi-tech terrorist, he merely took up the wording in the question that was put to him as "Would you argue that ..." and then qualified his response further but who is interested in what he actually said, catch words and sensationalist headlines are what we want ... More importantly, when he made the quick shooting gesture, he was answering a question about gays and lesbians in the US military and he made it at this point where he said: "... whether you are gay or straight, it does not affect whether you can shoot straight [quick shooting gestures] or whether you can speak Urdu." Nothing whatsoever to do with Assange. KathaLu (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC) :Your message was tied up to and collapsed within, the last section. I've untangled it.

The addition about Biden was edited in by me and I'm very sorry if people feel misled people over the photograph - it was in the reliable source. (I'll have to check what you say about the video myself later, however).
I don't believe Biden's intentions are seriously distorted, agreeing that Assange is a "high-tech terrorist" (in context, 'closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers') is strongly linked to extrajudicial killing. If Biden did not intend people to think Assange should die without reaching court, it was essential that he said it. Let me remind people again, there were a lot of the very most high-profile threats and incitements to kill made against Assange - 2/3rds of them (including the really threatening ones from radio-hosts and criminals) have been disappeared from the article. These threats didn't appear for a few days and disappear (as I originally thought), they'd been circulating since the end of May. Assange did not appear in public in the US in June as planned because of those threats (I don't think that's OR, we have ample sources for it).
Furthermore, I've never noticed a politician making any form of shooting gesture. The use by the Guardian of that photograph was making Biden look like either some form of extremist or, at least, implying he favoured assassination as a viable option. I suppose it's still just possible that the Guardian was being unfair to him, but I very much doubt it. Templar98 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
@Templar, thanks for untangling it, I could not figure out how to do it. I remember seeing the photo in the Guardian on line article at the time and was a little taken aback, it did not fit somehow. I can understand why they chose it, it makes good copy. When you look at it again, you will see that the article does not claim that Biden made the gesture in connection with Assange. I don't know whether this photo appeared in the printed version of the article in the Guardian. No matter what, it is common for news media to add a photo to a text that is not directly related to it but catches the reader's eye. KathaLu (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the stand alone pic being used as a reference and looking at it I don't like the comment about making a rifle gesture either - it isn't covered in the text and apart from the unexplained picture taken in a radio interview that actually we have nothing to say exactly what it is associated to - I would say Biden is being poorly represented by the claim - unverifyably actually - Is there any other reports that he did this rifle pointing specifically in relation to Assange - can we actually cite it? As its disputed and not presently actually specifically cited I will remove it while discussion is ongoing.~
Off2riorob (talk
) 11:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It was not a radio interview but a TV interview (about a number of subjects, Biden talked a lot more about other issues of US politics than Wikileaks and Assange but the Guardian mentions only Assange as being discussed in the interview), so one can see the full broadcast here. The photo is a press photo with the caption "Joe Biden appears on NBC's Meet the Press, for a taped interview. Photograph: Getty Images". KathaLu (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::::How about "US Vice President Joe Biden argued that Assange was 'closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers' and he was pictured in the British press making a two-handed rifle-shooting gesture, though the image actually came from a different occasion later in the same interview on a different topic." [link]

Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad are habitually portrayed as extremists in similar fashion on, in many cases, much weaker evidence. Biden is speaking for an administration that is the world leader in kidnapping or assassinating quite large numbers of people (even amongst its allies) and is currently threatening an Australian in quite lurid terms. We'd only be documenting the fact that Biden had been portrayed as an extremist, not accusing him of being one.
I'm sure you'd not defend giving Biden a free ride (or ignoring how the British press tried to stigmatis him) - especially not in the bio of a man almost everyone thinks has already been victimised by the US. You cannot deny the latter - people may be divided over whether Assange deserves to be victimised, but nobody would deny he's already been victimised! Templar98 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
We can't even consider adding to the misrepresentation. As for victimization - come on , give it a rest, please.
Off2riorob (talk
) 12:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
@Templar, FWIW, "shoot straight" means "talk or deal honestly" so I guess Biden wanted to illustrate that he meant it literally, i.e. it does not matter whether a US military is gay or straight, what matters is that he can aim and shoot straight. Biden is not known as a gifted orator. I don't think that the online Guardian was trying to misrepresent anyone, newspapers have to sell, and if you look closely, you will see that such misalignements between text and images are not uncommon, not even in the kind of press where you least expect it. Take it as a reminder to be extra careful when you read something seemingly outrageous or jump to a conclusion. KathaLu (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
We should be covering the story as it is covered in the UK (where it's actually going on) or possibly in Australia, since Assagne is one of theirs. When people (including national leaders or deputies) make threats we should document them and very likely treat them as extremists if that's what the reliable sources do. Templar98 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The same issue is in regard to article titles, they are not reliable to quote and the reporters are allowed a degree of leeway to call them something that is not actually in the article.
Off2riorob (talk
) 12:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Should cover what the secondary sources say, per
WP:OR.--Jojhutton (talk
) 12:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if we were to restrict ourselves to the UK media, in this particular case how and what they report about an interview with a US Vice-President on a major US TV station, seen by thousand of US viewers, without ever watching the video of the interview with our own eyes, this is what we find in the Telegraph, the Independent and the Mirror (I could not find anything on the BBC website):

  1. Telegraph of 19 Dec: WikiLeaks: Julian Assange facing US prosecution bid, says Joe Biden – Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is facing proscution [sic] in America for leaking secret cables, the US Vice President, Joe Biden, has disclosed as he branded him a "high-tech terrorist". Photo: Assange, looking rather dumb and waving to supporters near his police station.
  2. Telegraph of 20 Dec: Joe Biden says troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014 'come hell or high water'. Photo: Joe Biden with shooting gesture. No mention of Assange in this article.
  3. Independent of 20 Dec: Assange is a 'hi-tech terrorist', says Biden - But in common with other officials, including the Attorney General, Eric Holder, there were no direct hints from Mr Biden regarding the nature any legal steps against Mr Assange and what preparations may or may not be under way to charge and seek his extradition to stand trial in the US. "We're looking at that right now," he said. When pressed for details, he said only: "I'm not going to comment on that". Photo: Obama and Biden, with caption "Vice-President Joe Biden, right, confirmed that the US was looking at ways of taking legal action against Julian Assange".
  4. Mirror of 20 Dec: WikiLeaks - Julian Assange answers police bail – (…) US Vice President Joe Biden revealed the US is exploring ways to prosecute Assange, calling him a “hi-tech terrorist”. Photo: Assange, reporting to police as part of his bail conditions.

So, none of these three UK papers reporting on the "hi tech terrorist" label used the shooting gesture photograph. The Telegraph used it, out of context like the Guardian, but associated it with the Afghanistan war. A bit more justified, as Biden made the small gesture in the context of whether openly homosexual US military should be allowed.

WP:NOT#JOURNALISM says that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories but much of the sections of the article on current events is lifted from such reports. Somewhere else it says that editor should use in-depth reports but they are rare for breaking stories. Of the above, only the Independent article would come close to be called in-depth. And all this applies also to the discussion about whether or not to use the Skeleton Defense arguments at this point in time. And btw I will not be surprised if the photo of shooting Joe Biden will be used out of context again and again. KathaLu (talk
) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It really is outrageous that they (the Guardian) did that.
Off2riorob (talk
) 15:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Much, much more outrageous gun-related things (amounting to actual threats) are boldly published in the US media (and I'm told they're totally unremarkable and can't be mentioned).
Gun-related images are boldly used by many top US politicians. It's not as if Biden was tricked into this gesture and it's then unfairly used against him - he made the rifle-shooting gesture right there in the middle of an interview. If he doesn't wish to be portrayed as a violent extremist all over the world then he should cut it out.
:Meanwhile, Assange is portrayed as a violent extremist constantly and has no protection, not even in his own bio, where very little he says is allowed. Templar98 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Two minor suggestions for improving the article

1. Replace "secret" by "classified" or similar in the Summary

One can probably quibble about this as "secret" can be interpreted in different ways. In the Summary we have "its five media partners began publishing secret US diplomatic cables", while in the article itself we say "WikiLeaks began releasing some of the 251,000 American diplomatic cables in their possession, of which over 53 percent are listed as unclassified, 40 percent are "Confidential" and just over six percent are classified "Secret".

I think that is a different use of the word (i.e. intended to imply that the documents were secret, rather than classified secret). But I think you are right that "classified" covers it better --Errant (chat!) 11:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
"Classified" is good. Templar98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC). = Banned User
2. Potential conspiracy with a member of the US military

Mention somewhere that the US are examining whether Assange has conspired with a member of the US military to get sensitive documents. This is at the heart of the matter and it is common knowledge for anyone who has followed the story, it has been covered in the media and mentioned by high US government representatives but unless I have overlooked it, it is nowhere to be found in the article. Instead, we have a vast collection of less precise statements and in particular highly speculative and sensationalist stuff from third party outsiders like this (I shortened some sentences):

  • It was reported that Pentagon officials were trying to determine his whereabouts
  • there were reports that U.S. officials wanted to apprehend Assange.
  • Ellsberg said that (…) put (Assange's) well-being, his physical life, in some danger now.
  • Jacob Appelbaum (replaced) Assange due to the presence of federal agents
  • The United States Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation
  • US prosecutors are reportedly considering charges against Assange under several laws, but any prosecution would be difficult.
  • Newt Gingrich said: "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."
  • G. Gordon Liddy (said) "Julian Assange is a severe national security threat to the U.S. Mr. Assange should be put on (a kill) list.
  • His defence team outlined the potential risks to Assange's person were he "rendered" to the US.

KathaLu (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also amazed that the letter that Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser to the US State Department, wrote on 27 November 2010 to Assange and his London attorney Robinson and published here by Reuter, is not mentioned at all. Quote: "Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange: I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents. As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. (...) We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks' databases."
I find such direct communication from the US State Department to him, which is missing in the article, more noteworthy than the speculation by his UK lawyers that IF he gets extradited to Sweden he MIGHT get ILLEGALLY RENDERED to the US (as if that's going to happen ...). KathaLu (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting and important letter - though I seem to struggle knowing what the rules say should be included. (I would also like to see mention of the fact that cablegate seems to have been blocked, especially if it can be sourced that this is due to phyical and/or legal threats linked to the inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning).
However, I'm shocked that you don't take seriously the danger of the US kidnapping Assange. This is precisely the kind of illegal action the US carries out all over the world, amongst it's allies too. The US has made quite sure everyone knows that extrajudicial methods are widely supported and almost certainly acceptable to almost every American. It is not speculation to quote Assange and his followers on this topic - particularly not when the threats against him look as if they've been so effective. Templar98 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC) = Banned User
@Templar: I try to be neutral. I am keen on facts. I get suspicious when I think that someone is trying to manipulate opinion (I am not referring to WP editors, we all come here with our opinions and convictions, and it is difficult to distance oneself from it). My personal views on some aspects of US laws - I do regard the US as a
State of law -, such as death penalty, targeted killing within their war on terror, the legality of the Iraq or Afghanistan war, let alone its purpose and consequences, have nothing to do with reporting on Assange. We Europeans can tell the American people what we think of it but it is for them to change their laws and their ideas of how their society should be. I do find it outrageous that US opinion makers have put Assange in the same pot as Al-Queda terrorists and I agree that this deserves to be mentioned in the article, though perhaps not to the extent as it is currently done. But the US government hasn't called him a terrorist in the context of their war on terror, not even Biden, and I am more interested in what they are saying than in what Assange and his supporters are telling me that they say (or do or will do).KathaLu (talk
) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't a case of "us taking seriously the danger" Templar, it isn't the role of WP editors to evaluate the threats to people's lives, it's a question of what the balance of quality and in-depth sources say. On the list of statements Kathalu lists above, I tend to agree many of those should come out - it doesn't really matter what Gingrich, Liddy, et al think about this. 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter what they think. It greatly matters what they say and such rabble rousing for the rifled should be noted here.Why not go ahead and mention both letters in the article with a preçis? The recent debate on whether his risk of legal extradition to the USA is greater in Britain or in Sweden should also get mention--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 14:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::There was a request (granted) for an emergency debate on Assange in the Dutch Parliament (though it may not have gone ahead). I've previously noted the comments in a German Sunday newspaper on assassination. The business of threats was big news everywhere - the fact they're not being made at the moment has hardly diminished their permanent impact. Assange's life will be forever changed, whatever happens to the extradition. We have to avoid news and recentism and yet we've fallen right into the trap by including relatively trivial details of his travel while not documenting properly Assange's views on their effect. I think all the best-document threats against him (a selection at scrap-page here) should be re-instated as a sub-article. But I'm not even allowed to use this non-googlable page to keep what I think may be significant.

Here's a part of what I'm keeping, but I think it has a place in the article because it has permanent value: "On 20th Dec Assange claimed that a statement he was prepared to make on the steps of the High Court after he was released on bail was cut short because on police advice, he could be assassinated. Julian's son Daniel, 20, and his lawyer have received similar warnings. Speaking to a Spanish newspaper he said: “I receive death threats all the time. My lawyer receives them, my son receives them. Most of them seem to come from members of the United States armed forces.”[1] "Police feared he would be assassinated outside High Court" Daily Telegraph 20th Dec 2010. Templar98 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Have we got a statement from the Police that they had fears for Mr Assanges life?
Off2riorob (talk
) 11:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure - whenever I research and put in anything about the threats, they get reverted. I can't safely even keep material on non-googlable draft pages.

Fortunately we've got no business carrying out original research on whether Assange's fears are valid - especially over the threats that everyone in Europe thinks are very valid. Templar98 (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid in this situation - death threats are pretty much to be expected. We could add, Assange said he was worried for his life after receiving death threats. Sadly it only becomes really noteworthy if someone does something specific or if the police say they have specific fears.
Off2riorob (talk
) 11:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You've perfectly identified what may be the major problem in this article. This story is European, and Europeans take death threats quite seriously. However, article ownership is vested in people who see nothing strange about killing anyone anywhere in the world, with journalists sometimes deliberately targeted. Couldn't you recuse yourself from the topic on cultural grounds? Or should I take it that this article indeed has to display the view of the establishment? That's what I was told, though I confess I took it to be a joke. Templar98 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm a European in the UK, but I like to think I have an International outlook, is that a reason to recuse? Has someone been killed? or even attacked?
Off2riorob (talk
) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm requesting you recuse yourself on cultural grounds, not accusing you of being non-European. Even if you did edit until until 4.00am on Saturday morning in the UK and 3.00am the night before. After all, people could start to see multiple reasons for highly unusual cultural attitudes and your failure to notice just how many people have been renditioned, tortured and killed extra-judicially as "terrorists". You can't tell me Biden didn't know what he was doing when he said what he did, nor that he didn't know what he was doing when he made a two-handed rifle-shooting gesture during an interview. The only remaining question then is "did you take those to be threats" and you obviously don't. Templar98 (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats ridiculous, I could request you recuse yourself for being a supporter of Assange and unable to look at the article from a NPOV position. Bidens comment is already in the article and we have a fair few other comments from people and that his lawyers are afraid of rendition. As for the 300am and four am in central Europe I am an adult so I can stay up as late as I like, although I do need to get more of a real life , my online persona is taking over.
Off2riorob (talk
) 12:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Templar98, that has to be just about the most ridiculous argument for recusal I've ever seen. As for Off2riorob's editing habits, I find his suggestion entirely plausible, given that I've been known to make edits at 6 am myself often enough (I'm a Brit too - perhaps this is a 'cultural thing'? - more likely it is an internet geek culture thing). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Templar98, when you have to resort to elaborate personal attacks it is not good. Guys, I would not deign this with responses. --Errant (chat!) 15:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries, Templar has contributed well here and kept his cool when the majority of them have not remained or been re edited. Remember - We are all wanting the article to be as informative as possible and within guidelines so , please continue to present possible additions and to discuss as has happened well here to date - also
Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Templar98

The above editor, a substantial editor to this article, has now been revealed as an indef-banned sockpuppet. Editors involved in the article and aware of Templar98's additions to the article, please take note.--brewcrewer (yada, yada)

07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What a user. Four years he has been disrupting this wikipedia.
Off2riorob (talk
) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I managed to follow Errant's advice and did not deign his most recent comments on this TP with a response although the temptation to react was strong. KathaLu (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Assange The Legend

Admittedly, it is still early days, but the world-wide appeal of Assange's person and the Assange story (not the Wikileaks story) is noteworthy, I think. Or is it perhaps just normal in this day and age? I don't think it is accurately reflected in the article, and an editor would probably have to describe it in his or her own words. The following quotes from an article in today's Independent are a measure of the marketability of Assange, as well as of his remarkable ability to market himself, and this should be mentioned in a BLP.

Public relations consultant Mark Borkowski, who was approached to handle publicity for the website after Mr Manning's revelations, said, with no apparent irony: "It's the most compelling story of our time. It's like Bourne Identity, 24 and James Bond all coming together. The face of Julian Assange will soon replace the Che Guevara image."
Mark Stephens, Mr Assange's London-based solicitor, confirmed his client is now in talks with Hollywood while dismissing rival projects. "We refer to [them] as the biographies of the blind. Assange has been approached by a proper studio to make one, as opposed to a film of the blind." He added that any biopic that did not involve the man himself would have difficulty navigating libel law.

Any thoughts? KathaLu (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think mention of specific upcoming major book deals, movies, etc. deserve one short paragraph--not too much of a plug but a 'heads-up' that these are confirmed in the pipeline. I don't think we're responsible for painting a grand picture of his persona, though it's a part of the 'reception' he's received, but see no problem mentioning this as part of the general public/media response. What section do you think would be best? Ocaasi (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If he gets a movie deal we should add he got a movie deal. If his face is published on more t shirts than Che then we should add that..but until then its a bit premature. I definitely don't see that this quote from a publicist has any life story added value here.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Procrat, 23 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected

}} I suggest that this group of words: "7th Command Group in the Pentagon" by this one: "7th Command Group in the Pentagon" so that the link doesn't refer to the page about actual pentagons, but to the Pentagon. Procrat (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.
Off2riorob (talk
) 13:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I killed the whole section. It is way out of scope of that list. --Errant (chat!) 13:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Errant - I was just thinking that to myself, nice one.
Off2riorob (talk
) 13:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I was expecting the next section to be "mates of friends of serbs" and then "people who have been to the country". --Errant (chat!) 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hilarious, the more you look at lists the worse they seem. At least with a cat, the claim is supported reliable on the article page.
Off2riorob (talk
) 14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally agreed; I think it could be cut to one or two sentences. And I could buy an argument that Domscheit-Berg's comments directly about Assange are of relevance to his bio (whether it is due weight to mention them, no idea). It certainly needs rewording in current form though. --Errant (chat!) 14:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Inasmuch as it describes criticism of his personal leadership and actions, it seems very relevant to this article; notwithstanding the fact that these conflicts and his alleged shortcomings also had an impact on the site as a whole. I agree that your concerns might apply to the summary of Jonsdottir's comments in the present version, but other things she said, and the rest of the section, are more specifically about the subject of this article.
Work on this article has focused too much on general punditry about Assange (although some of this has been been pruned already), and left out informed opinions; the new section might be a first step to remedy this NPOV violation.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote in the edit summary, this section deals with the personality of Assange and so I feel it should remain, though the sentence contructions/general clarity maybe improved. I am also, for adding this or similar section in the Wikileaks page. I didnt quite get what u mean by "this new section might be first step to remedy this NPOV" violation." GreenEdu (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, maybe that was a bit unclear, let me rephrase: NPOV requires us to represent notable views in a balanced fashion. I think that it is not consistent with this principle to (for example) highlight a rant by a random talk radio host who apparently has no particular expertise about the article's subject (and is a convicted criminal), while not mentioning the opinions of people who have been Assange's closest collaborators for years (as reported by reliable sources, of course). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I actually have some pretty serious issues with the content - in particular OR. The sources for this are a Wired article, which doesn't really support the cited content, and a Spiegal interview, which in some respects is a primary source for Domscheit-Berg's opinion. Ideally if we want to summarise the content then we need a source that does so. --Errant (chat!) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I do agree as regards focus on comments from some uninvolved politician band-standing, there was a fair bit of resistance when they were added, perhaps we can look at trimming that section back a bit. - the longterm relevance of such content is minimal indeed. In light of the comments I took liddy out, we have an undue amount of such worthless band-standing .
Off2riorob (talk
) 15:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not naive enough to think we can separate disputes with Assange from disputes with WikiLeaks. I think this single paragraph is about the right length and covers relevant issues about his/the organisation and reception to his leadership style. I think we should keep it within this approximate length. (No problem with the Liddy comments being in or out). Ocaasi (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this a couple of days ago and was going to start a thread as Rob has. Looking at it again though I think it is ok since the actions are related to Assange rather than being purely WL related. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
My only comment is that the characterization of Domscheit-Berg as "effective number 2 at Wikileaks" should be marked Citation Needed. Assange personally, as well as official communications outlets for Wikileaks, have asserted that this is not true, while Domscheit-Berg has made the claim, and media organizations have echoed it. I am unaware of any hard proof to either side. 67.221.2.30 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Palin Quote

I'm pretty sure that including Palin's opinion of Assange violates BLP. It's been weeks now, and the Palin quote is looking more and more like news related to her than biographic information about Assange. I'm going to suggest removing it. If there is serious question about including it, I'll add an RfC for the issue. aprock (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't really need to add every single persons opinion on this man and it seems to be going that way. Any time somebody involved in politics in the states voices thier opinion on Assange (or even simply mentions him in some cases) it is almost immedietly up on this page; it needs to stop imo. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting that just recently over at the Sarah Palin article we had a bunch of people arguing that she isn't a politician. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Support removal; it was commentary on he Facebook page and nothing particularly new over other criticism - I definitely think we should be summarising the scope and content of the criticism, plus one or two carefully selected quotes with significant critical analysis in RS's that identify them as either unique/abnormal, notable or representative. --Errant (chat!) 10:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deffinatly, we should have a section that summarises each side of the debate, with a few select quotes that are noteworthey; such as quotes of people calling for him to be excecuted. As for Palin not being a politician; it's deffinatly and interesting concept, I've never really thought of her as anything other than a politician, a bad one that thrives on scare tactics and prays on the "fears" of the batshit insane extreamist christian right in the US, but a politician none the less. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Palin's credentials aren't really relevant here. Her quote, much as I think it is bollocks, represents quite well the hostile reaction from much of the American mainstream and right-leaning media. Since the criticism section is still a reasonable length, I don't think we need to remove the quote until we summarize both criticism and support sections. Ocaasi (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
To create a good enough summary, we would need somebody who is quite knowledgeable in the way politics works in the various countries from which Assange is recieving both criticism and praise, but thats deffinatly not me. Also, try and be neutral, we dont want our "left-wing bias" shining throught too bright after all ;) --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, well I think really we need a source that is able to do that :) --Errant (chat!) 11:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
true :) --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed. aprock (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

After five days of stale discussion I don't see a clear consensus to remove the Palin quote - I think as she is pretty much the most high profile republican at he moment her comment are quite important concerning the American political reaction to Assange.
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please engage in
WP:BRD. Additionally, you have reverted several edits unrelated to Palin. Please be more careful. aprock (talk
) 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, brd - you were bold and I reverted and you revereted again - breaking the process. I also commented about the overlinking in th that talkpage section just below as well.
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The general consensus above looks pretty clear to me, but if you feel that off the cuff remarks by Palin are really meat for this BLP, I'll write up the RfC sometime tomorrow. With respect to your blanket reverts, your comments here and below only cover some of the content you reverted. Reverting without reviewing the edits seems unwarranted here. aprock (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the edits - basically - the removal of the palin quote and the removal of the linking to the internals related to the charges, with another couple also
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
From
WP:OVERLINKING: Avoid linking plain English words. Are you saying that "bail" and "custody" are not plain English words? Avoid linking common units of measurement Are you saying that "$" and "£" are not common units of measurement? aprock (talk
) 09:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is of course subjective, but "$" and "£" are signs and are often linked as some people may not recognize them. Bail is imo worthy of linking to as it enlightens the reader further as it is a legal term perhaps not well understood by some readers, we are after all interested in furthering readers understanding of topics.
Off2riorob (talk
) 10:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you also feel that "modem", "touring theatre company" and "rape" all require additional enlightenment beyond their plain English usage as well? aprock (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Aprock, because you deleted first, as far as BRD I believe you are the B and Rob the R. Now we D, with the original version prior to your deletions as the temporarily live one. I also disagreed above with removing Palin's quote, for the same reasons Rob mentioned. I didn't check your other edits, so maybe they're ok and we can separate them out. Ocaasi (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

) 20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes , we discussed this issue the other day and I think being nominated for a peace prize came out as not especially noteworty, as there are hundreds and hundred of nominations and a lot of people are able to do it..this person
Off2riorob (talk
) 20:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it IS relevant. There are allready HUNDREDS of unique articles written on the subject of his nomination. I counted 6 articles in CZECH on google news announcing it. Anything from the outside world the Czechs think is notable is BIG. I'm not saying they're/we're issolationist. It's just, Czechs tend to be really lazy on the translation of foreign news stories. I hear it took them days to get 9/11 into the Czech news papers. Tim.thelion (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we should mention this.--Neo139 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Umm, the nom is for Wikileaks. Not relevant to Assange's biography really. Even if it were Assange.. "meh", anyone can be nominated, the key is winning :) See no significance at this point --Errant (chat!) 21:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I agree, not here presently or in the near future - it has been added to the wikleaks article and at least they have given it a worthy rebuttal - as we said earlier - nominating is not notable at all. -
Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)