Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 18 April 2019

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about WikiLeaks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about WikiLeaks at the Reference desk.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Libraries Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Low‑importance WikiLeaks is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kendrawsing (article contribs).

Material from WikiLeaks was split to Information leaked by WikiLeaks on 9 December 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Material from WikiLeaks was split to Reception of WikiLeaks on 17 November 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Why the disclaimer?

Apple Records doesn't have a disclaimer that they aren't related to Apple Inc. So why does this article need a disclaimer? This looks like a meta Misplaced Pages thing. Wiki software predates Misplaced Pages by many years and WikiLeaks originally was conceived to use Wiki software, but they later rejected it. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone Not Awful, I support retaining the disclaimer. I have often observed people online confusing WikiLeaks with Misplaced Pages. And your Apple analogy is absurd. In 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service." No U.S. government official has said any such thing about Apple. Whenever possible, Misplaced Pages would be wise to distance itself from WikiLeaks, which is toxic on a grand scale. KalHolmann (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote has been extensively discussed, and consensus is that it is a necessary evil. In general, Misplaced Pages does not use disclaimers in articles. This is a rare exception. Reach Out to the Truth 00:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has numerous partner projects and organizations, from WikiMedia, WikiCommons etc.. and fact Wikileaks started out with MediaWiki software muddles the two. In general, I would support adding a disclaimer to WikiHow as well, but that's a discussion on their page. Shushugah (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The disclaimer is there to hide the obvious connection between the Wimipedia and WikiLeaks. Assange is obviously a sock puppet of Jimbo Wales. Sayyed al afghani (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It's been discussed - the hatnote's needed, and a rare exception to the guidelines of "no disclaimers". Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 4chan forum (used by far-right American groups) to 4chan forum, to comply with NPOV and reduce bias. 97.121.167.173 (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources after the sentence you are referring to support the information that you are asking be removed. How is this not neutral? ~ GB fan 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done (and also wikilinked 4chan). GB fan, the parenthetical note made it sound like (or could have made it sound like) 4chan's main purpose is use by the far-right, whereas the Guardian article simply said that the Monde article reported that it was "" by them. I wouldn't automatically object to a more nuanced note here if it can be made in a well-sourced way, but as it stood, it was a blanket statement about 4chan that wasn't appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Why no external website link?

I'm wondering why the article doesn't provide a link to WikiLeak's offical website. The "External links" section is empty. NewWorld101 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Although WikiLeaks.org is written in the side box I don't know why it isn't the usual clickable URL Cannonmc (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Seth Rich BS

The editor Aviartm has edit-warred out long-standing content on Assange's fueling of Seth Rich conspiracy theories (even going as far as violating 3RR). The editor keeps removing RS language that notes that Assange (1) suggested/implied that Seth Rich was the leaker and (2) that Assange's BS fuelled conspiracy theories on the subject. The editor instead keeps adding obfuscating WP:OR nonsense that claims Assange "stated no confirmation or refutation that Seth Rich" was the source, when RS clearly say Assange "suggested"/"implied" this or "carefully nurtured" the conspiracy theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You just copied and pasted your info here from your talk page inquiry on Julian Assange. And to correct the balance as I said previously at Julian Assange's talk page, I added the material to WikiLeaks here. Now, both POVs are balanced. Aviartm (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed this. First, Aviartm, I have no idea what you mean by "both POVs." What "POVs" would those be? The sources reflect that the implication that Seth Rich might be connected to WikiLeaks is an evidence-free conspiracy theory. Second, moreover, you removed the cited statement "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks" (that's WP:PROFRINGE) and inserted lengthy Assange quotes cited to YouTube clips to Assange interviews. That's WP:PROFRINGE. Third, you lack consensus for this material and need to stop inserting it, over the objections of other editors. Neutrality 20:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Firstly, only 1 editor has objected, that is Snooganssnoogans. By "both POVs", I am referring to the insinuation by Assange in an interview with Nieuwsuur and the straightforward comment by Assange in an interview with Fox News. Secondly, "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks", yes, and like Assange too has mentioned, Seth Rich is not either. The insinuation/suggestion/implication of Assange by Assange with Nieuwsuur is already in there. Continued, I removed the sentence because I found the two citations to be inadequate and not relating to the sentence. The Slate citations debunks a conspiracy about the FBI killing Rich; the citation furthers discusses Assange's interview with Nieuwsuur, which is already cited numerous times. The second citation for the sentence, NBC, mentions WikiLeaks' reward for information and other deaths "related" to Rich's. That is it. Neither mention deliberately that "there is no evidence", etc. That is why it was removed. It can be added, just add a corresponding and appropriate citation for it instead of off topic citations. Further, how is it Misplaced Pages:PROFRINGE if there are citations with the quotations? From the page: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources." The quotations have several citations so I think it is not Misplaced Pages:PROFRINGE. Lastly, neither does Snooganssnoogans have consensus. Aviartm (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

First, those are just statements of a single individual, so it's super weird to refer to two statements of the same guy as 'both POVs." Second, Snoogans plus myself is two editors. Third, as your second point ("there's no evidence that Rich wasn't the source of the leaks"), that's an argument from ignorance. Fourth, the sources clearly support the statement that there is no evidence behind the conspiracy theory; the Slate article says there is "absolutely zero evidence for" the claim. Neutrality 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Let's try and not play semantics please, just "both POVs" as in "both comments". Secondly, because prior to you commenting, there has only been Snooganssnoogans on this talk page. Thirdly, how is that bad per se? There is a void here; no one knows for sure. U.S. Intelligence says Russia, Assange says no; doesn't confirm or deny who the source is, etc. It is not our place to speculate the conclusion; per Misplaced Pages:CRYSTALBALL. As previously mentioned, "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks" can be added, just add right citations. The Slate does mention that but about the FBI conspiracy, not the "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks." These are widely 2 different things. Lastly, you did not comment how on using quotations from reliable sources is Misplaced Pages:PROFRINGE. I would like feedback because you said it, so it is best that you come up with a response please.

Finally, I think it is best that we do include "No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks." with appropriate citations; include quotations from Assange's interviews from Nieuwsuur and Fox News as prior to my edits becoming controversial, these interviews were already cited, just not in text form in the page. Both comments of Assange should be in there. The current state of the page is misleading and the "fueling conspiracies" part is extremely violating Correlation does not imply causation. Snooganssnoogans since the start has not been cooperative and been Misplaced Pages:STONEWALLING heavily. All I wanted to do was add Assange's comments on the matter (with reliable sources of course) to expand contexts and his thoughts on the matter. To eschew Assange's comments on a controversial matter is unethical editing in my opinion. Aviartm (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The "fueling conspiracies" part is taken directly from the source. E.g., NBC News: "WikiLeaks ... is fueling Internet conspiracy theories." I have no idea what you mean by repeating "extremely violating correlation does not imply causation," but that's not a policy. And there is no policy that we have to replicate long quotations from anyone, let alone fringe figures. WP:PROFRINGE says we are "nor a soapbox for self-promotion" of fringe theories, nor should we give "the proclamations of its adherents" excessive prominent. Rely on the mainstream sources and their interpretations. Neutrality 23:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality I know that there is no policy of "Correlation does not imply causation" (either though it should be a policy), but it is certainly an intellectual principle of reasoning. D.C. Police offered a $25,000 reward for information yet the Misplaced Pages page does not entertain that idea of the "D.C. Police fueling conspiracy theories!" I wouldn't say Assange is "fringe"; continued, so we should just eschew from using quotations now on Misplaced Pages from individuals in any matter? "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." My edits adhered to this 100%. Frankly, so far, there has been no good causes to be against my edits besides conducting Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEIT and Misplaced Pages:STONEWALLING... Both comments by Assange, the straight-forward one and the insinuation one were on the page, cited using reliable sources, and structured in a Misplaced Pages:NPOV manner. Now, the page is not Misplaced Pages:NPOV and there are factual errors.

Gimmicks used to object my edits: 1. No clear consensus, 2. WP:PROFRINGE despite edits being neutral and heavily cited by "the mainstream sources and their interpretations" (Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F; plus new citations from convos such as G. Despite Citations 260, 262, and 263 mentioning the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview. 3 out of 4 currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview.; all I did was add quotations of this interview and Fox News' interview with Assange.; 3. Misplaced Pages:STONEWALLING, and 4. Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEIT. This is the most baseless and bogus opposition in contesting any edits of mine I have ever encountered. Not once did any editor spruce up or change the material of my edits at the time. They were always reverted despite lack of argument. And since Snooganssnoogans is not participating and possibly forcing a WP:DEADHORSE card, and you Neutrality, not showing much error or contestation in my edits, I can only try again with my edits. In short, the editor that expands contexts gets contested for no good reason. Aviartm (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Analogies of Julian Assange to the D.C. police are totally irrelevant. I've made my position, based on Misplaced Pages policy, very clear, as has Snooganssnoogans. You haven't fully responded to those points, but have chosen instead to get personal ("bogus opposition," etc.). I'm not going to repeat myself. Neutrality 03:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality Which points have I not addressed? You and I have both responded thoroughly to our comments and questions. And your most 2nd most recent response to my concerns were primarily for comment than anything else which I responded to them in full. About Snooganssnoogans, Snooganssnoogans has not responded to this Talk Page at all. I have addressed all of your inquires, why not continue the reciprocity? There are clearly more dilemmas and violations in opposing my edits than my edits being published. Lastly, if you and Snooganssnoogans wish not to correspond, I will make my edits again. There is a reason why Talk Pages are a thing. Aviartm (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality "Analogies of Julian Assange to the D.C. police are totally irrelevant." <-- Why? Asserting something does not make it true. That's a non-argument. 84percent (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into games with you. This is an encyclopedia and not an Internet forum or debating society. If you want to take this to RfC with a version A/version B, take it to RfC (which would be better than filibustering). But if you "make your edits" again, without consensus, as you have threatened to do, you would violate Misplaced Pages policy. So I want to make that very clear and explicit to you. Neutrality 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality You are an administrator, you should be willing to solve disputes yet you have shown you are apathetic to doing so. And which policy will I be violating? Because in this case, if no consensus is reached, now what? Is Murder Of Seth Rich never to be edited again because "no consensus was reached?" And this situation is just moronic. Snooganssnoogans makes a Talk Page inquiry to solve an Misplaced Pages:Edit dispute of the lowest-quality imaginable; later doesn't participate whatsoever; somehow I am in the wrong for alleged Misplaced Pages:PROFRINGE but that gets disproven and no consensus is reached with the original creator of this Talk page inquiry, or anyone so far in this discussion. Editors should not Misplaced Pages:Cherrypick, Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEIT, Misplaced Pages:STONEWALL and should not make a Talk Page inquiry if they are not going to participate. Aviartm (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You specifically made a post on a noticeboard calling for more input to this debate. If you are uninterested in discussion, then why would you create that post calling for more eyeballs? 84percent (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in getting more views from experienced editors. I'm not interested in listening to the same editor filibuster. Please comment on the content, not on me, and please stop pinging me. Neutrality 04:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My edit experience is irrelevant and shouldn't be brought up here (see: WP:DNB and WP:APR). I have been and am commenting on the content; I simply asked you to explain or elaborate on your argument, however you responded with remarks about me personally, which seemingly includes a threat of admin action. My original question to you regarding the analogy of Julian Assange and the D.C. police has not been answered. 84percent (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It is very important to present a WP:NPOV. The text is currently clearly biased and misleading. In particular, replace

WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

With the more accurate and undoubtedly neutral:

Julian Assange did not confirm or deny the source behind the DNC emails. Assange elaborated by saying; "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." WikiLeaks offered a reward of $20,000 for information regarding Rich's death.

84percent (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The existing text accurately reflects the reliable cited sources. There is zero basis to call it "misleading" or less "accurate." Neutrality 03:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You asked for more eyeballs here; do you want my input or not? In my opinion, and others, there is a clear bias and the way the text is worded does not present a WP:NPOV. 84percent (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aviartm above. 84percent (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you 84percent. If you read what I have said of the past couple of hours, or the entire discussion, thanks for reading. Neutrality has yet to respond to my comments, again. I am still flustered that editors would contest more context on citations that are already within the page. It makes no sense to me. Aviartm (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

How can it be that adding additional factual context and including the original quote is somehow less neutral? Thank you for you efforts in keeping the page honest. 84percent (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

84percent I have no idea, zero idea. Thank you for the compliment. The pathetic thing about this, which I'm sure you read, is that "3 out of 4 currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview," and all I do is add context and its gets STONEWALLED. Aviartm (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you believe there is community-wide support for your obfuscatory fringe version, then start a RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I support the version in which we cite Assange directly. Especially as this concerns accusations against a BLP, it's better to stick closely to what they actually said, rather than how their critics characterize what they said. If the quote were inordinately long, then I would be in favor of paraphrasing it, but it's only a bit longer than the third-party paraphrase. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you propose we put the two versions to vote? I honestly haven't seen any persuading argument from the other side; as I said above, adding additional context and including the original quote is clearly the neutral approach. How should we proceed from here? 84percent (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I agree 100%. Especially for controversial contents per WP:BLPSTYLE. Aviartm (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

War Crimes

Since the arrest of Julian Assange "it" is often wrote/said WikiLeaks revealed war crimes.

For instance, this week Ecuador’s former president said that "although Julian Assange denounced war crimes, he’s only the person supplying the information." Ref.: The Latest: Quito arrest part of Assange probe, AP News, April 12, 2019

With the assistance of newspapers including the New York Times, Der Spiegel, the Guardian and Le Monde, the "Iraq: The War Logs" were disclosed and revealed the Pentagon had falsely denied knowledge of various crimes. The lead for the Guardian’s introduction to "Iraq: The War Logs" said that the WikiLeaks documents detail "torture, summary executions and war crimes."

Without going further back, have Wikileaks’ leaked documents exposed war crimes? If so, shouldn't we mention it in the introductory section. --93.211.209.233 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This statement should be made, with attribution. I've seen enough sources stating that WikiLeaks revealed war crimes that it certainly is a notable view. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Strong US-centric bias and recentism in lede

The lede is strongly focused on American politics. In particular, about a third of the lede is about the ongoing political scandal over 2016 election ("Russiagate"). The lede makes almost no mention of Wikileaks' leaks regarding other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and Russia. Russiagate doesn't need as much space in the lede, and the other leaks need at least some mention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks -- I agree. I've removed some of the RussiaGate from the lead, but I haven't touched the body. Specifically, whether Julian Assange has a US political preference is not relevant; we do not write the same about editor-in-chiefs or CEOs in the leads of, for example, The New York Times, Forbes, or other popular outlets. 84percent (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

When RS cover the biases of "news" organizations, we absolutely do cover that in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the lede should summarize the body and a large part of the body covers how this "journalistic" outlet pushes feverish conspiracy theories and hoaxes related to US politics, and all coincidentally about Democrats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This is actually a good example of how one-sided the article has become. WikiLeaks has released plenty of information on Republicans. Its leaks in 2010 mostly concerned the actions of the Republican administration of GW Bush. It published Sarah Palin's emails during the 2008 election campaign. But in 2016, it released emails about Clinton and the DNC, which the article now obsessively focuses on. There are also very important leaks about other countries that receive only scant mention - the Syrian government leaks, the leaks of draft sections of TTIP, and the leaks about the Turkish government, just to give three major examples. Misplaced Pages is a global encyclopedia, and this article has to keep a global perspective, rather than focusing narrowly on recent American politics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think it's ludicrous to suggest WikiLeaks has covered only Democrats. I can only think of the DNC Leaks & Podesta's inbox that are related to the U.S. Democrats. Are we forgetting about the Arab Spring, Collateral murder, Gitmo detainees and torture methods, the Trans Pacific Partnership, Scientology, CIA hacking, Sarah Palin, Australia's potential internet censorship blacklist, etc? WikiLeaks sparked the Arab Spring -- this is widely cited -- surely that belongs in the lead, no? 84percent (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add RS content to the body, go ahead and do so. No one is stopping you. WikiLeaks's actions in the 2016 election are extremely notable, as reflected by RS coverage, and arguably shaped the outcome of the election. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that a "journalistic" outlet like WikiLeaks pushes hoaxes, falsehoods and feverish conspiracy theories. It is entirely standard to cover such content both in the body and lede of Misplaced Pages articles for organizations that purport to do news. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You are also violating WP:BRD and Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution rules by edit-warring out long-standing content without consensus. Why is it so difficult for you to obtain consensus for your edits, either through talk page discussions or by seeking community-wide input through a RfC? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Thucydides411 and 84percent, there is too much focus on American politics. Some people want to use WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a scapegoat, they love to play the blame game. Hillary Clinton herself blamed almost everyone for her election loss. – BBC: The long list of who Hillary Clinton blames. --Tobby72 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@84percent: I agree, all those things belong in the lede. The article as a whole, as well, is unbalanced. The obsession with Russiagate has spilled over into many articles, including this one, with people inserting every possible detail about this particular American domestic political scandal into tangentially related articles. Reading this page, one could be forgiven for thinking that all WikiLeaks had ever released were the DNC emails. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Funny, no mention of State Department folks laughing about rigging elections in Haiti. (§) Nothing about Haiti at all in the article. Nothing about Petrocaribe either. (§) That's just crazy. On whose "authority" is this entry written? When an entry is judged to be embarrassingly bad should the primary authors be allowed to continue to edit war to keep it as it is? SashiRolls 00:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I also find it "crazy" that "Arab Spring" has zero mentions in the article. And I am not surprised by the link you posted. Thank you for revealing that. 84percent (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RFC is to discuss about Version A and Version B below and whether Version B should be implemented. Aviartm (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A is the text before my edit(s): A and this is current content: Current (They are exact except the 2nd to last citation.)

Version B is my most recent edit prior to revert: B This is the original edit that first got reverted: B2

Here are the paragraph comparisons:

Old: WikiLeaks has promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich. Unfounded conspiracy theories, spread by some right-wing figures and media outlets, hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails. No evidence supports the claim that Rich was the source of the leaks.

Proposed: WikiLeaks has promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich. Right-wing figures and media outlets hold that Rich was the source of leaked emails and was killed for working with WikiLeaks. In a July 2016 interview with Megyn Kelly, Julian Assange did not confirm or deny the source behind the DNC emails. Assange elaborated by saying; "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." WikiLeaks offered a reward of $20,000 for information regarding Rich's death. Assange later spoke about sources bringing information to WikiLeaks in the context of Seth Rich, in an interview with Nieuwsuur, and stated that whistleblowers are at risk. When suggested that Rich died as a result of "just a robbery", Assange said "No. There's no finding." When the interviewer inquired "Why make the suggestion ?", Assange replied "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States."

(It is highly recommended from me that if you wish to participate here, please read both Talk Pages linked below to catch up in pace with the discussions and issues at hand.

Notice: Much of the recent discussions have been taking place on the WikiLeaks talk page despite the original Talk Page inquiry being at the Julian Assange talk page. So the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks talk pages are really one and the same but in two different Talk Pages. --Aviartm (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Rogin, Josh (12 August 2016). "Trump allies, WikiLeaks and Russia are pushing a nonsensical conspiracy theory about the DNC hacks". The Washington Post. Trump campaign surrogates are fueling a conspiracy theory that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was connected to the hacking of the DNC, a theory being pushed by WikiLeaks and the Russian state-controlled press
2. "How Seth Rich's death became an Internet conspiracy theory". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
3. Bui, Lynh (31 December 2016). "Homicides remain steady in the Washington region". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
4. Bromwich, Jonah Engel (17 May 2017). "How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staffer Fueled Conspiracy Theories". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
5. "Fox retracts Clinton murder conspiracy". BBC News. 23 May 2017. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
6. Seitz-Wald, Alex (2016-08-10). "WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
7. Stahl, Jeremy (9 August 2016). "WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory That Hillary Murdered a DNC Staffer". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton. ... . There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this and Snopes has issued a comprehensive debunking of the premise itself
8. Rogin, Josh (12 August 2016). "Trump allies, WikiLeaks and Russia are pushing a nonsensical conspiracy theory about the DNC hacks". The Washington Post. Trump campaign surrogates are fueling a conspiracy theory that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was connected to the hacking of the DNC, a theory being pushed by WikiLeaks and the Russian state-controlled press
9. "How Seth Rich's death became an Internet conspiracy theory". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
10. Bromwich, Jonah Engel (17 May 2017). "How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staffer Fueled Conspiracy Theories". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
11. FOX. "WikiLeaks founder addresses death of DNC staffer Seth Rich in Fox News interview". WTTG. Retrieved 2019-04-13.
12. "Assange talks 'revealing the truth' through WikiLeaks; Ramos: Neutrality not always an option for journalists". Fox News. 2016-08-26. Retrieved 2019-04-13.
13. Peter Hermann, Clarence Williams (August 9, 2019). "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 13, 2019.
14. Nieuwsuur (2016-08-09), Julian Assange on Seth Rich, retrieved 2019-04-14
15. Seitz-Wald, Alex (2016-08-10). "WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
16. "Charges undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins". Boston.com. 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
17. Seitz-Wald, Alex (2016-08-10). "WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-04-16.
18. "Charges undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins". Boston.com. 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2019-04-16.
19. Nieuwsuur (2016-08-09), Julian Assange on Seth Rich, retrieved 2019-04-16

Comment: The filer of the RfC has posted RfC notifications on the talk pages of editors who have previously voiced support for to the filer's preferred version (and none of the editors who voiced opposition to the filer's preferred version). This can be construed as WP:CANVASSING. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I notified them because they wanted an RFC and they wanted me to create it. That's it. E: "Appropriate notification - Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; so this is completely allowed. Aviartm (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This response is deceptive. You solely notified the editors who had expressed a preference for your version. You did not notify other editors (i.e. those who expressed opposition to your version) until after I warned you that you were canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've read the page on WP:CANVASSING and am entirely sure the notes fall under the "appropriate notification" category. 84percent (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not matter. As the rule I posted earlier, even if I did not notify the others after you said something, jumping to conclusions, it is allowed under "appropriate notification". Aviartm (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed part of A because it was a copyright violation. SashiRolls 02:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What was that specifically? SashiRolls Aviartm (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans plagiarised the BBC on 26 October 2017 (here). I've found this sort of practice before when looking into pages they have primarily authored. I removed the long-standing copyvio here; Snoogans restored a close paraphrase without attribution in the following edit. SashiRolls 07:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A Why would it ever be appropriate to rely on the director of WikiLeaks as the source for information about a conspiracy theory promoted by WikiLeaks? Am I missing something? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The articles also rely on the director of WikiLeaks. The quotes are the same source material that those articles rely on. The question is whether we should include the original words, or an opinionated third-party interpretation of those same words from critics. 84percent (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What articles? The sources I see are just interviews with Assange. And what about secondary sources who are not "critics"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version B because it presents a WP:NPOV; the current text presents a slanted view that WikiLeaks "fuelled" conspiracy theories and "hinted" that Rich may have been the source, however the sourced quotes don't establish that. I've already debated in the talk pages, however I'll say this again: How can it be that adding additional factual context and including the original quote is somehow less neutral? I wholeheartedly agree with Thucydides411 that it is better to stick closely to what Assange said, rather than how their critics characterize what they said. 84percent (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What do the secondary sources say? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That's like saying we should just quote from the manifesto of a murder suspect instead of quoting secondary sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment for observers: I know what you're getting at -- our discussion on another talk page, which I won't mention because it'll derail the Rfc towards a debate about another page. Happy to discuss that topic or its relevance over at your talk page or mine, but not within this Rfc. WikiLeaks nor Assange are murder suspects, their press conferences are coherent, and their mental health is not at question, etc. I won't reply further to this thread to stay on topic, and I respectfully ask that you do the same. 84percent (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are happy to discuss that topic then please answer my simple questions on your talk page without being manipulative. You have not as of yet answered the last question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A. There are four reasons why this is the better version: (1) A large number of reliable sources say verbatim that Assange "suggested"/"implied"/"hinted" that Seth Rich was the leaker: NBC News, Boston Globe, ABC News, USA Today, PolitiFact, NY Mag and Hollywood Reporter. No RS have been presented that rebut these RS. (2) A large number of reliable sources say that Assange "fueled" or "carefully nurtured" the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the leaker: This Oxford University Press book (p.25), Washington Post, LA Times, NBC News and BBC News. No RS have been presented that rebut these RS. (3) The extensive meandering quotes in Version B don't add anything and just obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories. (4) The assertion "Julian Assange did not confirm or deny the source behind the DNC emails" in Version B is entirely unsupported by RS, contradicts a large number of RS and is just an editor's interpretation of Assange's remarks (it's WP:OR). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is literally that directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he said. That doesn't make any sense. You're simply pushing to replace what he actually said with a paraphrase of approximately equal length that gives an opinion on what he said. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You didn't address anything User:Snooganssnoogans just said. I'm coming into this fresh, but all I'm hearing on the B side is unsupported declarations. Convince me by actually addressing the arguments and providing evidence of your own. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your response to User:Snooganssnoogans's (4)th argument is especially hypocritical. You're arguing against A by saying we shouldn't use paraphrasing by secondary sources, while supporting paraphrasing by editors? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I addressed the statement that directly quoting someone "obfuscates" what they said. I find that assertion incredible, and obviously wrong on its face. The issue here is whether to quote a living person directly, or whether to insert a paraphrase of approximately equal length. Quoting them directly will obviously give a more accurate representation of what they said. This is a BLP issue, so quoting the source directly is safest, especially given that the direct quote is not long.

As for the two versions of the text, I don't support either of them (I don't know why you assumed I hypocritically supported paraphrasing by editors, since I haven't endorsed either version - you should consider that I may not think what you're projecting onto me). Assange's statement about Seth Rich is an incredibly minor part of the history of Wikileaks, and doesn't need an entire paragraph. There is a clear effort here to use this article as a coatrack for Russiagate, just as many articles tangentially related to the subject have been similarly co-opted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon rereading User:Snooganssnoogans's argument I see that you've misrepresented them. They argued that the quotes "obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories". They did not argue that "directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he said." Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I apologize, I thought that first comment was from 84percent who had voted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A. The direct quotes in version B just clutter up the text and give WP:UNDUE attention to WP:FRINGE views, while adding nothing of positive value. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How is it WP:UNDUE when both comments from Assange are there in full detail with the quotes? The quotes are absolutely necessary to minimize misconstruing the material. And it is not WP:FRINGE per these citations: (Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F; and G. It is impossible for it the be WP:FRINGE when it is not a "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views" per the citations before. No one can argue WP:FRINGE. Aviartm (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can read exactly what Assange said and see what he meant. Quoting him directly doesn't obfuscate his meaning. That's the argument that Snooganssnoogans is advancing. All this is irrelevant, though, since this article is about WikiLeaks, not Russiagate, and such a long description of this narrow issue is undue. As I've said, there is an attempt to coatrack Russiagate into many articles (including the Julian Assange article, where a very similar, long-winded description of Assange's interview response about Seth Rich is also being pushed into the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is this comment being moved around? I wrote it in response to User:Thucydides411's 04:25, 18 April 2019 edit: I don't think so. Snooganssnoogans argued that the quotes "obfuscate from the fact that Assange was pushing these conspiracy theories". They did not argue that directly quoting Assange obfuscates what he said or what he meant. If I said "the cat got out of the house", quoting me directly would not obfuscate my meaning, but it might obfuscate that I was manipulating you into going outside so I could eat all the cookies while you were away. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The way that Assange was supposedly pushing this conspiracy theory was through the quote in question. If directly quoting Assange "obfuscates" his supposed support for the conspiracy theory, then that means he didn't actually clearly support it. In any case, quoting him is the clearest way to say what he meant. But both versions give wildly undue weight to Seth Rich and Russiagate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not just that he's being directly quoted, the language "fueled" a conspiracy theory is removed. That may precisely be the point. His quote clearly promoted the conspiracy theory, but a reader wouldn't know that unless being told. Similar to how quoting a lie is clearly quoting a lie, but for a reader with no information it is not known to be a lie. This isn't a great analogy but it may be the same point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut Please read my comment on Point 2 down below; it addresses the "fueled" fallacy. And which comment by Assange "clearly promoted the conspiracy theory"? Because my proposed paragraph addresses what you might be pointing out but I am not sure what you are pointing. Aviartm (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version B – Because it contains both the direct-comment and the "suggested"/"implied"/"hinted" shown here – "in an interview with Nieuwsuur, and stated that whistleblowers are at risk. When suggested that Rich died as a result of "just a robbery", Assange said "No. There's no finding." When the interviewer inquired "Why make the suggestion ?", Assange replied "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States."." Further, as mentioned in the WikiLeaks talk page: "Despite Citations 260, 262, and 263 mentioning the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview. 3 out of 4 currently-live citations mention the Dutch Nieuwsuur interview.; all I did was add quotations of this interview and Fox News' interview with Assange." So I am not sure how Snooganssnoogans can argue Point 1 because "verbatim that Assange "suggested"/"implied"/"hinted" when the current paragraph has no quotations from Assange yet my proposal does.

For Point 2; This is a fallacy because Correlation does not imply causation. This is heavily biased in saying WikiLeaks solely fueled conspiracy theories, despite D.C. Police offering a $25,000 reward for information and D.C. attorney Jack Burkman offered $100,000+ reward for information as well, yet the page does not entertain that idea. Yet, the dates of these rewards are: D.C. Police - August 1st, 2016 (1, 2), WikiLeaks - August 9th, 2016 (1, 2), and Burkman - November 2016. All of this can be confirmed here, the Rewards section of Murder of Seth Rich. And if you look at the current state of the Conspiracy Theories section for WikiLeaks statements on the same page, and compare it with what my edits were prior to being reverted, they are identical in nature and in information. This intentional Stonewalling of my edits despite identical information existing on the Murder of Seth Rich page is alarming.

For Point 3; As Thucydides411 mentions, how does adding quotations from reliable sources "obfuscate" anything?

Lastly, Point 4: It is not WP:OR when reliable sources report on the matter and Assange's quotations. Is this a double standard? Quote from Assange "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." 1, 2. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. It is not in our capacity assume whether Seth Rich is the source or not. That is why it is best to use Assange's comments on the matter with reliable sources, which I have done since the beginning. And to further clarify my comment just now in case of anything, the WikiLeaks lead already contains that Assange and WikiLeaks "denied their source was Russia or any other state." Says the same thing in the Julian Assange lead: "Assange consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks." Aviartm (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Nieuwsuur (2016-08-09), Julian Assange on Seth Rich, retrieved 2019-04-14
2. Seitz-Wald, Alex (2016-08-10). "WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
3. "Charges undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins". Boston.com. 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
4. Seitz-Wald, Alex (2016-08-10). "WikiLeaks Fuels Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Death". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-04-16.
5. "Charges undermine Assange denials about hacked email origins". Boston.com. 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2019-04-16.
6. Nieuwsuur (2016-08-09), Julian Assange on Seth Rich, retrieved 2019-04-16

Neither version. Devoting an entire paragraph to this subject would give it undue weight. There's been an attempt to coatrack as much Russiagate-related material as possible into this article and the Julian Assange article, seriously distorting both articles. By my count, this article spends over 2100 discussing Russiagate, versus just over 300 words on the US diplomatic cable leaks. In fact, both proposed versions would have us devoting approximately equal space to this one statement about Seth Rich as we devote to the "Collateral Murder" video, which may be the single leak that WikiLeaks is best known for. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 Well, there has to be something there. And with the Murder of Seth Rich - WikiLeaks statements section mentioning the very details that I am proposing to add should not be WP:UNDUE. What is your proposal? Aviartm (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Some mention should probably be made in the entry of the fact that the British government denied Assange safe passage for medical care while in the Ecuadorian embassy and that a doctor following his case has said that his imprisonment in the embassy without trial had long-term physical and psychological effects 1, 2 (this second article is by James Risen). While it does not excuse the trolling concerning SR (if that is indeed what it was), it does help to put them into perspective. Of course, this would need to be done in a way that does not involve WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Agree with Thucydides411 that this is a problem of weight, coatracking, and recentism which is not solved by making the text about the statement longer while ignoring the context. SashiRolls 08:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course, this would need to be done in a way that does not involve WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

Too late, you already did. In fact, your whole schtick strikes me as EXACTLY an attempt to WP:SYNTH up an excuse for Assanges's actions and looking for cover to do it. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

lol, are you telling me to "drop the schtick"? Good to see you again, Calton. SashiRolls 09:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SashiRollsPlease, how does adding Assange's own quotations with already-existing citations within the page qualify as "WP:OR"? And how is the proposed paragraph WP:SYNTH? From my understanding, there is no two different citations trying to make a new conclusion. The two interviews that are proposed to be added are explicitly separate and do not "mingle". Do you have a different proposed paragraph? Aviartm (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me because I wasn't entirely clear. Assange, holed up in the embassy, typed and said all sorts of provocative stuff. I don't think someone who wasn't a man hidden out in a tiny bedroom to avoid facing a rape charge / extradition, and someone who wasn't poring over stolen emails from the DNC, after poring over cablegate before that, would have been likely to speak in such a brash provocative manner (e.g. "asking me to choose between cholera & gonorrhea", "sadistic sociopath", "blood, sperm & breastmilk", etc.) However, this was a larger question than the narrow one being posed in the RfC

A version C which would be neutral without quoting would be something like version A but without the close paraphrasing/copyright violation and—obviously—without repeating the money phrase "conspiracy theories" three times in three sentences like a cockatiel doddering in its cage: e.g. very roughly... After the Washington DC police department offered $25,000 on 1 August 2016 for information about the death of former DNC employee Seth Rich, many right-wing outlets speculated that Rich may have been killed because he was the source of the DNC leaks. Via Twitter, Wikileaks announced that it would offer $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of the murderer, thereby bringing undue media attention to evidence-less claims of a link between Rich and the leaks. same citations as version A.

ps for the peanut gallery (Snoog / Neutrality / Calton): there is a conspiracy theory circulating that Wikipedians are doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories". We should try to correct that image we're giving of ourselves as doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories". SashiRolls 19:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A We rely on what reliable sources say about a subject, not how the subject tries to spin things. If, as here, the reliable sources call out a subject as being intentionally misleading about something, we need to call that out explicitly rather than bend over backwards to reinforce the misleading statements. At the end of the day, our articles are shaped by how reliable sources portray the subject, and the role of wikileaks in conspiracy theories is an important part in how reliable sources portray Wikileaks. We can't cover that up, and we need to reflect how the reliable sources portray it.Just a Rube (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How does adding a subject's own quotations with reliable sources, "spin things"? The proposal is adding quotations from interviews that are already cited within the page. Such information also exist on other pages already as previously mentioned. Aviartm (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version B I agree that it is a lot of space to give to a minor part of the Wikileaks story but as has been mentioned something needs to be said. However, it should not distract us from detailing the important information that Wikileaks has published. Burrobert (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Version A Which is an accurate summary of RS, though even that is flawed (what is an "unfounded conspiracy theory" - is it like a "dishonest lie"?) and may be overlong. Version B simply 'muddies the waters' and is barely coherent. The extended discussions above and on the Assange page are simply inventing increasingly convoluted arguments for creditting analysis of what JA said (ie, WP:OR), rather than simply summarising what RS have already said. RS almost universally think that JA 'fuelled' the conspiracy theory. Editors here are perfectly entitled to think that RS have misunderstood or misrepresented what JA said, they aren't entitled to insert those doubts into the article so as to 're-present' the evidence. Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete Can you clarify how it is "barely coherent" and how using a subject's own quotations, which is done all the time on Misplaced Pages, with reliable sources, is WP:OR?

Version A. Version A accurately summarizes sources, and I agree with Snoogs, Hob Gadling, Just a Rube, and others' points above. Avoids undue weight to Assange's fringe implications (and yes, lengthy quotations from an article subject are one example of how content can be undue and, at worst, fringe-promotional). And please, spare me the incessant badgering about this comment. Neutrality 14:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality What is the issue with adding quotations from the currently-live citations? And as I have told others, Murder of Seth Rich's WikiLeaks statements mentions the details that I am proposing. Why have one page be lopsided? Aviartm (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the whole sub-section. This is verified by passing mentions in many reliable sources. So what? It is WP:UNDUE. The second paragraph is even worse than version 2, as it is solely based on quotes. No matter how much US media hate journalists in other countries, this article needn't two WP:CSECTIONs. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Top-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Internet culture articles
• High-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• B-Class Libraries articles
• Mid-importance Libraries articles
• WikiProject Libraries articles
• B-Class Sweden articles
• Low-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages
• B-Class Internet articles
• Mid-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• B-Class Websites articles
• High-importance Websites articles
• B-Class Websites articles of High-importance
• B-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• B-Class Freedom of speech articles
• Low-importance Freedom of speech articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Cryptography articles
• Low-importance Cryptography articles
• B-Class Computer science articles
• Low-importance Computer science articles
• WikiProject Computer science articles
• WikiProject Cryptography articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Low-importance Espionage articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment