This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Privatemusings (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 16 April 2010 (→Family: further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:39, 16 April 2010 by Privatemusings (talk | contribs) (→Family: further)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Australia Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Some old stuff
wot no article? I'm a bit surprised.....
hmmmmm...... Privatemusings (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
hmm it is surprising.. I'm not sure if it'd be entirely coincidental though.
<3 Julian Assange
- Side note: The above message ("hmm it... <3 Julian Assange") was made by an IP Address who, when WHOISed, gives E-WIRE-AU as the netname, and a location in Western Australia. Assange lives in Kenya, if I remember correctly. 58.166.17.72 (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Does sombody know the pronunciation of Assange? 134.245.5.104 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o2ZGk1djTU (5:25). don't know how to transcript it into IPA 62.113.209.26 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- No reference here to Wikileaks! I don't know enough about him to 'be bold' and update, but if anyone does that is one glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulvo (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Images
people keep reverting the good photos of julian to maximally bad, unrepresentatives ones claiming copyright violations which they are NOT. You can see how bad this is when there are two photos taken at a conference (new media days/copenhagen) within what appears to be seconds of each other, from the same camera, and the one that makes the speaker look dumb is picked, even though BOTH have been uploaded to wikipedia, one called "1" and the other called "2". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.69 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- About the Copenhagen photos, you may have a point - I have changed it back from File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 2.jpg to File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 1.jpg, although I think that both of them are not very good (he is barely recognizable when they are displayed in the article).
- File:Julian assange.jpg, which had been uploaded by User:Groasvans to Commons on 1 April 2010, can be found (in a slightly different edit) in this 2008 Wired article, for example - without any indication there that it is under a free license. It has just been deleted on Commons.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is NOT wireds photo. It's distributed by WIkiLeaks itself as a press photo for the advisory board.
- No one said it is Wired's photo. The point is: As it is usual on Misplaced Pages and Commons, the fact that a photo had been published elsewhere is seen as prima facie evidence that the uploader did not create it himself, i.e. is not the copyright holder as claimed. (If he is, there are standard procedures to identify oneself for that purpose, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials.)
- In any case, I don't see problems with the current photo (File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg).
- Please sign your comments by appending four tildes (~~~~).
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is NOT wireds photo. It's distributed by WIkiLeaks itself as a press photo for the advisory board.
"Please fix"
Assange (or Wikileaks) seems to have objections to this Misplaced Pages article: "WL opponents seem to have created Julian's Misplaced Pages page ...").
I don't know if User:Privatemusings, who created the page, can be called a "WL opponent". I am certainly not (more like a fan, if not an entirely uncritical one), and I didn't get that impression of the other users who have edited the article either.
In any case, Wikileaks' statement "For ethical reasons we can't edit" is appreciated (it is in remarkable contrast to many article subjects who mistake Misplaced Pages for a PR outlet), see also WP:AUTO. But they (or Assange) are certainly invited to point out any faults they see with the article here on the talk page. Per Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, articles such as this one have to conform strictly to Misplaced Pages's verifiability, neutrality, and no original research principles.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- (replying to the wikileaks twitter thing) - I'm not sure where that's coming from - but yeah, if there's anything inappropriate here, please remove / fix, or if the chap himself would prefer it gone, perhaps there's some subtle way of letting us (the editors who've worked on it to date) know, and we can nominate it for deletion? - I'm up for whatever - oh, and I've removed the tags with the ratings etc. because I couldn't make them work with my updated info, and I'm not sure that anyone currently editing actually uses them :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have moved your comment here, to keep the discussions about different topics separate, I hope you don't mind.
- The cited tweet by Wikileaks seems to object to the existence of the whole article, not to particular statements in it. But let's see if you get a clarifying response to , or if Assange will follow the above invitation and explain specific concerns here on the talk page.
- These tags are being added to basically every article as a standard practice - some explanations about their purpose are at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- (replying to the wikileaks twitter thing) - I'm not sure where that's coming from - but yeah, if there's anything inappropriate here, please remove / fix, or if the chap himself would prefer it gone, perhaps there's some subtle way of letting us (the editors who've worked on it to date) know, and we can nominate it for deletion? - I'm up for whatever - oh, and I've removed the tags with the ratings etc. because I couldn't make them work with my updated info, and I'm not sure that anyone currently editing actually uses them :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Mendax
The citation (16) ,http://www.smh.com.au/technology/international-man-of-mystery-20100409-ryvf.html , makes no claims that Julian Assange is indeed Mendax , The article is inconclusive & speculative at best , this should be removed at the earliest . jeph (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Sydney Morning Herald article carefully lists concrete parallels, which do not appear to be "speculative".
- The sentence in this Misplaced Pages article currently reads:
- Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out that there exist similarities between Assange and the person called "Mendax" in the book.
- So we have two independent reliable sources (the other being last year's Wired UK article) making that connection. (And additionally less reliable ones, like .)
- And considering the fact that Assange himself co-authored a whole book about the scene he was involved in, and considered his hacking conviction a central part of his biography as late as 2006 , it also can't be said that this is an insignificant fact.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- this too seemed a bit flimsy, so I took it out too.. Privatemusings (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that Wired UK and the Sydney Morning Herald (or Bernard Lagan) can be called "flimsy" sources. Please don't ignore the previous discussion, address the arguments that have been given for the inclusion and give some actual arguments for your deletion.
- Also, please be a bit more careful while editing - your removal destroyed other citations of the same source.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think BPLS quite clearly asks us to have a very conservative tone , which is not the case when we say "there exists similarities between Assange and the person called Mendax in the book"jeph (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think the current sentence in the article ("Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out ...") is actually written in a very conservative tone. But since you see it differently, what wording of the statement would you suggest to achieve such a tone?
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since adding that line does not actually add any significant value to the article or till such time "julian" himself or someone authoritatively comes out with it we should remove it.This is sort of like chasing the face of the man in the iron mask.It does not add to any real content to the article.jeph (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think BPLS quite clearly asks us to have a very conservative tone , which is not the case when we say "there exists similarities between Assange and the person called Mendax in the book"jeph (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- this too seemed a bit flimsy, so I took it out too.. Privatemusings (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
< I agree with jeph - I'll do so now.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Family
"Assange has a son, who is attending university as of 2010" from the wikipedia article reads like a fact , when it merely buys on the observations of others , that of Sydney Morning Herald from a book , does it not come under "original research" , is it verifiable ?? jeph (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- seems a bit intrusive, and flimsy, so I removed it. Privatemusings (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be familiar with the no original research policy. "Merely buying on the observations of others" (i.e. reporting information that has been published elsewhere, citing reliable sources) is exactly what we are supposed to do as Wikipedians. On the contrary, that policy forbids making own observations. And of course "no original research" doesn't apply to sources, or otherwise no facts at all would be eligible for inclusion in Misplaced Pages...
- Also, your implication that the Sydney Morning Herald got the statement from the "Underground" book is obviously false. The article says:
- Clearly this statement couldn't have been made in 1997, when the son was much too young to be attending university. In addition it should be noted that (according to the SMH) Assange released that information himself, i.e. it wasn't uncovered against his will by some sleuth.
- Having children is usually considered a relevant fact in a biography about a person, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. (As opposed to the names of children - I would certainly agree that publishing them is intrusive, at least if they are not notable themselves.) That being said, I agree that the issue merits a careful discussion, so let's see what other arguments (besides mere opinion and a misinterpretation of Misplaced Pages policies) might be offered.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The article only says that "Assange has said he has a son at university " in the wiki article though it was "Assange has a son, who is attending university as of 2010" , which is not claimed in the article & falls under the ambit of original research. Also I could not find any secondary source for it in line with BLPS. What I meant was it "that of Sydney Morning Herald & from a book" .None of the other citations talk abt his son . jeph (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- yeah - I'd agree on this point also - I'll make this change, and the one detailed above. Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- of course, the status quo is that the reference to a son at uni. is absent ;-) - I think it's best left that way. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
hacker ethics bit
I think the collection of writings in this section was pretty interesting, but it's not a good fit imo for a balanced bio, so I've removed it for now. I'll sniff around to see if there's a better article home for it.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories: