Talk:Jacob Appelbaum

Photographer?

He takes photos and puts them on Flickr ("NSFW"). So do many people. Is his work published, exhibited, or discussed? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can assume he's not a family man.

Addressed in the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

His photography has been published numerous places in print and online, and he's had gallery shows in SF, Toronto, and Vienna; I haven't added anything about his photography to the article yet but I will in the future if someone else doesn't first. I should disclose here that I've avoided editing this article until now because I'm a friend of the subject, but since it has been seriously lacking for a long time and he's been in the news a bit lately today I decided to add a few verifiable facts about him. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 00:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The photographer citation in the article is broken. Do you have any citations for the gallery shows you mention? Jakesnake22 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Detainment/questioning

More info in a forthcoming Rolling Stone article. Jebba (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight

Alright it is unsourced, but it is clear as f!uck that he is of Jewish heritage. --91.115.56.67 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it might seem clear based on his name, extra care must be taken with pages that fall under WP policy on biographies of living persons. If you can find a source to verify assertions about his ancestry or faith, please add the appropriate cite. With an appropriate citation, your contribution to WP would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your contributions!--Gnowor^T_C 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

He frequently references the holiday of Christmas as the day that he eats Chinese food and goes to the movies -- cited by him as "Jewish tradition." I will find a citation for it eventually, but he says it every single year on his (now closed) LiveJournal.98.225.230.65 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:BLPSPS, but I guess it is fine to use himself as the source in a case like this? He gave the keynote at the Chaos Computer Congress 29 (see Chaos_Communication_Congress) and mentioned being Jewish at 43:26 of the recordings of that talk (video, audio freely available, and everyone on the internets should have watched it IMHO): "I say this as someone of Jewish descent standing in Hamburg right now, which is just fantastic." I have no idea how to cite this kind of stuff and I am not sure of its importance either, but if someone wants it in and if this is a valid source you can use it... --AmenophisV (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Low Importance!?

If you go through this guy's travails via the Democracy Now interviews video links (4 of them including a fomer senior NSA boss William Benny and a similarly poor abused Journalist you will realize how important his troubles are to all of us and Democracy in general in light of the current US Domestic Citizen Self-Spying Policy (along with the statutes that gags 1st and 3rd parties and essentially prevents Judicial Review and oversight under the guise of State Security). Also in the light of the ongoing WikiLeaks and Assange issues...

Bump the importance on this bio and story to high or medium at least!!!

(BTW: you will rapidly become a tor user as a result.)122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Updated External links accordingly with links to all the 4 videos and a text backgroud article and edited to reflect a Democracy Now Exposé which is accurate NPOV as -: no other media outlet in the United States would accurately and adequately report on this issue - (as every media analyst outside the US knows ;-))!122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Cypherpunks" book

I've just created a page for the new book Cypherpunks (book) by Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn, and Jérémie Zimmermann. Contributions to it are welcome. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Photos used

In late 2011, the subject of this article indicated his preferred image via twitter. However, I do not believe this photo to either be the most representive, nor the clearest. We're spinning our wheels and rotating the same three (fairly dated) photos:

• 
  the subject's preferred photo
• 
  22C3
• 
  Current photo
• 
  Alternate

In Wikimedia commons, there's literally an entire category devoted to pictures of him. So I'm kind of curious as to why photos from seven years ago are being used. Thoughts? ♥GlamRock♥ 21 April 2013

The photos of him presenting at The Last Hope clearly have the most encyclopedic value of the options you presented. That talk is one of the things he is well known for. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The pictures presented were ones used in the past couple of years. It just makes me curious why not, say, this recent photo instead. The photo used currently was from his cold boot talk, which while notable was quite a while ago. I get the feeling that this is some sort of wiki etiquette thing that I'm not getting yet, hence not just changing it. ♥GlamRock♥ 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support using that photo instead. It is more recent, as you said, and has plenty of EV. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Balance

This article is seriously ubalanced, with a paragraph about investigation and detainment that's longer than that one on his research and activism. This is an entry in an encyclopedia, not a full-length biography. It's not unimportant, but this isn't the place to go into minor details (examples: exact dates, how many minutes he was detained, a quote about what he had on his USB drive, where he wrote things, who was a guest at the same time ... and so on and so forth). A couple of sentences about the fact that he has been detained multiple times, mentioning the Twitter data thing et cetera should be enough. /Julle (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Since no one had commented, I tried to do something about it. The central and most important information is still there: he has repeatedly been detained at airports and the DOJ has requested data from his Twitter account. It doesn't talk about things that are fairly irrelevant in this context, such as exact dates for when something happened in 2010, or on which blog he wrote after being detained, or what he had encrypted on his USB drives. Most importantly, it makes sure that the focus of this article is on his person, research and activism, while at the same keeping the information that said activism has led him to be detained and questioned by American authorities. Or so I hope, at least. /Julle (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I support your changes, FWIW. -84user (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links - moved here

• Researchers Find Way to Steal Encrypted Data at New York Times
• How to bypass FileVault, BitLocker security at CNET
• BoingBoing interview with Appelbaum on "The Afghan War Diaries"
• The NSA Is Watching You on Democracy Now!
• "We Don’t Live in a Free Country": Jacob Appelbaum on Being Target of Widespread Gov’t Surveillance on Democracy Now! - 1 of 4 Videos...
• Whistleblower: The NSA is Lying–U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails on Democracy Now!
• More Secrets on Growing State Surveillance: Exclusive with NSA Whistleblower, Targeted Hacker on Democracy Now!
• Targeted Hacker Jacob Appelbaum on CISPA, Surveillance and the "Militarization of Cyberspace" on Democracy Now!
• Keynote by Jacob Appelbaum at linux.conf.au 2012
• Jacob Appelbaum's keynote speech at the Chaos Computer Club's 29c3
• Snowden Der Spiegel Interview - The latest on the US Secret State Surveillance Apparatus
• Jacob Appelbaum & Dmytri Kleiner - Resisting The Surveillance State And Its Network Effects
• NSA Hearing European Parliament 5 Sept 2013 (full) - Testimony before the European Parliament LIBE Committee Inquiry into the NSA Scandal

64.134.240.29 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check for any others, and confirm that his sole ACM citation is included.--FeralOink (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Appelbaum is an atheist of Jewish background" vs. "Appelbaum is a bisexual, Jewish, atheist"

I've made an account, because this seems like this issue is apparently something that multiple people care about?

I'm still very confused by the objections to my edit. Besides the issue Rama mentioned with the original phrasing "conflat[ing] completely unrelated notions ("bisexual" and "Jewish")", which I think I fixed by adding commas, I don't understand at all why, given that the quoted source referenced, which appears verbatim in the References section, has Appelbaum referring to himself explicitly as "an atheist, bisexual, Jew", it is not relevant? Why is his atheism any more or less relevant than his Judaism or his bisexuality? (I also recognize that I don't really understand what Rama's other point is, exactly. I think I responded to it at the link, but I'm not totally sure.)

Also, I'm rather new, so maybe it is obvious and I am just failing to see, but how is this in any way related to point of view, such that it "could imply WP:NPOV issues". If you're able to, could you explain that? (Both for the purposes of this discussion, and more generally I thought I generally understood WP:NPOV before now...) Gaditb (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that just saying he's "Jewish" is ambiguous, as it might be understood that he is a practicing atheist and jew, which would be confusing. "of Jewish background" (alt: "of Jewish heritage/descent") makes it clear that it's a reference to the ethnic group, not the religion. When Appelbaum says he is "an atheist, bisexual, Jew" there is ambiguity but the intended meaning is understood in context. In my opinion it's still unclear in the first case of he ever was a practicing/believing jew so the ambiguity remains but I highly prefer "of Jewish background/heritage/descent" to just saying he's "Jewish". He even himself said "I say this as someone of Jewish descent standing in Hamburg right now, which is just fantastic". Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The citation quotes him explicitly identifying himself as "an atheist, bisexual, Jew". Shouldn't we take him at his word about himself and, if it is ambiguous, leave it ambiguous, rather than forming our own interpretation? Furthermore, may I question where you get your assumption that he is not a practicing Jew, or even that it is unclear that he is a practicing Jew? Less than a month ago he posted on Twitter that he was "Burning the Yahrzeit candle for the eleventh anniversary of my father's death", and that "I wish I could put a stone on my father's grave again." -- two explicitly Jewish customs. Do those not make it very clear that he is now, and was, Jewish religiously as well as ethnically?

Also, may I ask the larger-scale question of why, in general, "of Jewish background" is highly preferred? It seems very awkwardly phrased. And, what do you mean by "practicing atheist"? Gaditb (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is a direct quotation, you must specify it and quote the exact words as spoken by the author (otherwise it is plagiarism): "Jacob Appelbaum qualifies himself a "this and that" at Somewhere on Some Date (Source)". It should furthermore be obvious that the quotation is not taken out of context and that it is significant (typically having at least two or three good sources to back the quotation does the trick). Rama (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure if I was clear about that: The citation that we currently use to say his is an atheist, cite note 39 on the page, has that exact quote. The citation that we have, at the bottom of the page, reads in full "Like, for me, as an atheist, bisexual, Jew, I'm gonna go on, uh - oh and Emma Goldman is one of my great heroes and I really think that anarchism is a fantastic principle by which to fashion a utopian society even if we can't get there." (Copied from the bottom of the page.)

This citation is currently used to give evidence that he is an atheist (and, presumably, it is sufficient evidence). It seemed reasonable to me that that citation gives exactly as much evidence that he is bisexual and Jewish. Gaditb (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Gaditb, you have reverted to your formulation, which is not a direct quotation and retains all its problematic aspects. Please either find the exact quotation, quote it direct between quotation marks and with a reference; or refrain from using this formulation altogether. As it is, your version conflates the completely unrelated traits of bisexuality, Jewish background and atheism as if they had some sort of connection, and introduces the controversial notion of a "Jewish atheist"; unless this is something that was said in these exact terms by Appelbaum himself and that can be attributed precisely, the original version of the article is far superior. Rama (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. The exact quotation is quoted both in my comments above, and in the current sources for the page. The phrasing, as a quote, would be "Jacob Appelbaum is an "atheist, bisexual, Jew"[39].". (The [39] is because that is what the citation is now, which contains that quote. I don't know Wikipedia enough to know how I'm supposed to quote footnotes in the talk pages. I hope that was good enough?) Is that a good phrasing?

As I think a side point (because that is an exact quote from him), I don't understand why the notion of Jewish atheist is controversial? And I don't think I am introducing it -- we have an article on Jewish atheism. (The link didn't work in my original edit summary because I capitalized "atheism" -- my only previous Wiki experience is TvTropes, which does titles in CamelCase.) So I don't think I am introducing the concept?

But while I am interested in your thoughts on Jewish atheism, that is beside the main point -- is the phrasing of it as a quote acceptable phrasing? The citation for that quote is already a citation for the article. Gaditb (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The link in question leads to a 77 minute long video, could you give the timing of the statement? Rama (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the exact part of the video that that quote comes from -- I didn't add that citation, it has been there since 2013. Gimme a bit, it's probably in the introduction, I'll look for it. Gaditb (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Found it. 55:10. Gaditb (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you.

You will surely have noticed that Appelbaum is making this statement provocatively, in a style that mocks Nazi propaganda, hence my caution. How would you feel about the following formulation?

“ Discussing the question of historical repression against various groups, Appelbaum referred to himself as falling under the label "atheist, bisexual Jew". ”

Possibly including the entire quotation in the reference, along with a link to the video and the timing, could be useful. I think that the quotation is "The question is, historically, what sort of a group you are part of, whether it's racial, gender, religious, whatever... how does your group fare, historically? The group that you're a part of? Like for me, as like an atheist, bisexual Jew...", but I have trouble understanding what is being said after "The question is, historically", so feel free to correct me.

The crucial point is that Appelbaum is ironically stating this in a very tone-deaf manner, so it is absolutely imperative that the quote be exactly what he said, be contextualised and be perfectly referenced. Thank you for your efforts in retrieving the exact reference, I realise this mush have been quite some work. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't that much work -- I mostly just got lucky.

I... very much did not get the same impression as you, that he stated it ironically, provocatively, or mocking Nazi propaganda. At all.

And the fact that he then goes on to say that the bisexual atheist Jew, Emma Goldman was one of his heroes, as an aside, reinforces that. Unless you are claiming that that, -- and also that his continuing bit about anarchism, too -- was also "provocat[ive], in a style that mocks Nazi propaganda"?? That seems a bit of a stretch.

The baseline assumption here should be that he meant seriously that he was, in fact, Jewish. Unless you have much stronger evidence that he is not being serious here, it's a much better assumption that he is. Gaditb (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The formulation is a parody of stigmatising stereotype (of which Nazi propaganda is the arch-example): it conflates a racial perspective of "Jew" with a completely unrelated comment on sexuality. The argument that is seriously being made is that labels attach to people whether they identify with them or not, are defined by the oppressors, and yield stigmatisation and persecution. Stating his own labels in this manner is a way for Appelbaum to underline their incongruity, independently from his identification to them (you have a similary phenomenon with Blacks refering to themselves as "niggers", homosexuals reclaiming terms such as "queer" or "faggot", etc).

In any case, what is currently in the article is wrong: Appelbaum did not say "bisexual, Jewish, atheist", he said "atheist, bisexual Jew". If we do no cite Appelbaum's exact words with context and reference, we will simply be formulating our article in the way the people he is criticising speak, which incompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I would therefore strongly oppose that. Rama (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still completely baffled by how you manage to see it like that. If he asks his audience "How has your group fared historically?" and them immediately follows with "Like for me, as an atheist, bisexual, Jew..." I don't see how that could mean anything but "for example these are the groups that I'm part of that have fared famously poorly, historically".

I don't, also, get what you mean by "incongruity"? I had to look it up, and, um... bisexuality, Judaism, and atheism aren't at all out incongruous or out of keeping with each other, I think? Gaditb (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The way the article is phrased does not respect the original quotation. It is thus a wording that we should judge on its merits, which are far inferior to the previous version. Either we return to the previous version, or we phrase the article as to quote Appelbaum's exact words and give appropriate context. Rama (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any of this? I don't understand how the context of the original quotation changes it so much that a near-direct quotation of the applicable part does not respect the original, and therefore why it is so vital to verbosely include the context? I don't understand how the wording of "a bisexual, Jewish, atheist" is far inferior to the wording of "atheist of Jewish background" -- which is very awkward phrasing to my ears -- and with his bisexuality being left implied and not simply stated? Gaditb (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have explained at length. Your version has been reverted by several people, and I do not consider it acceptable. I am reverting to the previous version, and if you insist on taking inspiration on this particular quotation, I suggest you make efforts to understand what I said and why others are not agreed with your version, and devise a version that can attain consensus. Rama (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. My version was reverted by one person, and then another person under a misunderstanding of the circumstances (They thought it was in the lead section), who, when I asked (before this discussion started), expressed the absence of an opinion about my version. I am currently in a discussion with the only person who does not agree with my version, which is you. (edit: except for one person, who commented once and not again)

In your most recent edit, you said that the reason you were reverting it was that it "Conflating "bisexual" with "Jewish" " -- I do not understand this. If I talk about a "small, red, car" I am not conflating "small" and "red", and I don't see what's different about this situation.

You also talk about it not being a direct quotation. Would you rather it were phrased "Jacob Appelbaum is a bisexual, atheist, Jew"? I am completely fine with this phrasing. Gaditb (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

NO!

Appelbaum's phrasing is ironic and intentionally weird. We cannot quote it, much less paraphrase it, without giving the context. Appelbaum is citing demographies to which he notionally belong, but which have been abritrarily defined, associated and singled out for persectution by oppresors. That is the core of his argument: he does not have a say in whether he identifies as "bisexual" or "Jew" or "atheist", these labels are pinned on him by people who are none of that and use the labels to designate targets for persecution.

To illustrate: replace "small, red, car" in your example with "ploutocratic, judeo-masonic Untermensch". These are labels that were arbitrarily crafted to designate people for persecution, and were associated with each other in an equally arbitrary manner. If somebody referred to themselves in this way, it would not be appropriate to quote them without providing context, and it would be even more inappropriate to change the wording into "ploutocratic, Jewish-Mason subhuman" just because it rolls better in English.

The very fact that you have found it necessary to replace "Jew" with "Jewish" points (I am tempted to say "proves") that Appelbaum's phrasing is ironically stereotypical. This irony is the core of the message; keeping the semantics (word meaning) without the pragmatics (here, the irony that surrounds the words) would denaturate the intention of the speaker and leave a very oriented phrasing, two things that are unacceptable. Rama (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason I replaced "Jew" with "Jewish" was so that I would be tacking on adjectives, rather than changing the noun, which already was "atheist". So that I was making a minimal amount of changes. I don't have any opinion on "Jew" versus "Jewish".

You keep talking about how he is being ironic here, and I don't see any evidence for that. Could you point out some specific evidence for that? And especially evidence for that, which meshes with him going on to talk about how Emma Goldman is one of his heroes, which meshes with him in other contexts calling himself an atheist, which meshes with him carrying out Jewish traditions, as linked to above, and which meshes with him also self-identifying as "queer" -- a word with much more history than "bisexual", kal vachomer he should not feel "bisexual" forced on him.

My apologies if you've already given some evidence, but I can't find it -- would you mind repeating it and any more you have? I'm just having trouble finding any evidence... Gaditb (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Forget irony, this is obviously confusing to you.

Appelbaum is talking about oppression and persecution. People are persecuted not because of the groups to which they identify, not because of groups to which they objectively belong, but because of groups that the oppressors construct and in which they categorise the oppressed. That is the core of Appelbaum's argument in this part of the talk. He thus uses an oppressor's point of view to characterise his affiliations; you can see this not only from the substance of his argument, but from semantic clues:

• his use of the term "Jew" instead of "Jewish" is probably not innocent in this respect: in contemporary USA, "Jew" is not politically correct, which "Jewish" is acceptable
• the conflation of "Jew" and "bisexual", which is nonsensical outside the context of the historical oppression of these groups.

We cannot use these terms by paraphrasing them, because doing so would be adopting the point of view of oppressors (aka "talking like a Nazi"). We either describe Appelbaum's self-style affiliations in a neutral manner, in which case it is absurd to conflate his religious convictions with his sexual orientation; or we use your quotation, which is indeed interesting, but the with the exact same words and with an explanation of the context. Rama (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that those are your arguments. Is that all of them?

For those arguments:

• You say that the groups he is talking about are "not ... the groups to which \[oppressed people\] identify, not ... groups to which they objectively belong, but ... groups that the oppressors construct", and that this understanding of what groups oppression happens to is vital context to his statement. That is central to your argument, and, you say, core to his. While I don't know whether or not I disagree with that in general, could you point me toward anything showing that he is subscribing to that view in the talk?
• Okay, the "Jewish"/"Jew" thing, ish. But it's not that simple, and notably he doesn't use any other similar substitutions. For example, he freely self-identifies as the very loaded term "queer" (shown by the immediately next citation on the page), but used the term "bisexual" here. Given that, I think it is more likely that that substitution is more innocent than not.
• I understand that that is your argument, but I still don't understand how they are conflated. If I say "Some cars are easy to see -- for example, that big, red, Chevy" is not conflating "big" and "red". Both of them are, in this context, related by both having the similar property of making it easier to see, but they are not conflated.

Additionally, claiming that it is not an honest description of himself seems to, again, disagree with other things:

• how he immediately -- as in, as a parenthetical, before finishing the current thought for which he described himself as a "bisexual, atheist, Jew" -- continues to say that "Emma Goldman is one of my great heroes", and so on. Emma Goldman is a famous historical bisexual, atheist, Jew. Unless he meant that, also, ironically or something, but I can't even begin to parse it as such.
• how he in other circumstances talks about himself as an atheist, self-identifies as "queer", and follows uniquely Jewish traditions.

I think those are all of my points. I might have forgotten one or two -- sorry if so. But I still don't see any evidence that he was not being genuine. Gaditb (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quickly:

• I am not reviewing over one hour of footage to prove a basic point of sociology to which Appelbaum obviously subscribes.
• the pedestrian easily sees the "big red car" because the human eye can easily see things that are big and red; the "bisexualy Jew" is readily persecuted because Nazis hate queer and Jewish people; the property is in the eyes of the pedestrian and the Nazi, not in the subject (what the subject is and feels is irrelevant, see below). Conflating groups whose only common point is triggering hatred is thinking like an oppressor; Appelbaum can do it because he is talking about oppression, but we cannot unless we explain why.
• similarly as with "Jew" vs "Jewish", you have noticed that Appelbaum identifies as "queer"; in the context, his choice of "bisexual" rather than "queer" (or "pansexual", etc.) is deliberate.
• as the oppressed, all these happen irrespective of whether you identify with something or not. Only the outlook of the oppressed counts in this framework, that is the whole point of oppression. You might cherish a Jewish heritage or not, you'll be "a Jew"; you might identify as queer or not, you'll be "a bisexual" (since the oppressor has a fantasised notion of what these groups entail, you could actually argue that these labels are polysemic: the "Jew" seen from a Nazi's eye is an imaginary creature that bears little resemblance to people of Jewish heritage or religion, so the same word means two completely different things depending on the outlook, etc.). We, as Wikipedia, have to maintain a neutral point of view and tone, so we cannot adopt the outlook and vocabulary of an archetypical oppressor.

Also, at that point, I have practically written a sociology essay for your convenience. You have not provided any hint as to why your unmarked, uncontextualised deformation of Appelbaum's statement is necessary to the article. Rama (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My reason why I described him as "bisexual" and "Jewish" in the article is that, from that quote which is already being used as a citation in the current, untouched by me, version of the article, only "atheist" has been picked out to describe him. However trustworthy or needing qualifications his statement is, all of those descriptors are equivalent in that statement, so arbitrarily picking just one of them to include is, well, arbitrary, less descriptive than it could otherwise be, and an artificial restrictive choice. Given that that citation was used to justify "atheist" before, and is used to justify "atheist" in the version you are reverting/advocating for, I saw no reason why it couldn't equally well justify "bisexual" and "Jewish".

Additionally, looking at other sources, it seems to me that his bisexuality and his Jewishness are important parts of his personal identity, and so belong in the personal description of him.

I'm sorry, I phrased that request, for evidence that he considers those identities forced, badly -- is there anywhere in the ~<7 minutes around which this topic is covered, linked to above that gives any modicum of evidence that he feels those identities forced onto him? Or if you don't want to look through the video at all, can you point out general things that I can look for in the video, so that I can look at concrete parts of what you claims is a vital part of his argument that I apparently completely missed? If you don't want me to simply argue things in question form, then here: I am asserting that there is no, or very little, evidence, and that he doesn't feel those identities forced on him. That these identities are actually important to him.

You responded only to my issues with your claim about the talk itself. Do you have any responses to all the other things I pointed out, both in the direct content of that talk and also elsewhere, which all seem to directly contradict your assertion that he feels the identities forced on him and not accepting them himself? Gaditb (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Appelbaum can (and I think does) feel that these identities are forced upon him, while in the same time identifying with these identities (or, rather, with their non-fascist equivalents). The mechanism of oppression is that the oppressors define arbitrary reasons to persecute their victims, whose opinion is irrelevant. Whether they identify or not with the persecuted groups, they will be persecuted because they will be identified with these groups by the oppressors. Appelbaum is making a statement that he will be identified as an atheist, a bisexual and a Jew by the oppressors.

Besides, if the effect you want is simply to add his religious conviction to Appelbaum's portrayal, why not do that in an independant sentance, using better references than this one to support the claim? There are probably other statements where he discusses his religious convictions for themselves, rather than alluding to them in such a peripheric manner while developping another subject. Rama (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I believe I understand the position you are arguing for. I still do not see anything supporting that in the video, though? At the very least, can you explain how him saying that Emma Goldman was one of his heroes immediately after saying that, doesn't contradict your theory? And, if possible, could you look at all the other things I listed above which also seem to not work well with your theory? Gaditb (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Listen I have spent hours and hour explaining things to you, and I have no obligation to provide free education to people who are uninterested in it. Simply understand this:

• "bisexual Jew" is grossly inappropriate language
• such language can be included IF it is a direct quote, which must then be marked in quotation marks, sourced in an immaculate fashion and properly contextualised. Not only are you not providing context, but your wording does not match Appelbaum's
• ergo, this wording has no place in the article.

Rama (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an explanation -- what I'm asking from you is a discussion, which this has barely been. Your two bullet points are your arguments, which you have already stated and which I have already responded to above, and your response here is flat-out ignoring any of my arguments.

But to respond to those arguments specifically:

• You have yet to explain why it is "grossly inappropriate". I've asked, actually, and not one of the bisexuals, Jews, or bisexual Jews whom I have asked about it have even slightly agreed, so you'd better have one heck of an argument for this.
• That was a direct quote. Appelbaum describes himself as an "atheist, bisexual, Jew", and that was the exact phrase which I put in the most recent edit. Your "context", which you care for so deeply, is first of all five times longer than the quote it is "contextualizing", and second of all, is an interpretation which you have provided limited evidence for and flat-out ignored all objections to. The least of which, which I have asked about four times previous, is "do you have any idea who Emma Goldman was?"

Gaditb (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Early life and education

   Appelbaum tested out of high school.

What language is that, English (purportedly)? Sorry, I don't recognize it, nor can I, for one, make any sense of it. Toddcs (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's colloquial American English for saying someone took a test (known as the "GED", General Educational D..., probably) which is the equivalent of American high school. That said, I think he dropped-out, hen took the GED, like Snowden did. This is what many people do *after* dropping out, so that at-the-end-of-the-day, though they "dropped out" they are able to claim a high-school-diploma-level of education, also to attend university, if they wish.

So to write that someone "tested out" of high school means that they took the GED and ended attendance, which actually isn't true for Jake. Rolling Stone reported he dropped-out (then apparently took the GED exam later). He's i a PhD program now, which shows that dropping out of U.S. high school is reparable. QuelleChose1 (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Allegations

Recent allegations of sexual misconduct leading up to Applebaum's departure from Tor must be very solidly sourced. We cannot use Tor, or other blogs repeating Tor's statement for such claims. This is enshrined in our WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 11:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Tor's press statement needs to be mentioned as the primary source and start of the debate. 80.108.36.2 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Only if a reliable secondary source describes it as such. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied on exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Here you go:

• Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum quits after "sexual mistreatment" allegations, Ars Technica.
• Jacob Appelbaum, Digital Rights Activist, Leaves Tor Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations, Mic.
• Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum steps down amid accusations of 'sexual misconduct', The Daily Dot.
• Tor project developer steps down amid sexual mistreatment allegations, TechCrunch.
• Missbrauchsvorwürfe gegen Jacob Appelbaum, Die Zeit.
• Appelbaum Leaves Tor Project Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations, Vice.

Good luck playing encyclopedia.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ars Technica and Zeit are reliable sources; some of the others less so. No objection to adding "He left... amid allegation of "sexual mistreatment" " at this point. - MrX 17:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, a short statement would be OK. Currently, the whole topic should be handled very carefully, though. Wikipedia is not a news site, but an encyclopedia. The current state of affairs raises many questions and delivers very few facts. If they are solid we can wait, if they are not, we should. (Edited: Added correct signature.) Dr.phees (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Tor is an adequate citation to back a statement such as "Tor said ...".

Tor is a usable citation for "Tor said...", but the material in question does require third-party sourcing as mentioned above. It's moot now, but an important aspect of how controversial BLP material should be sourced.- MrX 3:51 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Incidentally, the allegations are currently mentioned in the "Technology career" section, is that the most adequate place? I can see why it would be so, but still I find that placement surprising. Rama (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, Steele doesn't raise anything. She states in the Blog, that others raised allegations! That's a huge difference. I would reduce this to:

In Technology career: "On May 25, 2016, Appelbaum stepped down from his position at Tor[34][35][36]." A new topic: Allegiances "On June 5, 2016 a statement was published on the TOR website's blog, which was signed with the name of Shari Steele, Executive Director of the Tor project, linking Applebaum stepping down from his position on May 25 to allegations of "sexual mistreatment".[37][38]"

I think this is much more correct at the current situation and base of knowledge. All mentioned sources basically only cite the TOR blog. That reduces wikipedia to basically one source! Dr.phees (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: The current state of information is realy rather muddy and the site cited everywhere ("jacobapplebaum.net") is so far not very trustworthy. Let's wait with this and reduce this to the minimum for now. Dr.phees (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Absent any civil suits or law enforcement activity, we should stick with the bare minimum. kencf0618 (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Tor Developer Jacob Appelbaum Resigns Amid Sex Abuse Claims, Wired, June 6, 2016:

Andrea Shepard, a Berlin-based developer co-worker of Appelbaum’s at the Tor Project, says the site was created by a “longtime member of the Tor community” whom she knows and trusts. Shepard also says she’s spoken directly with one of Appelbaum’s alleged victims, who told Shepard in February of this year that Appelbaum had raped him or her. “Sadly…I think it’s the damn truth. He’s a charismatic, socially dominant manipulator,” Shepard writes to WIRED. “I absolutely believe the accusers.” Shepard says that Tor’s management had suspected Appelbaum of sexual misconduct for months. And the revelation of another alleged victim in recent weeks had accelerated calls to force his resignation from the organization, a push led by Tor’s executive Director Shari Steele. The Tor Project’s statement, written by Steele herself, echoed that timeline. “These types of allegations were not entirely new to everybody at Tor; they were consistent with rumors some of us had been hearing for some time. That said, the most recent allegations are much more serious and concrete than anything we had heard previously,” Steele writes. “We are deeply troubled by these accounts.”... And in the spring of last year (Tor's Shephard) says he was suspended from his position at Tor for two weeks without pay due to a harassment incident.

Devastating stuff.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Inasmuch as the story has developed the reportage has now moved beyond the single, primary source of The Tor Project, Inc., hence we no longer have to limit ourselves to civil suits or law enforcement activity as I stated above. Accordingly, I have edited boldly given the Wired citation and included the anonymous website for purported victimes both as a citation and as an external link. kencf0618 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the link from the external links section per #2 and #11 of WP:ELNO. WP:BLPEL also applies. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses Recount Tor Developer Jacob Appelbaum's Unwanted Sexual Advances, Gizmodo, June 7, 2016:

"In interviews with Gizmodo, Emerson Tan and Meridith Patterson, computer security experts involved in the Tor community, and Andrea Shepard, a developer at the Tor Project, described some of Appelbaum’s inappropriate behavior they say they witnessed—and speculated on how he got away with deeply troubling behavior for so long... One incident, witnessed by Shepard, Tan, and Patterson, occurred in December at the Chaos Communication Conference in Hamburg, Germany... At about 2 or 3 a.m. in the morning I happen to be talking to [Patterson], [Shepard] and Jacob Appelbaum and a group of other people who have come out of the congress hall into the lobby of the Raddison Blu hotel in Hamburg,” Tan told Gizmodo. “Jake has his hands all over this girl, and she is very obviously not very happy. You know, she’s looking for her bag, they’re having a conversation and she’s looking for her bag she can’t find her bag and she appears to be really quite distressed and Appelbaum forcibly attempts to try and kiss her, grabs her arm and her backside and makes a move for her breasts." ... Tan also recalled Appelbaum trying to take upskirt photos of women at the summer edition of the same conference in 2007, in addition to making lewd comments and allegations of threesomes with various members of the privacy community. “It’s like, what the fuck is wrong with you man?” Tan said. “You know, you’re really very very wrong. Several people at that camp told him no photos and the rest of it and he doesn’t care. Several people told him trying to take pictures of breasts and upskirt photos and the rest of it is unacceptable, and he doesn’t care.'"

Dan Murphy (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no good reason to include that type or level of detail in this bio if that's what your proposing.- MrX 20:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Appelbaum allegation site

I figured that we should keep an eye on this site, particularly given that three Tor employees have vouched for it, one of whom personally knows all of the authors of the anonymous accounts, if I read the reportage correctly. It may be a sticky-wicket for Wikipedia policy, but that's what we're here for! kencf0618 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project-suspension-sexual-misconduct-victims/

The anonymous allegation site is unusable for our purposes. We need far more concrete sources for a Wikipedia BLP. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of our criteria. We rely on reportage and secondary sources, etc. kencf0618 (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal knowledge indeed. Should one conduct a whois lookup on the domain, they will see it was registered just days before public statement from Tor Project. -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Dot article published today looked into the anonymous website and managed to contact people involved. There are several who came forward publicly. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)?

Pretty thorough new article at medium.com. 75.161.57.56 (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumably she's responding to some if not all of those media requests. Stay tuned. kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of Alison Macrina's image on Appelbaum's article

While Macrina has come forward publicly, I would think the description alone is sufficient. The photo seems a bit inappropriate. Unsure what Wikipedia policy is in this instance, but I'm interested in input from the community. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree the photo is probably inappropriate. Mentioning her in the text is sufficient. Kaldari (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; Alison Macrina is hardly a minor figure in this affair. She (along with Iris Agora Lovecruft) was instrumental in setting up the anonymous website two days before the Tor Project announced that Jacob Appelbaum had been fired, and was and remains deeply involved in gathering the allegations of sexual abuse which eventually lead to him being shunned by several organizations in the infosec community. Her own, initially anonymous account of Appelbaum's coercive sexual behavior is of a piece. She has since come forward publicly, an act which in and of itself has enabled other victims to come forward. She is no longer a hidden victim; do not hide her face. She is OK with this photo of her illustrating this article; Apppelbaum's sexually coercive behavior is public knowledge, and what is Wikipedia if not a repository of public knowledge? She has been victimized herself, and the photo is the public face of the victims in general. Do not hide her face; it is apropos. Text alone does not suffice. kencf0618 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a moment to defend my removal of the Macrina photo. First, though, as to accuracy in the previous comment: It's Isis, not Iris; Macrina was *not* a co-creator of the anti-Appelbaum site and she initially dismissed its closely associated Twitter account @TimeToDieJake/@VictimsOfJake on Twitter as a troll account (https://twitter.com/flexlibris/status/739146421023084544); and Macrina's own narrative on the same site describes nothing resembling sexually coercive behavior -- instead, she performed (nominally non-sexual) actions voluntarily while complaining that Appelbaum was very persuasive. I think that Wikipedia should steer clear of this morass. As for the picture, using it would be a disservice to the alleged victims of genuinely serious behaviors. Even then, it is very unusual to post images of sexual assault victims, identified as such, on public websites. Oneidman Oneidman (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the typo.

I'm not going to parse Macrina's account. It is but one tessera in a mosaic of abuse.

For legal reasons the anonymous website remains anonymous. I made an erroneous assumption.

Macrina personally brought serious and credible allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse to the attention of the director of the Tor Project, whereupon he was fired, and eventually shunned by many of his peers. For that reason alone the photo of her belongs in the article: She has had a profound impact on his life.

Furthermore she is the public face of his victims, and on a personal note I've gotten a thumbs up from her regarding my editing of this article, so no disservice there.

This is still a developing story, of course, and one which has engendered a great deal of discussion within the tech community, so I'm going to wait and see if consensus can be reached here or if we'll need to WP:3O the matter. Perhaps a caption that she'd brought the allegations to Steele's attention?

Cheers!

kencf0618 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Of the independent, third-party sources that have covered these events, how many have described Macrina as you have described her: as the main person behind the movement against Appelbaum? This source repeats her saying that "she began to quietly inquire about other incidents involving Appelbaum among her circle of friends and colleagues", but it does not explicitly state that she is the main person behind the movement, or that she has taken on the role of being the public face of the victims. It only describes her as one of the people who approached Steele before Appelbaum was dismissed and one of the anonymous authors who have later come forward.

Wikipedia tries to give weight to things in proportion to their prominence in reliable secondary sources. This applies not only to article text, but to images as well. Of the news articles that have covered these events, how many have included an image of Macrina?

At the moment, I agree with the decision to not include her image. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, then. kencf0618 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pillory

I think it's time to ick-snay on the illory-pay. This isn't a public shaming board, it's supposed to represent NPOV. Thanks for your cooperation. QuelleChose1™ 08:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears the dates are wrong on articles that mentioned "due process" and such. All that was before Isis came forward. I think folks have been quiet since she spoke publicly. In general, that section reads like big sections were inserted haphazardly and it missleads on the order of events. It probably needs to be trimmed to a short chronological list or maybe some sort of cohesive writeup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.135.207.16 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You are 100 per cent right. That section is a mess, and I'm not even going to try to re-write it, as I don't have the time (not to mention that I'll have to alligator-wrestle with Mr. KenCF about how-much mud JA deserves to be slung on him while in the online pillory/walk-of-shame.QuelleChose1™ 10:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by appropriate citations and due weight, not whitewashing. kencf0618 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No sh-- Einstein. And there's a reason the standard-print media - mainstream and otherwise - have eschewed from printing the epithet. The one place it was done was done was in meedia, where they commented on the retaliation's effect on his reputation, and you want to repeat it. That's weird. It's not Wikipedia's SOP to amplify social punishment. Maybe it's your personal feeling that this "needs to be done", or that "he deserves it" but it's not Wikipedia's mandate. It's also not socially appropriate - in any culture - even if he's guilty of everything he's accused of doing. Personally, I think if you feel this strongly, you should buy a URL and write what you like about the guy, but it's not ok to do it here, on a top-10 website. That's the essence of BLP, is it not? QuelleChose1™ 10:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin board discussion, anyone?

Not one published source (magazine, periodical) repeated the graffiti on Mr. Appelbaum's apartment, but kencf0618 feels it's his moral imperative to publish it on Wikipedia as an English primary source. What says the community? I'll revert it once, then demur.QuelleChose1™ 09:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The only place it's published in English is on Adrian Lamo's facebook page. Nuff said. QuelleChose1™ 09:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The German media source mentioned in the section above, Meedia, is a sufficient citation. Given that, why pussyfoot around what the graffito actually declaims? http://meedia.de/2016/06/13/jacob-appelbaum-und-gina-lisa-lohfink-sex-als-ware-und-waffe-im-netz-und-in-den-medien/ kencf0618 (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also the Reddit citation, which I've just included, it being a news site and all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reddit? Oh *really*? Reddit is a news source? Wrong. Reddit is a chat-board where published news articles are "promoted" by any random person.

The truth of the matter is that reliable sources are being silent on the defamation/painting of his house, because it's a horrific thing to do to a person (even a guilty person) and normal people don't want to draw attention to such behavior. "What the blazes" is the matter with you? Are you religious? If so, read "he who is without sin, cast the first stone", i.e. get the heck off this guys' back, and stop pillorying him. Do it before JA's group of activists come over here and call you on your b.s., because you are the only one doing this on Wikipedia. QuelleChose1™ 08:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny, the Wikipedia article on Reddit calls it a "news website"... kencf0618 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny, the Wikipedia article on Reddit states "Reddit is an entertainment, social news networking service, and news website.". Using your sound-bite-ing of Wikipedia (as a reference for reddit), one could define human beings as... "great apes". — Preceding QuelleChose1™ 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

And in the handling of the accusations against this guy, that would be pretty accurate. QuelleChose1™ 11:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have only looked at this aspect very briefly, and want to note that German Wikipedia uses meedia.de extensively, and that more broadly the use of the term 'rape' has been used in many different ways by many other more recognisable sources about this situation. So IMO using the word/topic rape is not off limits for this article, but of course it should be done with the utmost of care and after careful evaluation of the sources. From my limited reading on this topic, it would be unwise using phrasing that strengthen the allegations in the readers minds, as it is too early to be confident that refutations will not come out of the woodwork. That said, mentioning the graffiti can be done in a way that doesnt make the graffiti seem appropriate, which the comparison to the 1970s graffiti currently does IMO. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I'll remove it. I put it there to obscure the use of the word rape, but it may be worse. QuelleChose1 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The Pillory Game

Someone else (not me) needs to bring this situation to the Admin board. I think there needs to be a discussion as to if the painting of his house is to be mentioned on Wikipedia at *all*, because most RS have eschewed the topic. Mr. Ken thinks it's an important thing for Wikipedia to highlight, so I think we all need to have a discussion about what's ok, and what's not, and what the purpose of this online dictionary is. Does Wikipedia have a moral imperative to raise the awareness of outrageous rights-violating payback done to alleged abusers? Discuss. QuelleChose1™ 08:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that Ken mentioned Reddit is significant. Because Reddit's mandate is *exactly* to raise awareness of articles, and that's not the role of Wikipedia. Beyond that: Reddit is not a RS. QuelleChose1™ 08:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Me thinks you doth protest too much; "sexual abuse" is sufficient. kencf0618 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well I disagree that any reference needs to be made to the house grafitti at all, but if I remove it, you are going to be a real pain, and most (other) people don't want to hang-out on this board, as the topic is so sad, in all respects. QuelleChose1™ 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

POV-Check

There may be POV-pushing and undue weight here in regards to the repudiation of the allegations, but I'll have others weigh in on this matter. kencf0618 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Special:LinkSearch/theindicter.com used as a source for the lead is a) not a RS and never used elsewhere on English Wikipedia, and b) those two posts[1][2] are described as "the European Human Rights Front and Swedish Doctors for Human Rights published a two-part article", when in fact theindicter.com is the publication, citizen blogger Suzie Dawson is the author, and none of these entities lists an actual editorial board (with multiple names) other than Dr Marcello Ferrada de Noli who appears to be the main person in all of them. A repudiation definitely needs a stronger basis to exist here, as it stands against decisions from four groups he was involved in. There are three other sources about parts of the community supporting Appelbaum, at least until there is due process followed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted The Indicter material. WP:BIASED and not a reliable source. kencf0618 (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll bet you did. Why not remove Swedish Doctors for Human Rights while you are at it? They have no editorial board (also no artistic board, and board of regents), i.e. that was a legitimate publication, certainly as legitimate as publishing the one fringe German article that documented defacing the guy's home - which no legitimate press-media did. From my POV, Kencf0618 is POV-pushing, bigtime. QuelleChose1™) 11:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. It's about time there's a POV discussion, because I think that kencf0618 is POV pushing, and I want the para about the graffiti on Appelbaum's house removed, without kencf0618 having a nervous breakdown and accuse me of .... POV pushing. QuelleChose1™) 11:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not POV-pushing. I'm a leprechaun, sent down to balance the forces of good and evil.  :) QuelleChose1™ 11:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the shadow that has been cast on edits by kencf0618 in this article, he needs to do more than simply say "Bill Cosby reference not relevant" before undoing my edit to the infobox. Bill Cosby is an analogous case of how Wikipedia deals with sexual allegations against prominent living persons. Show the examples in other articles that contradict what I am saying. And as a matter of logic, Appelbaum is not the subject of a Wikipedia profile because of sexual allegations; he is "known for" his professional work. What is the big hurry to write the closing chapter of his career? I look forward to third-party assessment of this particular edit and POV scrutiny of the whole article. Oneidman (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)++

Thank you very much, Oneidman. If you look at the level of content about his work (which is why he's notable) verses the scandal, "le scandale" is around around 120% the amount of his work/activism history. With due respect to the persons who have complaints, this isn't a pillory. Google is already a pillory for this man, and this is supposed to be a website, not a place to effect punishment or retaliation.

It's hard to know what's helpful verses what makes it worse. I don't know Wikipedia that well. Would the administrators board be the only place to go for such a discussion? Would it turn the situation worse (in terms of badmouthing the person?). What do you think? And I ask you, or someone else, to take the lead. QuelleChose1™) 11:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I welcome a third-party purview. None has been required to date. kencf0618 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722182409/http://citp.princeton.edu/memory/ to http://citp.princeton.edu/memory/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Third party review requested

I don't know much about Wikipedia politics. Can someone initiate a 3rd party review? Thanks. QuelleChose1™) 11:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

With or without the review, someone needs to go through the sad-events-section and summarize it, because it's too long. That's not the sum of this man's notoriety. QuelleChose1™) 11:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

There have been repeated removals of:

A seven-week investigation by a private investigator hired by the Tor Project, however, determined that the allegations were accurate.

Argue below. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion, or not, of the determination that the allegations were accurate

Feel free to agree or disagree below. Argue. Present reasons. Do not read (or reremove) the material until the discussion here has reached a conclusion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That the Tor Project, Inc. has completed its investigation and instigated new policies is pertinent. kencf0618 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, Kencf0618. I urge only that impartiality be maintained, which, alas, the NYT article failed to do. It is one thing to report that Tor says it is satisfied with the justice of its personnel actions; it's something quite different to say that their investigation has determined fact. This would follow from Journalism 101 even if Tor were not a heavily interested party. Oneidman (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact of their internal investigation can't be waved away, and it's the nature of the beast that there's no etic way to ascertain the alleged validity of their facts -it's really something of a black box, so we'll have to leave it at that. (Also, the lede is top-heavy with attempted framing of the narrative. Everything between "One woman..." and "...witch-hunt" should be shifted down to the "Support for Appelbaum" subsection; I would recommend just leaving "Various activists and others have publicly supported Applebaum.") kencf0618 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't favor waving away the internal investigation; it needs to be reported as a claim, not as adjudicated fact or impartial truth. It's all he/she/they-said vs. they/she/he-said until a court says something or some other third-party, transparent, and multi-viewpoint fact-finding process takes place. (I think this is my roundabout way of agreeing with you.) About the lede and framing, I think you are right. I didn't want to touch that without some consensus. I'll edit it now along the lines you suggested.Oneidman (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment, Oneidman, please: Mr. Appelbaum is under a national security investigation for links to an organization Wikileaks that just leaked documents (allegedly from a foreign power, allegedly hacked) concerning the possible next President of the United States. If you think any U.S. court is going to give this guy a fair trial: I don't think so. Look up the term 'in limine' testimony. Fairness isn't going to be found in a court for this fellow, whether he's a saint or a sinner. QuelleChose1 (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to discuss what could happen in the future. Let's stay on the task of improving the article. See WP:BALL and WP:NOTFORUM. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on that. He wasn't represented in *any* fashion, in the Tor investigation, and that affects the validity (or fairness) of the outcome. The reason, according to the publications, were that his requests for modality of communication weren't honored - and the nature of those requests involved security. That's currently not mentioned in the article; I might add it later. QuelleChose1 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

re: "Everything between "One woman..." and "...witch-hunt" should be shifted down to the "Support for Appelbaum" subsection; I would recommend just leaving "Various activists and others have publicly supported Applebaum."" Yeah, I'm not surprised. You'd like any statements supporting the guy to be unreferenced, and you'd like to cast him in the worst possible light. Congratulations: the Tor project did your work for you.

These are very serous allegations that are being made of Mr. Appelbaum. If he response to them, his responses can (and will) be used against him in a court of law. If you read the news-articles, in relation to the Tor investigation, he didn't participate, because he requested to either be interviewed in-person or using encryption. This request wasn't honored, so he didn't participate. In this sense, the investigation was not a proper adversarial procedure, and it was held with a interested party (Tor can be sued by the alleged victims in civil court). QuelleChose1 (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

As Dodi 8238 suggested, personal views aside, there is plenty to be done keeping the article up-to-date and balanced. The introduction now has a much shorter paragraph stating the allegations & rebuttals; references are intact for both. The "Allegations of sexual misconduct" section has the details on both sides and a loose chronology. Too much chronology. For instance, in the part about Linux Australia, I removed all of the deliberations leading up to their decision. As time goes by I would expect that section to become a lot shorter as the daily details of the developing story become less overwhelming. Oneidman (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is much better with the surveillance section above the sex allegations section. QuelleChose1 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains that, in the aggregate, he has been dropped from two positions and declared unwelcome at five organizations. (Any palaver about due process is moot, because the processes of the seven entities was and remains confidential.) The fact remains that Appelbaum stonewalled the Tor Project's seven-week investigation because they wouldn't accede to using his preferred cryptographic methodology. We can tell, however, that Jacob Appelbaum entered seven black box variants, and he exited all seven as a pariah. This is the grist for Wikipedia. Initially this affair caused a split in the close-knit privacy community, with some coming to Appelbaum's defense and others presenting even more allegations, but facts are inconvenient things, and unavailable facts most of all. kencf0618 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a really hard time not making an insulting comment to you Ken. What I'll say is that you appear to be intelligent and educated, so I can't believe you would write what you did. Because you don't get the point, I will explain to you the situation of Mr. Appelbaum in the most-simple terms possible:

1. He is under Federal investigation, for journalism (or document-theft of national security information, according to the government's position).
2. He has been detained numerous times, by the Federal government, for journalism (or document-theft of national security information, according to the government's position).
3. This means he's at risk for this situation being seized and used to punish him for journalism (or document-theft of national security information, according to the government's position). Noting further that:
4. Rape is a serious crime. So is groping (and other behaviors he's accused of.
5. Due process is never moot. ( I have a hard time not insulting you in response to this statement, frankly. Your dismissive behavior towards the rule of law makes me very angry).

Mr. Appelbaum agreed to communicate, if the communications were held private (via encryption or in-person interview) and Tor refused that. This was really convenient for Tor. Tor has an interest in closing the situation 'out of favor' for Mr. Appelbaum, as Tor is legally liable for any claims by alleged victims.

The fact that he's been removed from several organizations means... what. Do you think it means you should be aggressive to him? You say it is "grist for Wikipedia". You also say that "facts are inconvenient things, and unavailable facts most of all". Basically you want to hang-him on Wikipedia. And that's not your job, nor your right.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That said, Mr. Appelbaum has been put-up as guilty in the press, and there's plenty of material to use, but if one wants Wikpedia to be credible, one needs to have a care in how published material is presented.

This kind of attitude you are exhibiting is why I responded to you derisively before, and I confess to having a difficult time not doing it again. Check your behavior. It's not good. QuelleChose1™ 10:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I thank you for your civil response. WP:BIO, the last time I checked, made no mention of criteria regarding the subject's security environment; everything that's suitable for Wikipedia is technically fair game. Due process pertains to the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Inasmuch as no charges have been brought, that's moot; due process hasn't been in play. Appelbaum now, however, has to deal with the aftermath of Tor's investigation, and the resultant shunning by his privacy advocacy peers worldwide here, on Wikipedia, and that information is sticky. Sola scriptura, sola Wikipedia. kencf0618 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response too Ken. I note that this discussion we are having here is "beyond the scope" of the Wikipedia page. I feel it's relevant to your position on his article, so in that sense, it has ancilliary relevance. Once that's clear, I'll point out that in U.S. national security investigations, "due process is different". Mr. Appelbaum is under national security investigation in the same style of Ms. Laura Poitras. He's under such severe investigation that (if you read the articles about him) he's not willing to return to the United States. In the U.S. and outside the U.S., his apartment is violated, he's stopped at borders and questioned. He's fortunate that he's able to get a foriegn permit, and if that changes (he's reported that) several governments have offered him asylum, and I believe he's telling the truth, given the material he's affiliated with (Wikileaks). Look at what just happened with the election and Wikileaks. The the election was affected by Wikileaks material. He's at special risk right now, for secondary prosecution for journalism (or nat-sec dox-theft, US Govt POV), and there may be more to this situation than we all know.

In this, I'm only speaking to your behavior towards the article, not the article itself. It seems like you are extremely angry at him, which is the general landscape of his personal situation right now - and it's reflected in the media to which the article refers. It's a pitchfork-wielding mob, and whether or not the man committed wrongdoing, it's "too much". If he did commit wrongdoing, he's suffering, of that there's no question. And in my opinion, Wikipedia is not the place to enshrine that mob-reaction, nor the suffering of the accused-person. QuelleChose1™ 08:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment for Kaldari: An account of sexual abuse is in principle sensitive material. Publishing it is problematic even if the person claiming abuse is publicly named and in favor of publication. In the Appelbaum case, the situation is murkier, since most of the allegations have been made anonymously and vetted by anonymous editorial hands. Wikipedia fulfills it duty by accurately representing the secondary sources and dipping into primary sources only where required and appropriate. As for Baehring's public refutation of allegations concerning her, the information is significant not only in itself, but because it casts doubt on the credibility of several accusations against Appelbaum. The press heavily reported on the Baehring story before she went public, and her refutation provides a valuable moment of clarity, one of the few in this affair.Oneidman (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to quoting Baehring. But there's no reason for us to give her lengthy quotations reiterating her views. A couple sentences is more than adequate. It doesn't make sense for us to devote more space to her refutation than Jake's own and for us to devote so much space to refuting an allegation that we don't even explain in the article. Also, if we're prohibited from mentioning the specific allegations against Appelbaum in the article due to BLP concerns, how is it OK for us to include Baehring calling Appelbaum's accusers liars several times without also violating BLP? This seems very one-sided and problematic to me. Finally, I don't see evidence that Baehring's statement was widely reported on. I see one article in Gizmodo and one in The Daily Dot. Are there others? Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you are right that the quotation was out of proportion. However, the incident itself is notable beyond mere "support" for Appelbaum, so I moved that and the rest of the "support" section into the main "allegations" section. This improves the narrative flow. Unfortunately, there is too much narrative -- at some point, the section is going to need to be much shorter. It currently is too newspapery. Either the passage of time or some sort of resolution will make it clear what should remain. Oneidman (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oneidman, I believe your first impression was correct: "the information is significant not only in itself, but because it casts doubt on the credibility of several accusations against Appelbaum. The press heavily reported on the Baehring story before she went public, and her refutation provides a valuable moment of clarity, one of the few in this affair." If you need justification, look at the length of the Tor study, i.e. the text of Bahring's refutation is very important, and should be included in the article. QuelleChosel™) 08:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference link gives a 404

The reference to http://www.newday.mk/after-abuse-allegations-activists-defend-jacob-appelbaum/ (currently [19] on the page) gives a 404. This is unfortunate because it is the only of the three references from the sentence ("On 17 June 2016, activists, journalists and legal professionals supporting Appelbaum signed a document defending his right to due process, and deploring the story's treatment by social media.") that is in English. If someone knows a working link for that article, that would be great; otherwise, the reference should probably be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulehoffman (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It was at http://ourresponse.org, which is no longer "up and running"; so the archive.org link must be the stand-in. I'll repair it. 18USC793 (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jacob Appelbaum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weblog.greenpeace.org/intheforest/archives/001473.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722182409/http://citp.princeton.edu/memory/ to http://citp.princeton.edu/memory/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Whistleblower-Preis-fuer-Edward-Snowden-1922132.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195151/http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/jacob-appelbaum-utopia-interview to http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/jacob-appelbaum-utopia-interview

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Pruning extraneous content

Hello, Dreamyshade --

I would like to discuss your reversion (06:28, 1 August 2019‎) of my edits to the article. I would be grateful if you would explain your rationale.

As noted (perhaps inadequately) in the commit message, my intent was to remove information not centrally relevant to the Appelbaum sexual misconduct narrative, viewed three years out at this point. I cut a paragraph on the details of internal Tor actions following their investigation and their public statements about it. I also cut a paragraph talking about controversy within Tor in light of the events and including a very early assessment of the historic impact on Tor and on Infosec generally. This information either belongs in an article on the history of Tor, or else appears dated and incomplete by now. For example, an accurate account of the impact on Tor would include the firing of two core developers involved in the allegations and the ultimate resignation of the director, whose entire tenure was overshadowed by the fallout from the allegations. This is all very interesting stuff for some of us, but it really has nothing to do with Appelbaum after a certain point.

The whole article fell into an excessively reportorial, blow-by-blow mode in 2016, and it has been clear for some time that the camera needs to pull back a bit. Since you are interested in the article and have more expertise as a Wikipedia editor that I do, I would appreciate your help in finding a less ephemeral and more proportionate focus for it.

--Oneidman (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Journalist Dan Murphy's attempt to censor information on Jacob Appelbaum's page

Hi Dan,

I tried to write you a note on your talk-page, but your talk-page isn't accepting inputs, possibly as this is a new Account. I'm BlueSapphires, but I'm locked-out of my account (password not working, I'm not-being-allowed to reset it), so I started this account. I'm not a sockpuppet, I restarted an account as I'm locked-out.

For a journalist, you aren't good at validating your allegations. Have you watched the film? The film specifically details the interviews of Director James Kastner, who attempted to validate the claims against Appelbaum. In so doing, he found that many of the allegations were done by persons who had falsely accused others of rape.

I am specifically referring to your in-line comment: 12:59, 6 October 2024‎ Dan Murphy talk contribs‎ 71,993 bytes −576‎ " many of the persons who made the rape allegations had falsely accused others" not in source, serious blp vio"

This gets a serious WTF from me. You have absolutely NOT watched the documentary, which you can easily do on APPLE TV. Appelbaum, to his credit, managed to get not only a credible director/producer in Kastner, he got top-class PR to get it on all-kinds of outlets in the U.S., Canada and Europe. I'm gobsmacked that you'd publish such an outrageous false-allegation and do-so in your real name, using your journalist creds, implicit on your Userpage.

So let me help you a bit here: Being that you are an accomplished, accredited journalist: "You might want to watch the documentary before making claims about it". I see that you are formerly of the Christian Science Monitor, and I would have thought that you "read things" before you "wrote things" but maybe in your mind, the fact that you are a published journalist gives you the authorization to make ad-hoc statements based on your "feelings", rather than on factual evidence. That seems to be happening a lot lately (!).

You can watch the video for free on CBC, here: m.cbc.ca/nobody-wants-to-talk-about-jacob-appelbaum?autoplay=1, albeit you have to be using a VPN designating you in Canada. It's also on Apple TV. But you'd know that if you did even a cursory Google.

The documentary entitled "No one wants to talk about Jacob AppelBaum" is also available on Apple TV. That's a paid service.

I suggest you watch the documentary.

I'll refrain from further commenting on your claim using "interesting verbal-gymnastics" claiming that someone who refuting the claim of rape was committing a BLP against the accusers (in a situation where the documentary discusses just-that, and interviews the persons that were falsely accused after Appelbaum);

i.e. Your claim that the anonymous allegations against Appelbaum's accusers (who provably have made false-claims, and that documentary shows the names of some persons who actually don't like Appelbaum, in one case, the guy dislikes Appelbaum intensely, but he was himself accused of rape falsely by one of the accusers, when he "rubbed one of them the wrong-way".

Thanks for not reverting the link to the documentary, which is a reliable source (RS) a definition you should look-up. Director well-known, documentary published on CBC, so as far as I'm concerned, this is validated as a reference.

As an additional note,, I do not agree with censorship, including censorship practiced by journalists.

Please refrain from "censoring factual information (and sources) that you don't like".

Journalists aren't supposed to do that.

Also: that's not how things work on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is based on RS (reliable sources), and even if you disagree with the documentary's findings, it's a reliable source. He did his due-diligence, interviews, and it's a film that's been presented in numerous countries, has all-kinds of reviews, and you simply cannot erase it and mis-use the BLP label to justify your censorship.

Sincerely, BlueSapphires — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunkmailU (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not a journalist. If some documentary says a bunch of Appelbaum's accusers are lying sluts, that's neither here nor there. At minimum it would need to be taken note off in multiple sources independent of the documentary for inclusion here. It would probably need more than that, given how motivated Appelbaum and his supporters have been to smear the people who have accused him of multiple sexual assaults. Will do some pruning of your recent flurry of edits later today and escalate elsewhere if required.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. "Lying sluts". I never said any-such-thing, but thanks for revealing your lack of impartiality.

What's *your* stake in this matter.

Die Zeit noted that there were no formal accusations.

Great to see you admit you weren't ever a journalist. Try to honor Wikipedia standards. JunkmailU (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

NOTA BENE: the inclusion of statements from Tor, Noisebridge and Freedom of the Press foundation are "original sources", which is anathema to Wikipedia standards (NOS - no original sources). The fact that those three organization (et al.) had him leave (in one way or another) needs to be sourced vis-à-vis news-articles. the original statements of these organizations don't belong on this page - unless this page is being used as a pillory. JunkmailU (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)