Talk:Sigurdur Thordarson

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

[Untitled][edit]

Having some issues adding Sections, simply i don't know how, can anyone add them ?

See Help:Section. Manxruler (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Page using template:infobox[edit]

Can anyone fix this? i don't know how, Warning: Page using Template:infobox person with unknown parameter "origin" (this message is shown only in preview) Never mind found it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flakkariice (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (this page shouln't be deleted since this person i notably someone who has made some impact on cases regarding WikiLeaks, it is believed that this person gave the FBI information about WikiLEaks that can be used against Julian Assange in court of law, this page should not be deleted since there's obvioulsy some interest in who this person is, when you google this person google automatically adds "wiki" so that indicates that people are interested on reading about this person, he's been mentioned in number of book related to the matter in this article, he's been portraid in a hollywood movie, as a character there, even the Rolling Stone magazine saw it interesting doing a feature about him also Slate Magazine, so this person defineatly deserves to be on wikipedia, since people don't really know that much about him.) --213.167.152.107 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time. The editor who proposed the move has also subsequently been indefinitely blocked. If necessary, any editor in good standing should feel free to initiate a new request to gauge community consensus for an alternative title. Dekimasuよ! 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigurdur Thordarson → Sigurður Ingi Þórðarsson – Typically the standard Icelandic name seems to be used (example: https://www.google.com/search?q=sigurdur+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&rlz=1C1GGRV_enIS748IS748&oq=Sigurdur+site&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57.3828j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) Hjalticool21 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Yeah that would make more sense, I support that instead of my suggestion. (also not really sure if I'm supposed to reply like this) Hjalticool21 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of Icelandic letters which common readers of English do not know how to handle. Also object to recent changes in the article wuíthout consensus here, as if the move had already been done. Reverting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"sexually molesting multiple underage boys"[edit]

This article claims that its subject is known for sexually molesting multiple underage boys. Is that really accurate? Judging from a translation of the cited article, it seems to me that he was charged because he deceived them, not because they were underage. The age of consent in Iceland appears to be 15, and this article mentions that the youngest of his victims was 15, while he was between 18 and 21 when he committed these crimes. Therefore I think it's false and possibly defamatory to claim he molested underage boys.

Then again, I don't know Icelandic so maybe I'm missing something.--Teiladnam (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, according to this it was because of their ages, and the relevant age is 18, not 15.--Teiladnam (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources about Thordarson[edit]

A number of edits by me were removed saying that the "WaPo clearly has a higher reputation than Stundin". The only real contribution of Washinton Post was to say the retractions were not important to the case against Assange. I cited The Hill, Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle as all saying key or chief witness. Der Spiegel has the same circulation figure as the Washington Post and WP:RSP says "There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable." It also says about The Hill "The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics". I'm not certain of Deutsche Welle but I can produce others. I can't find any others supporting the Washington Post. I also do not see why the fact that he was referred to as Teenager in the indictment was removed. And I do not see why the media critique bits about the lack of corporate coverage were removed. WP:RSP says of FAIR that there is no consensuis on its reporting but it shouldn't be used to support exceptionl claims. In what way is the report of media critique sources like this not notable? Besifdes which I see WP:Notability is a criteria for setting up articles - not for inclusion. Do you mean WP:UNDUE? And how does it follow that? NadVolum (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post is clearly a more prestigious publication than Stundin (to which you made a strong connection on this point) and WaPo's assertion that Thordarson's evidence is not especially important thus carries more weight. I did not remove any sources apart from in the edit I described as containing "non-notable" content. Philip Cross (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Spiegel is the equal to Washington Post and it said he was a chief witness. Therefore I attributed the saying that he was a key witness to Stundin. Having the Washington Post on its own there is not WP:NPOV. If washington Post is to be included in the lead then the other ones say he is key should also be included to say the opposite.
Just saying the media critique sources are non-notable does not make them so. And as I said non-notable is not a criteria for article inclusion, see WP:NNC. Do you want to try again on the basis of WP:DUE? NadVolum (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus not that its RS but a look through the indictment for Teenager and what the main case is shows pretty well that he is a key witness for most of the charges. Basically the main thing they need to establish is hacking and collaborating to hack and Thordarson is really needed for that. NadVolum (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks putting in the names of those other sources, looks well to me. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spegiel attribution[edit]

Does anyone else think Der Spegiel is referring to the way Stundin described Thordarson and paraphrasing them? I do and so I dont think it belongs, but @NadVolum and I cant agree. Its back the way it was for now, but does anyone see it? https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/julian-assange-britisches-gericht-laesst-berufung-gegen-abgelehnte-auslieferung-zu-a-9618727a-0d9e-4a15-aa5c-150a55dbcc9c Softlemonades (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say Studin says he is key. It just refers to him as key. If you're going to start complaining about a reliable source like Der Spiegel we'll never have an end to it. Most newspapers get their stuff from a few sources like reuters and associated press anyway. If you really want an expert source Nick Vamos would be one, he was formerly head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service. He was interviewed by The Guardian Quinn, Ben (26 October 2021). "Julian Assange: what to expect from the extradition appeal". the Guardian.. He doesn't use the word key but it does say "Vamos suggests that the Icelander’s apparent about-turn could have a critical impact on the case, although he regarded it as an unknown quantity. “Either way, it’s an issue which Assange’s lawyers will say the US must address, because the US cannot simply insist that nothing about the prosecution case has changed,” he added." NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't like Der Spiegel have a good look at the Post article which was completely rubbish but is included because they are a reliable source and commented on it for the other side. NadVolum (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calm. I said itll stay the way it is, I just asked if anyone else read it the way I did. I didnt drop a wall of text or complain. Softlemonades (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calm after you accuse those sources of clear bias? And talk of Der Spiegel as if it just copied another source without editorial control or checks? And removed the whole business about the impact because "Non expert biased opinion undermined by source, interview and op ed, all meaningless." and continued warring to remove anything like that? Have you just lots more time on youre hands and don't care about cfooperating with others? NadVolum (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Calm after you accuse those sources of clear bias?" Snowden is in the indictment, and the Post calls him a WikiLeaks supporter so yes he has a bias
"continued warring to remove anything like that? Have you just lots more time on youre hands and don't care about cfooperating with others?"
What do you call saying "itll stay the way it is" and starting a talk section about it to get more input? Softlemonades (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now you start making out you were saying something else. You removed the newspaper sources, the Washington Post was the one that mentioned Snowden and now you put that in to the lead without any others. That is hardly doing things according according to WP:WEIGHT. There is quite enough qualification there already with Thordarson said and which Stundin said without tipping the weight scales away from the weight in newspapers. NadVolum (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"And now you start making out you were saying something else." No thats what I meant
"You removed the newspaper sources" I already agreed to leave them, why are you arguing this
"the Washington Post was the one that mentioned Snowden and now you put that in to the lead without any others" Because it gives context to the "key" claim
"That is hardly doing things according according to WP:WEIGHT." I disagree but WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" is Stundin even on WP:RS as reliable? Softlemonades (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other newspapers are all green in WP:RSP meaning good reliability. The weight is against them. The Washington Post article wasn't even in the american edition, they scrrubbed it and quite rightly too I think. When these newspapers blacklist they do it by saying the truth but completelty ignoring anything they don't like and Judge Baraister's summing up shows quite clearly the importance of teenager in the case.. NadVolum (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a complaint against the Hill citation saying the person interviewed in the article was looney. Whatever about that the article said
Williamson spoke to Hill.TV shortly after Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness against Assange, admitted to falsifying claims against Assange to gain American immunity. Williamson argued that this new information would “destroy” the U.S. case against Assange.
Note that Williamson was not quoted as saying Thordarson's testimony was key, that was the Hill itself. NadVolum (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter that theyre citing Democracy Now for that (does not meet WS:RSP)? An interview with Assanges lawyer? Softlemonades (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Democracy Now and an interview with Assanges lawyer cited in the article in The Hill? And by the way yes the word contradicted wasused in th Stundin article, but one shouldn't just pull words out of context. What the Stundin article said referring to Assange was that "US officials presented an updated version of an indictment against him to a Magistrate court in London last summer. The veracity of the information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness, whose testimony it is based on." The article does not say Thordarson contradicted himself, it should if anything be used in reference to the indictment. It is an obvious inference that if the indictment is based on what he said and he now contradicts it then that he is contradicting himself - but that is still WP:OR. NadVolum (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sentence "Williamson spoke to Hill.TV shortly after Sigurdur Thordarson, a key witness against Assange, admitted to falsifying claims against Assange to gain American immunity."
"information contained therein is now directly contradicted by the main witness, whose testimony it is based on." Disagree about how to read that. But I dont know why your arguing that when the word was changed to recant anyway. Let it go dude Softlemonades (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is far easier and better to just paraphrase what the article says. The original version you put in with contradict and recant removed mention of the indictment, it changed the meaning of what the article was all about. If you will notice I was okay with the recent change putting in recant because it left in that it was about the indictment so it was in reasonable agreement with the article. NadVolum (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is far easier and better to just paraphrase what the article says."
I tried doing that and you called it original research. Softlemonades (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm fine with your restatement of the agreement with the DoJ too. I only removed SPECIFICO's edit because the sentence they stuck in was mangled up and they should have cited it - as far as I can see the business about the grand jury wasn't in one of the citations. NadVolum (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I only removed SPECIFICO's edit because the sentence they stuck in was mangled up and they should have cited it"
You can fix typos. You even said you knew what it was meant to say. I hope youll try to work with us instead of just reverting. Fix typos and improve things and move towards consensus instead of just reverting to what you want it as. Softlemonades (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said far more about not having a citation. Fixing a typo doesn't fix that. NadVolum (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This part of the thread isnt productive so how about we call it quits here? Softlemonades (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be productive why don't you go and do their work for them - including putting in a citation. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Democracy Now cite in The Hill. They did not use the phrasing from Democracy Now, they talk about falsifying claims and the at cite talks about lying. We can't start removing cites which are good sources according to WP:RSP because of research into what they might or might not have read. There is no good evidence The Hill was wrong in what it wrote or that it should be rejected. WP:WEIGHT is the policy for showing the situation as it is rather then editing articles to accord with our biases. NadVolum (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where in the world you reside or what level of familiarity you have with the judicial systems of various nations. In the US it is the grand jury that indicts and did indict Assange, based in part on the testimony Thordarson subsequently stated was untrue. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can find where I live, or at least where I say I live, by looking at my user page. Your edit said "In 2019, he testiied to the US grand jury that lalter indictmed Assange and was granted from prosecution." You had plenty of time to fix the garbled text. I take it that you were trying to say he testified to a grand jury, and that is a lot more than you're saying here. Even true statements like that should have a citation. Are you wanting me to go around trying to find citations for your edits? NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning is perfectly clear. Typos are easily corrected. No citation is needed for SKYBLUE. The issue is not where you live, its your knowledge of indictment. SPECIFICO talk 09:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is in there at the moment is well cited "In May 2019, he signed an immunity agreement with US prosecutors in exchange for information." You want to put in that he testified to a grand jury. Where is the citation for that? It is most definitely not SKYBLUE. The FBI For instance might have presented evidence from him. And not everyone is American with a good knowledge of how grand juries work. I fact I wonder how many Americans would actually be able to say anything much about one except that they're 'grand'. NadVolum (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very straightforward fact that needs to be clearly set forth in the article, per RS. You have cited shifting objections, but without any support from other editors. I'd suggest you have several ways to improve the article by doing some more research and offering additional RS publications, then considering any article text you would like to propose based on them. Blind reverting without presenting a valid concern is not going to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just stick in a citation and that will solve the problem. See wp:verify. NadVolum (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"because of research into what they might or might not have read."
We KNOW they read it because they linked to it. Softlemonades (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know what else they read or investigated. It is a highgly reliable site. You are engaging in WP:Original research with your inference. It would need a WP:RfC or a far far better reason for us to say they were unreliable in this instance. NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think thats original research or an inference, but the last sentence at least answers the question I was asking. Softlemonades (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to you could also go to WP:RSN, that's the standard place to ask if a source is reliable. I'm pretty certain you'd just be wasting peoples' time, but it might convince you if you have other people tell you as well. NadVolum (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a question, I got an answer ( finally ), why do you think I want or need more? Softlemonades (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because as I said it is the standard place to ask about the reliability of sources. It is a very useful resource and lots of editors go there with queries. You will almost certainly need to be acquainted with it in the future. NadVolum (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy Now is already declared not reliable. My question was if the link citation mattered, theres no need to go further with it. I dunno why you want this issue to continue. Let it go Softlemonades (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSP where it says about Democracy Now "There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." It rates about the same as most other higher class partisan sources like Fox or HuffPost on politics. That is definitely not the same as 'not reliable'. Neither it nor The Hill were using a syndicated source in this instance. NadVolum (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Youre arguing an argument youve already won just by answering my question. Stop arguing every other little point. Let. It. Go. Softlemonades (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fox is not a high class source. Fox is deprecated for anything relating to American Politics - which includes this article and Wikileaks. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just let it go Softlemonades (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer this discussion to WP:ANI, perhaps someone there can talk about policies and guidelines here. NadVolum (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

ANI thread at P&G conflict on Siguder Thordarson talk page NadVolum (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coerced false testimony[edit]

The sources discussing Thordarson's false testimony, coerced from him by the FBI, should be reported in order of 1. their weight and 2. their chronological order. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sources say it was coerced? Incentivized maybe but coerced?
(and now im gonna take my own advice and take a break for us to both cool down) Softlemonades (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no RS that states or even suggests the possibility that his testimony was coerced. This is again unsupported NOTFORUM disparagement of due process law enforcement and legally constituted prosecution according to established norms. And again, if any individual is implicated in this undocumented statement, it may be libelous. Do not do that again on this website. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to give your admonishments the level of attention they deserve specifico; specifically, none whatsoever. Your repeatedly evident lack of familiarity with the content and conduct policies of this website, and apparently also libel law, make it difficult for other editors to take you seriously. If you think a policy has been breached, do what you think appropriate, but try not to grow this page any further than you already have. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

I remove the following from the header

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE COMPOSER OF THE SAME NAME (1895–1968)[1][2][3]

If the person is notable someone can set up a page for them and then include them in the header as a see also or put in a disambiguation page. NadVolum (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) NadVolum (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Softlemonades (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://imslp.org/wiki/Category:%C3%9E%C3%B3r%C3%B0arson,_Sigur%C3%B0ur
  2. ^ https://shop.mic.is/OriginatorDetail/57685
  3. ^ https://tredwellsmusic.com/five-icelandic-songs-sigurdur-thordarson-opus-4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sigurdur_Thordarson&oldid=1201717838"