User:Whatamidoing (WMF)/Sandbox

RFC on Julian Assange location and condition

Template:Atop This edit [1] (which adds below quoted text) is suitable for the lede:

Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk.

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (location and condition)

• Suitable location and health condition of WP:BLP subject is standard content for WP:LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Note additional source [2] has come out after above source, adding additional coverage to the subject as 60 more doctors signed some sort of petition on the subject addressing weight issues some editors have noted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Cherrypicked UNDUE opinion. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for lead - The special rapporteur's opinion is already mentioned in the body of article, which is more than sufficient. It would be WP:UNDUE for the lead section, as many have pointed out. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable, perhaps with modifications: I don't understand the objection to stating that he is in prison and in ill health so long as it is done in a neutral, accurate way.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable, single opinion not - Mentioning specifically where he is incarcerated is uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Mentioning one specific person's uncorroborated opinion is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable : I don't think anyone has disputed Melzer's statement. He has the necessary experience to be able to make that assessment. His assessment has been reported in numerous sources (duckduckgoing the phrase 'nils melzer assange life at risk' brings up reports from ABC (oz version), New Indian Express, Yahoo News, MSM, The Statesman and others. Other people who are close to Assange such as John Pilger and Pamela Anderson have said something similar. It is important enough to include in the leading paragraph. Burrobert (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for the lead, at least as far as the opinion goes; the location alone could be included. If there are other reliable sources saying this, add them; but as presented it's just one person's opinion, and especially when dealing with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about high-profile subjects, the requirement for an opinion to be WP:DUE for the lead is very high. It could be mentioned in the body, but there's no particular indication that this is WP:DUE for the lead given the lack of secondary coverage. EDIT: The list of sources below is good, but going over them, most of them (when summarizing Melzer's words) don't even mention the "life at risk" aspect that we're discussing putting in the lead; and the parts that do mention it make the lead summary we're discussing look misleading, since they emphasize that it could be the result of his treatment (whereas the disputed lead wording gives the impression he could be killed, which is not what Melzer was saying.) It's obviously appropriate for the body - where we can give it more in-depth context - but not the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for the lead per Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable, as we don't generally provide health statuses in the ledes of BLP articles. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Tend to agree it looks like a cheery picked quote form one person.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Unsuitable: per Neutrality, et al. Seems to also be a deviation from the norm of not providing health statuses in the lead, as Grandpallama notes. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• mixed I don't see a problem with mentioning where he is currently incarcerated, or with mentioning that he is in poor health, or even saying that a human rights official has criticized the conditions of his detention, but the phrasing here gives the impression he's at risk of being assassinated. Nblund ^talk 15:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not just suitable but necessary given that policy requires that relevant material in the lead of a WP:BLP not be suppressed: Assange's deteriorating health is highly relevant to his biography, has now received attention from the United Nations on multiple occasions, and is amply documented by the highest quality news sources in countries all around the world. For example:

• New York Times
• The Guardian
• Reuters
• The Washington Post
• Newsweek Op-Ed by Melzer
• Sydney Morning Herald
• CNN
• The Brussels Times
• Repubblica
• The Independent
• Business Insider
• Al Jazeera
• The Financial Times
• The LA Times
• The Hindustan Times
• The Times
• The International Business Times
• The Irish Times]
• Express
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The Hill
• Liberation
• USA Today
• La Presse
• Deutsche Welle
• Counterpunch
• Salon.com
• The Globe and Mail
• Xinhua
• Bloomberg
• Le Figaro
• Le Monde
• Der Spiegel
• France 24

Furthermore it is typical that designations ("alleged torture... show trial... political prisoner") by international bodies be noted in the leads of detained political figures, and not uncommon that poor health or alleged torture under detainment be noted as well, typically with appropriate attribution, e.g. Dong Yaoqiong, Gao Zhisheng, Kareem Amer, Gu Zhun, Han Dongfang, Hu Jia (activist), Huang Qi, Liu Xiaobo, Wu Zuguang, Yu Dongyue, Mamdouh Habib, Murat Kurnaz, Anna Politkovskaya.

Though I must say, in none of the cases above do you see documentation by international reliable sources nearly as good as in the case of Melzer's statements about Assange.

To whoever closes this: please give some regard to policy and extraordinarily flippant attitude being taken by a number of the comments here. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

To whomever closes this, I hope you'll take note that the multiple examples provided by Darouet don't, in fact, provide health statuses of the articles' subjects; they provide relevant details about the nature of the captivity or significant events that occurred during said captivity/imprisonment. Including them as if they are equivalent is, like, flippant. Grandpallama (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet, That is WP:SYN. We have no medical evidence, only the opinions of supporters. Guy (help!) 12:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, what is WP:SYN? And are you arguing that the OHCHR text The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” [3] is incorrect? Do you have any sources or evidence showing that the UN expert and medical experts that accompanied him are supporters, not professionals? I really have no idea where you are getting this from. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• First part (prison name) is OK, "life at risk" is not OK. The first problem is that 'life at risk' suggests that the authorities are harming, torturing or trying to kill Assange, which needs to be much better sourced. Secondly, if Assange's health is merely bad (which seems to be the case), then the text should state that, rather than imply that the authorities are trying to kill him. In other words, the suggested text (which is incendiary) gives an imprecise take on what Assange's situation is like... is he just a prisoner in ill health or is he being killed? Third, the "life at risk" language is one UN rapporteur's assessment. Not only is it undue, but the credibility of this guy can seriously be questioned in the case of Assange. The same UN rapporteur accused the British authorities of "torture" at the time when Assange was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is very loose and incendiary language: "Mr Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture."[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: This has been reported all over the news, and your opinion about how newspaper articles and statements by UN officials or their medical teams appear vaguely dubious should not have an impact on content decisions. From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Template:Talk quote

There is no policy basis for trying to exclude this content from the lede. -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Location (prison name) OK; "life at risk" opinion not OK – per Snoog, who explains it well. – Levivich 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I tend to favor ledes that are short and to the point, so I'm already kinda unhappy with the state of the current lede which appears to try to summarize Assange's entire life. That being said, I think it's OK to mention where he is currently incarcerated in the lede and also to document what the UN guy said further down. Omanlured (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lede — there's no policy-based reason to exclude this from the article, but the phrasing of the proposed addition to the lede is sensationalist and misleading by omission. Is he at risk of getting shivved? Of the CIA assassinating him and disguising it as a jail-yard shivving? Or is his health poor, in a way potentially aggravated by his conditions? In addition, the passage in the article which reports Melzer's statement is a copyvio of [5]. It also gives an unbalanced presentation of Melzer's findings. Quoting the Guardian piece linked above, “Physically there were ailments but that side of things are being addressed by the prison health service and there was nothing urgent or dangerous in that way,” Melzer said. [...] Melzer said that Belmarsh was an old prison and had issues about that but he described it as well maintained, adding that characterisations of it as a “supermax” or “the Guantanamo of Britain” were unhelpful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And, plucking another source from the pile, the CNN story quotes Melzer as saying, My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That's a serious statement, of course, but it's not fairly summarized by "his life is at risk where he is now". XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lead - Life at risk is OK in the body as an opinion along with a response from the authorities. O3000 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• This article gives far too much weight to Nils Melzer's opinion. The entire Imprisonment in the UK section is just Melzer's opinion on the matter, and the third paragraph uncritically repeats his claims in a very unencyclopedic manner. "As predicted by Melzer" and "according to this expert" are technically attributions of opinion, as is proper, but in a way that accords his opinion the status of unquestionable fact. Clearly a lot of sources discuss this guy's comments on Assange's imprisonment, so it should be mentioned in the article, but this is going way too far. Neither he nor his belief that Assange's life is at risk should be mentioned in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable, but i would only include the fact that he in incarcerated. The rest of the information shouldn't be included in the lede, but it could be included in the body. Cook907 (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not Suitable for the lead to say more than that he is incarcerated. That is ok, the rest, not. The body, yes. The lead, no. POV. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not Suitable wording for the lead as this psychological assessment seems impressionistic and is prone to error and the wording seems to imply he is being harmed by his incarceration. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Seems like agenda-driven attempt to make a point in the lead of the article. It's not an important aspect of the man's biography to warrant top placement in the article. Leave it in the body, that is fine. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Barring any other stances on the risk or non-risk of his situation, adding the opinion of one person, even if that is repeated by multiple RSes, is clearly UNDUE for the lede, lacking any context to be in there. If it were the case that Assange's life has been threatened as to give context to the statement, that might be reasonable. --Masem (t) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: This isn't the opinion of one person. It's the assessment of a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. That assessment was based on a medical examination by "two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment" ([6]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Suitable: This is an assessment by a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and it's been widely reported. From those saying this is too minor to be included in the lede, I'd like to ask for some consistency. The lede contains excessive detail on the Russiagate scandal, including this factoid which is largely irrelevant to Assange's biography: "twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller". I'm sorry to say that I don't think the simultaneous packing of the lede with extraneous Russiagate material and the exclusion of the widely reported expert medical assessment of Assange are unrelated. They both flow from the same political agenda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Then that also should be removed as irreverent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an assessment by a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture — except it isn't. What the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said and what the proposal claims he said are completely different. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: The proposal nearly directly quotes from the UNHRC press release: "The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, has expressed alarm at the continued deterioration of Julian Assange’s health since his arrest and detention earlier this year, saying his life was now at risk" ([7]). I'm open to improving the wording of the proposed text, but it does correctly represent what the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said.

@Slatersteven: Can I take it then that you'll support the removal from the lede of clause about GRU agents being indicted? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude from lead. It's opinion, and it is alarmist (this is England we're talking about, not Kekistan). Guy (help!) 22:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Does the fact that this statement is being made by a UN team that specializes in investigating torture matter? You or I may disagree with the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur and his team, but they do carry some weight in and of themselves, and because they have been widely reported in dozens of highly regarded newspapers around the world. Whether or not you or I (as anonymous Wikipedia editors on the Internet) think the findings of the UN team are "alarmist" is really irrelevant. What's relevant is Wikipedia's inclusion critera: WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it's not "a UN team", it's one person within that team, and it's his opinion not based on medical evaluations. Again, this is an English prison, we're not some banana republic. Guy (help!) 12:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: What you're claiming is directly contradicted by the sources: "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment. The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment" ([8]). Please read the sources before commenting in this RfC. Your (or my) opinion on whether the UN team is correct or incorrect is irrelevant here. To whomever closes this RfC, please discount votes that claim this is one person's opinion, or that there was no medical assessment. The people making these claims have not read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude clause about life at risk as worded. As it is currently this is just UNDUE and misleading and would leave the reader with more questions than answers (like what does this have to do with torture?). Melzer is plainly a political sympathizer of Assange and this by his own choice of words colors why exactly he feels the incarceration is unjust. However, since the lead should reflect the overall content of the article and Melzer's opinions do take up a fair amount of space, I might not be opposed to a different phrasing that did not insinuate there is a consensus or accepted evidence that Assange is being tortured to death. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location acceptable, 'life at risk' unsuitable. Agreed on undue. Ifly6 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable. Opinion that life is at risk not suitable. First of all, it's one person's opinion. Secondly, it's WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable: As it there is significant coverage from RS about Assange's worsening health condition as pointed out by Darouet and thus should be noted in the lede.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable if slightly rephrased: I think given that this is a United Nations source, it would be problematic not to include it. That smells to me like we'd be doing that because we happen to think Assange is unsympathetic. However I agree with Nblund that the current phrasing sounds like he is at risk of being assassinated. I would rather say Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said he is being kept under unacceptably poor conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokiTheLiar (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• suitable it is reliably sourced and there is no reason to remove it. It is not UNDUE.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable Thoroughly sourced. The arguments against it are incredibly stupid and biased.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable. Opinion that life is at risk not suitable as UNDUE and proposed phrasing is wholly inapt and misleading. It implies risk of assasination or torture, where the actual claim is that the WHOLE process has damaged his mental health (ie including period in embassy, not directly as a result of Belmarsh/British incarceration). Credited the claim could go in body with fuller account. I endorse arguments of Aquillion, Nblund, DIYeditor and others. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable The location of incarceration can be included but the risk to life part is not. There is an Imprisonment in the United Kingdom section, let it be cited there. It appears that this particular information - regardless of the long list of reporting publications - only used one source - the U.N. rapporteur. Second, it is ambiguous. As previous posts stated, it could imply an assassination attempt, suicide, and, of course, physical torture (given the title of the UN official). It leads to a lot of speculation. It will also not strain credulity to say that any prisoner deprived of his freedom and gets interrogated for his crime (since Assange obviously knows a lot of information crucial to security) would suffer psychologically. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable - Doesn't belong in the lede. Yes, it's been reported on by multiple reliable sources, but it's still represents a single assessment; belongs in Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_in_the_United_Kingdom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable All Areas. Due weight. ——SN54129 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lede I see no issue inlcuding this information in the body, but one opinion seems a bit undue in the lede. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for lead as to the rapporteur's opinion on his health risks. Should be in the body. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable The UN has said similar things HAL333 16:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternate text (location and condition)

@Pincrete, Nblund, Aquillion, and DIYeditor: I appreciate your comments in that you're trying to engage with the sources. Based on the widely reported upon OHCHR statements on health, arbitrary detention and torture [9][10], and today's news that 60 doctors are warning Assange may die in prison [11], is there text, either for the body or lead or both, that you think these sources (or RS that report upon them) could justify? I'd be really curious to know what specific proposals you'd have. -Darouet (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that the previous UN statements on arbitrary detention, torture, and health received support from Human Rights Watch and the ACLU [12][13]. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not helpful to namecheck the names of other reputable organizations who are not involved in the Assange matter. Also, please place discussion in the section captioned...Discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to get the opinions of the editors I pinged, if you don't mind. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I said what I have to say about it, if it is worth doing to you then come up with something I might agree with. LokiTheLiar's version wasn't bad but I would not be ready to support it without reading more arguments in its favor. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I don't see why new wording in the body would be a problem. I believe one of the sources said that JA is currntly being held in the 'medical' wing of the hospital and not in the high security part, which should be included along with the rapporteur's assessment - which along with the medical experts testimony makes clear that any (mental or physical) ill health is as a result of the extended period of stress/isolation, including the time in tha embassy. I think readers can, and will, make up their own minds as to who is responsible for JA having been 'on the run' in the embassy for so long. It is the misleaading and very selective slant to the present wording which is a primary objection of mine.Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (location and condition)

• This article is subject of WP:POV pushing and it would be useful if it is added to more editors watchlist's. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think this issue could be fixed if the statement about Assange's health was attributed to a few reliable sources. I think that could easily be done, because it's not controversial.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is also subject to wp:undue, this is one mans opinion which may not (as far as I can see) even be an official statement made in his official capacity.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

These are official statements made in Melzer's official capacity, published in the news section of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: [14], [15].

Template:Talk quote

Unless, Steven, you have evidence that Melzer and his medical team visited Assange on their own time, in a personal capacity, for fun? I can't wait to see those links. -Darouet (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The HRC oversees 44 thematic and 12 specific country mandates for which it can assign special rapporteurs. The UK is not among them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is one of those 44 thematic mandates, and Nils Melzer is the special rapporteur responsible for that theme: [16] [17]. The fact that there are specific country mandates in addition to the thematic mandates is completely irrelevant here. The thematic mandates cover all countries, not just countries for which there is also a special mandate. Melzer is the special rapporteur on torture in all countries, not just 14 specific countries. But don't just trust my opinion. This is what the UNHRC says about its mandates:

Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. -[18]

What's more, the findings of Melzer and his team were announced in a UNHRC press release, so they're not just some personal opinion he formed in his free time: [19]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet there is not one word form the medical experts, where is this medical report? As I said what we have is one persons opinion. IN fact at no time is there ever "and it is the finding of the UNHCR" type statement either, they never take ownership of anything in that press release.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from another UNHRC press release:

Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment.

The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment. -[20]

It says very clearly that an expert medical assessment was conducted. Re: "they never take ownership of anything in that press release", I don't know what you expect. Nils Melzer is the UN's official rapporteur on torture. The UNHRC has repeatedly publicized Melzer's findings in official press releases. What do you mean by not taking ownership? That just sounds like yet another excuse to try to dismiss this material. See WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I know what it says, I also know it does not contain one quote from the medical experts. As to what I would expect it to say, how about "in a report commissioned by the UNHRCR...", in other words they take ownership of it. In fact there appears to be no report, just a press handout, one that is worded so at to say "in Melzer's opinion".Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter that the UNHRC press release doesn't directly quote the medical experts? It says that they examined Assange and made an assessment. You're just inventing arbitrary requirements as an excuse to keep this information out of the article. First you made up your objection about there being no special rapporteur for the UK. When I showed that that objection was spurious (there is a special rapporteur for torture worldwide), you moved on to the next spurious objection: your suggestion that there wasn't any real medical examination. When I showed that objection to be incorrect (medical experts conducted an examination), you move on to the next spurious objection: they aren't directly quoted in the press release. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If UNHRC quoted the actual doctor and showed all the test results we could do some WP:OR to determine if the report contained sufficient WP:MEDRS to be an RS for this article ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course this is a medical statement made by someone who is not a medical expert. By the way not quoting every objection at once is not the same as moving on to new made up ones. From the start I said this was just his opinion, nothing that has been provided gives any indication that its not just his opinion, the press release even says it is his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. It says the "United Nations special rapporteur visited." It does not say an individual visited. And the opinion of that title is the opinion of an organization, not the opinion of an individual. This is WP:OBVIOUS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Its also a Letter of allegation as far as I can tell. It is not a formal finding (as I said no report has been made yet). In fact (I note) that the Communications report of special procedures for 42nd session September 2019 (which covers the period in question) seems to contain no reference to this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

References

@Slatersteven: "this is a medical statement made by someone who is not a medical expert." No, it's an assessment made by a team that included two medical experts. The UNHRC said, "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment" ([21]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Except it does not quote (or even name) them, just him. This is my whole point, this is his opinion of what they found.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of text and interpretation -

• OHCHR: The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” [22]
• Slatersteven: it does not quote (or even name) them, just him... this is his opinion of what they found [23]

So "The Special Rapporteur and his medical team" becomes "just him," and their "report" becomes "his opinion." Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This just deflects from the rejected narrative that Darouet and Thucydides are tag-teaming here. Further, as has been noted, the guy was in self-imposed solitary confinement at the embassy for years. Introducing the mention of the prison is wildly SYNTH and feeds a fringe narrative unstated by any source about various governments that seek to adjudicate various actions of Assange. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet showed that the sources support the text - by citing the sources directly. @SPECIFICO: Do you have a fact-based response to that? Calling everything "wildly SYNTH" (it's not synthesis - it's a direct comparison of what the source says with what the proposed text says) or "fringe narrative" (it's the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, cited by dozens of highly regarded newspapers around the world) isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing mentioned about previous time at the embassy. More WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The notice from back in May stated, In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy [24]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• With the relation to location, which few people have commented on, I think it is handy to note where he is imprisoned. He has been in the usual situation of being subject to criminal proceedings from three different governments. His legal team was also asked for bail. It is good for the reader to see at a glance that is he in a British prison at the moment. I think that noting a subject's location is unusual, but this is an unusual situation.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As we are just going round in circles I will bow our now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, one last try. His health declined due to his choice to hole up in the embassy for years on end. His life was at risk by the time he was extricated, before the British prison. There's plenty of RS reporting about the conditions in which he chose to live. The mention of the prison in a single lead sentence without that context is a nasty POV push via UNDUE and SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what RS are reporting, and that argument is directly contradicted by not only multiple UN statements [25][26][27][28], but also by statements from Human Rights Watch [29], the American Civil Liberties Union [30], and other legal experts [31][32].

According to the HRW general counsel:

Template:Talk quote -Darouet (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. not that its WP:RS, but it should illustrate the point]. Please address the only point I made above. The simple fact that there's no statement that his health was AOK and fell off a cliff under the British prison watch. But that is what your proposed text SYNTH and without proper context suggests to the reader. Please respond to the points others have raised and do not introduce names of other organizations that are irrelevant to the specific item under discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That article you linked is a good one, and quotes from a series of experts who support what various UN officials, other human rights officials, and doctors are all saying: that prolonged arbitrary detention has caused Assange serious medical and psychological harm. That includes harm endured within the embassy, and now at Belmarsh. Otherwise I don't understand what you're asking for: all I've shown is that international and American human rights groups reject your personal legal interpretation of Assange's condition. -Darouet (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You asked for a link to a source that backs up what everyone knows -- my assertion above that Assange's health declined during his self-imposed confinement in the embassy. The article text you are pushing supports a false POV that it is due to mistreatment by the Brits in their prison. Clear enough? I'm done. I suggest you carefully review the comments of the many editors who have refuted every single point you have made on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not attached to any specific article text, and your wholly correct point - that Assange's health was declining long before his incarceration at Belmarsh [33] - does not contradict Melzer's statement that Assange's life is at risk while he is in Belmarsh [34][35]. However, your additional comments that Assange has imposed this upon himself are rejected by human rights groups [36][37]. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You stated above that you support the proposed text and that you feel it's "suitable and necessary". When you return to deny that, you should either amend your original !vote, which is no longer credible, or recognize that the contradiction will be noted by all who comment here and by the closer.

I support the text because it is accurate: Melzer has said that Assange's life is at risk in Belmarsh. If you wanted to make the text more precise and note other UN and human rights group statements about Assange's long term decline in health, and what they describe as arbitrary detention, I would support that too, since there are abundant references to document it. -Darouet (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately "accurate" is not the standard we work by. In general, SYNTH text is "accurate" and UNDUE text may be acccurate as well. But the context of the RfC proposal leads the reader to an unverified and unintended or extraneous conclusion, not stated by the Rapporteur. To wit: We know his health declined during his voluntary sojourn in the Embassy. When the lead says his health is at risk in the British prison, many or all readers will conclude that its because of his treatment there. In fact, his health has been at risk for some time now, due to his voluntary confinement at the Embassy. His health would be at risk in a hospital too, but fewer readers would jump to the false conclusion that his ill health was caused by the hospital. Many, possibly including yourself, conclude that his ill health is caused by the British government. WP will not publish that nonsense. If it were true, you could have verified that specific assertion with a dozen sources and we all would not have wasted our time on this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It's time you finally read Melzer's statements, because you clearly have no idea what he's actually been saying. "due to his voluntary confinement at the Embassy": Melzer has specifically written that Assange's asylum in the embassy was not self-imposed. So instead of accusing others of engaging in WP:SYNTH (a term which you don't even appear to understand, given the way you're using it here), how about you go read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Open letter by 60 doctors: Assange may die in prison

60 doctors have written a letter reiterating Nils Melzer's point: that Assange is and has been in urgent need of medical attention. To quote from The Guardian [38]:

The letter has been covered by news globally:

• The Independent: Julian Assange 'could die in prison without urgent medical care', doctors warn
• CBS News: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange "could die in prison" without medical care, doctors say
• Al Jazeera: Doctors tell UK authorities Julian Assange 'could die' in jail
• The Daily Beast: Doctors Say Julian Assange’s Health Is So Bad He Could Die in Prison
• The Irish Times: Assange ‘could die in prison’ without urgent medical care – medics
• Deutsche Welle: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 'could die' in British jail: doctors
• Sydney Morning Herald: More than 60 doctors have written to British authorities asserting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange urgently needs medical treatment at a university hospital.
• Washington Post: More than 60 doctors have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange,” who is being held at a high-security British prison.
• Also reported by Business Insider, Hindustan Times, The Evening Standard, CNBC, TIME, The Australian, etc.

The doctors' letter notes that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined in 2015 that Assange was being arbitrarily detained, and that "any continued arbitrary detention of Mr Assange would constitute torture... The Working group reaffirmed its stance in 2018 and added "the continued arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr Assange is undermining his health, and may possibly endanger his life given the disproportionate amount of anxiety and stress that such prolonged deprivation of liberty entails."

This widely publicized statement by 60 medical experts confirms the report made by Melzer and his UN team, and by other eyewitnesses who have seen Assange's condition. It also contradicts the falsehood, which has been repeated here despite all available text and sources, that the OHCHR report on Assange's health is either UNDUE or nothing more than Special Rapporteur Melzer's "opinion." -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This letter was organized and distributed by WikiLeaks. You can get 60 doctors to sign onto any letter. Also, just to reiterate, this letter claims that it's "arbitrary detention" in 2015 (i.e. when Assange evades extradition to Sweden for questioning on rape charges). Suppose the police wants to question me after a credible accusation of rape... apparently, I'd be "arbitrarily detained" and "tortured" if in the process of hiding from the police, I happened to live in squalid conditions. The UN is also not a neutral arbiter on these issues, it's a political organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: is there a source saying this letter was "organized" by Wikileaks? And if the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is not a neutral body for determining who is arbitrarily detained, whose political interests are they advancing? Do you have a source that indicates they are political partisans of Assange or Wikileaks? Where are you getting this from? -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans I am still unable to find a source stating that Wikileaks "organized" this letter: only that it is distributing it. -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The absurdity of the conclusion by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is accurately pointed out by Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman here.[39] This Foreign Policy piece also accurately describes the conclusion as shocking to legal experts.[40] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The conclusion is backed up by statements by HRW and ACLU senior officials [41][42], and was bolstered by a second statement UN in subsequent years that the determination of arbitrary detention was accurate [43].

The BBC writes that The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is made up of five legal experts from around the world. Established in 1991, it has made hundreds of rulings on whether imprisonment or detention is lawful [44]. The UN decision [45][46] was reported upon objectively by many news sources noting opinions of officials and figures supporting or opposing the ruling, e.g. CNN, The Independent, TIME, USA Today, VOX, The Telegraph, The Intercept, The New York Times, Wired, The Sydney Morning Herald, etc.

There are critiques of the UN working group decision other than the Op-Ed and Feldman articles you cite, for instance by US political figure Paul Rosenzweig on the Lawfare Blog [47], and an editorial by the Guardian [48]. However, Feldman’s response is criticized as factually inaccurate by political science professor John Keane [49], and UN Human Rights Office official Christophe Peschoux among other experts states that the UN group’s decision is based on the international human rights norm [50].

The UN working group decision received further support from Human Rights Watch [51]. HRW general counsel directly challenged the assertion that Assange was a fugitive from justice: Let’s be clear: the issue is not Assange fleeing Swedish justice; he has continually expressed his willingness to be investigated by Sweden. What he won’t do is risk eventual extradition to the United States, which would like to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. That is exactly what has happened. The American Civil Liberties Union executive director said in response to the working group’s decision, In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional [52].

Snoogans: what are you trying to argue? That Wikipedia should take an editorial position against the UN, HRW, and ACLU statements? That it should not report them? Or that the statements and their widespread coverage should be treated as relatively inconsequential and given little space in the article? -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that this assessment does not belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snoogs, this content is undue, of dubious origin, and does not belong in the lede. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Why doesn't it belong in the lede? Because you think it's wrong? Because the UN, HRW, the ACLU and all the newspapers that have been reporting on this don't make it notable?

@Octoberwoodland: What is dubious about the origin of the letter? It's based on the assessment of the UN, and has been widely covered, just like the UN assessment itself. The question is really how long we're going to ignore the all the coverage of Assange's declining health and the assessment that he's been arbitrarily detained. I know he's not a popular figure around here, but this is really getting absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Now how on earth did 60 doctors examine Assange while he was incarcerated? The letter sounds like a load of WP:OR and unsubstantiated opinions. I read through the Guardian article, and the problem I have with this letter is it does not appear to be based on actual medical evaluations of Assange, but is for the most part speculation and opinions. I realize that a doctors opinion carries some weight, but how many of these doctors actually examined him? I think this letter is undue, and it may in fact be politically motivated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: You're misusing the term "WP:OR." That's a policy that says Wikipedia editors can't use their own original research as a source. It has nothing to do with the expertise of outside sources.

The letter is based on several accounts of Assange's declining health. This issue has now been raised repeatedly by the UN, and now by a group of doctors, and it has been widely reported on. I think most of the opposition (among editors on this page) to including it is political dislike of Assange, and a general desire to paint him in as unsympathetic a light as possible.

I recall back when some of the very same people who now argue for minimizing information about Assange's health were fighting to include a blatant mischaracterization of an interview given by Assange, in order to paint him as a stooge of the Kremlin: [53]. They had exactly one source to go on, an article in the Guardian that cherrypicked a few quotes from an interview. The person who did the original interview even attacked the Guardian for misrepresenting Assange's statements. But now, suddenly, dozens of articles in major newspapers reporting on statements from the UNHRC are not enough. I wonder why. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This letter and article in the Guardian sounds like more political rhetoric of Julian Assange's followers and advocates. I mean, I am fairly certain that there are doctors who provide services to inmates in the prison where he is being held. A letter that says Julian Assange "will die" unless he is let out of prison sounds incredulous. What do the prison doctors have to say about this? Where is their assessments? Assange is terrified of what will happen next since the US is going to extradite and prosecute him for espionage and hacking US government computers. I am fairly certain he wants out of prison so he can find another embassy to grant him asylum so he can dodge the next round of indictments. This letter talks about his mental health as well. Are prison officials concerned he will attempt suicide? Assange is a grown man who knowingly published classified materials of the US government, hacking US computers, then disclosed highly restricted materials. He certainly should have known there would be serious consequences for such conduct. I certainly would not want to be in his shoes and it's without a doubt he wants to dodge prison and get out so he can attempt to evade prosecution once again. He has quite the following of fans and supporters and this letter appears to be the work of his advocates. And what does the UN have to do with the US extraditing him for espionage? Like the other editors have stated above, this letter is undue, and I question it's accuracy since it's pretty clear 60 doctors have not examined him. It's a lot of opinions from people who do not have personal knowledge of his condition. If the prison doctors sent a letter, that would be more credible. As it stands, I don't consider that political letter all that credible. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And I note that is about his stay at the embassy his... But this is the point. It may be he may die in prison, but it any content must be worded so as not to imply this is solely or even principally the prison authorities fault. I also note this is 60 doctors, none of whom appear to have examined him from 8 countries, that seems to be to be a fringe. I also note that there seems to be a lot out there relating not to his imprisonment, but mainly his stay in the embassy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, according to the UN, Assange's stay in the embassy was imposed on him. He was, after all, there because of credible fears of extradition to the United States for political crimes - fears which have now proven to be true. Also, what makes the doctors' opinions "fringe"? They're based on the conclusions of a UN team (including medical experts) that examined Assange, as well as other witness accounts of Assange's decline in health. The doctors' letter has been widely reported on. "I also note that there seems to be a lot out there relating not to his imprisonment, but mainly his stay in the embassy." The UN found Assange's confinement to the embassy to be arbitrary detention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Because a fringe is a view held by a minority, last time I checked 64 medical experts are not even a significant minority of the number of doctors in the UK alone. And again, it does not matter why he was "held" in the embassy, when the suggested edit only talks about British jails.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So only once a majority of all practicing doctors in the UK come out and make a statement about Assange's health will this view stop being fringe? Am I getting this right? Is this really the level of absurdity we're going to stoop to here on Wikipedia?

If you don't like that the proposed text specifically refers only to Assange's health in jail, why not propose an improvement? The proposed text isn't set down in stone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is an RfC and it is set in stone. It looks like the proposal will fail, and I suggest working on other things for awhile and proposing some other language that takes account of the apparent consensus that the health/British prison bit is not going in the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing at wikipedia is set in stone and specifically RfC's dont rule out that sources might change in the future. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I can think of any number of fringe theories where the professional experts have not come out and passed comment on it (partly that what makes it fringe). Also it is not necessarily down to us to provide "better" text, as some of us do not only oppose for reasons of it being "POV" written. Also it is hard to see how one paragraph can be written as one line without losing nuance, and it is hard to see how one paragraph in the lede is not undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish the opinions you've expressed here — condemning the medical experts as fringe, referencing supposedly larger numbers of doctors who must disagree, etc., were supported by text in reliable sources. But that commentary is not present in any news articles on this topic. -Darouet (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not say anyone disagreed, I said they have not agreed. Again we have plenty of arguments made on fringe topics that they are fringe precisely because no other academic has commented on them, I am merely extending that argument to here. These 60 doctors have not examined him, but rather based their judgment on what others have said or what they have observed in videos. One of the problems here is that the hospitals doctors are bound by confidentiality, they are legally disallowed from commenting (the 60 docs are not precisely because he is not their patient and they have not examined him in a professional capacity). Thus we are only getting one side of this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, I understand what you're arguing on principle, and I do agree with you that when a viewpoint truly becomes fringe, and is furthermore inconsequential, reliable and respected sources of information will ignore it. In that case, it would be unreasonable for us to ask you to produce reliable source critiques of the viewpoint in question.

However, there are multiple sources information that should strongly suggest to you that the case here is not only very different, but the opposite of what you describe. First, the doctors' letter was published by global news agencies, who do more than just report that the letter was written, but also solicit feedback. For instance The Independent interviews one of the letter's signatories [54]:

Template:Talk quote

The Guardian corroborates this account by adding in their own words that [55]

Template:Talk quote

Reporting on the doctors' letter Al Jazeera notes the fairly obvious, that the letter is consistent with the medical assessment made by UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer [56]:

Template:Talk quote

Because these assessments are being provided by multiple highly credible authorities, because major papers all over the world report the assessments credibly and do not provide arguments (except by British officials who are incarcerating Assange) to the contrary, it should be obvious to you that there is nothing "fringe" about this. If we used the standard you are advocating, even the most widely reported statements or assessments must be treated as equivalent to statements or opinions that have received no coverage at all. -Darouet (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Fringe does not mean "not widely reported". How many doctors who have actually physically examine Assande have commented on his health? This is the issue here, he has been taken to the hospital wing [[57]], what have they said? That is the point, hew is getting medical care and they are not allowed to discuss their findings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you didn't address what Darouet said. Major newspapers are treating the doctors' letter as credible, as the quotes Darouet provided above demonstrate. Do you have an answer to that point? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Reporting what people have said and treating those claims as credible are not the same. Nor do comments made about his conditions before arriving at Belmarsh have any relevance to text about his condition at Belmarsh. Again we only have one side of this story, and in fact legally can only have one side due to patient doctor confidentiality. The doctors who are treating him (rather then acting as advocates) cannot tell us what they think.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You're still avoiding answering what Darouet wrote above, and it's becoming clear why: you don't have an answer to it. If the doctors' view is fringe, why are they being given so much coverage by mainstream publications? Why don't those publications call the doctors' view fringe? Instead, mainstream publications are actually interviewing the doctors and presenting their opinions. The Guardian even makes a statement in its own voice that supports the doctors' view. Your argument against that is to say that only the views of the doctors who are directly treating Assange matter. In other words, you're ignoring the fact that the media doesn't treat the doctors' letter as fringe, and making your own personal argument about why you think the 60 doctors are wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I know, why does keep getting publicity? Or Mazrk Dice or anyone who claims to have seen Nessie? Why (even now) does David Icke still get publicity? Newspapers publish many things, including conspiracy theories and even stories that feature me (that is to say my Wikipedia account). It does not mean the views represented (with the exception of mine) are not a fringe of those who might not (but have no for one reason or another) expressed an opinion. This is why I say it violated wp:undue and maybe wp:fringe because those who have treated him (as doctors) cannot give a counter account, even if they wanted it. To put it another way, this is all the news media have to report.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If the 60 doctors' views (and those of the UN team) were fringe, the mainstream sources covering them would indicate that. When mainstream sources cover people who say vaccines cause autism, the sources categorically state that there's no evidence for that claim. But instead, we see above from the quotes Darouet provided that mainstream sources treat the doctors' letter as credible. The Guardian even echoes - in its own voice - some of what the doctors are saying. That's what you're not addressing. You keep saying that unless Assange's prison doctors make a public statement, the 60 doctors and the UN team are fringe. That's a ridiculous argument you seem to have pulled out of a hat. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in lede We dont measure by the quantity of the doctors. However, this is a second source that supports the earlier source by the UN person. Thus we have two different independent reports of a similar issue. Above arguments such as 'how many doctors is 60 out of total' or 'arranged by wikileaks' are all baseless. We do weight based on independent reliable sources and add weight for multiple events. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for your comment, though I raised the doctors' letter and its widespread coverage without asking that we put it in the lead (though I suppose we can look into that in the future). Instead I mentioned the letter here to point out that Melzer's assessment — supported by the medical team that accompanied him, the UN, Assange's family and lawyers, and others — has now received yet further validation from a large number of medical professionals.

The letter also demonstrates that international human rights groups — the United Nations, HRW, the ACLU — have been relatively consistent in their view that Assange's incarceration has been arbitrary and illegal, despite the opinions of some editors here to the contrary. -Darouet (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: yes, i also support inclusion in the body. Plenty of RS to include. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Suitable - It's not like the views of United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer are just some random vox pop. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• How come an involved editor close this discussion? The editor MrX has been editing in this U.S. Democrats vs Republicans area all the time and many editors here who voted excluded are always supporting MrX. We should have a new RfC again and uninvolved admin should close the discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor Jtbobwaysf has decided to block me from this article

Having failed to have me blocked on an admin noticeboard, the editor Jtbobwaysf has taken it upon himself to indiscriminately revert whatever edits I make this to this article in the future. The editor admitted as much in this edit.[58] The editor decided to restore content sourced to a dead link and a tweet. The edit I made should be restored ASAP.[59] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont have privileges to block someone from an article. You are continuing WP:TE on the same content you had a long noticeboard incident about. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You have literally stated that I am not allowed to make an edit to the article. As for your nonsensical claim of TE, please explain what was tendentious about the edit. Was it the removal of a dead link to a website called "haaveru.com"? Was it the removal of a tweet? Was it the addition of commentary by a recognized expert? In your edit, you literally said I was personally not allowed to edit this content, and you now the audacity to accuse me of tendentious editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Report it at wp:ani, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning a username in the talk page section header is something sanctionable if repeated.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a very old thread. Drop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Jailing of Chelsea Manning

The following text was recently reverted. The reason was “No, it's relevant at Chelsea Manning or Wikilinks, not here”.

===Jailing of Chelsea Manning for contempt of court===
In February 2019, Manning received a subpoena to appear before a grand jury in Virginia in a case against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. When Manning condemned the secrecy of the hearings and refused to testify, she was jailed for contempt of court on 8 March 2019. Manning was released on 9 May 2019, when the grand jury's term expired but was immediately served with another subpoena to appear before a new grand jury investigating Assange.  On 16 May 2019, Manning again refused to testify before the grand jury investigating Julian Assange stating that she "believe[d] this grand jury seeks to undermine the integrity of public discourse with the aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of power by this government". She was returned to jail for the 18-month term of the grand jury. In addition a fine was imposed of $500 for each day she spends in jail over 30 days and $1,000 for each day she spends in jail over 60 days.

I do think the text is relevant at Chelsea Manning and it is already there is an expanded form. The section in which I placed the text is called “Indictment in the United States”. The text is about Manning’s jailing for refusing to testify in a grand jury about Assange. I hope the relevance to Assange is clear. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be mentioned here briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I may remove last sentence in the text before re-adding. I'll wait to see if any other editor is interested. Burrobert (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I support adding one or two sentences, not a whole paragraph. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC on Nils Melzer's statement on Assange's ability to leave the embassy.

The consensus is to exclude the material for being undue weight.

Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following text be added to the section International Courts and the United Nations?

Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said Assange was as free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy "as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool". 

Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes include the text. My views are in an earlier inconclusive discussion on this talk page. Melzer's statement is in response to other statements which suggested Assange was free to leave the embassy at any time. Burrobert (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• No: we already have too many quotes from Melzer. This isn't necessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. It does not meet WP:DUE, and the source cited is unproven at best. KyleJoan^talk 11:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. If you want that information, you can just say Melzer disputed the statements that suggest Assange was free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OHCHR accuses UK government of torturing Assange

@Red Rock Canyon: I added a sentence about the OHCHR officially accusing the UK government of torturing Julian Assange.[60] This needs to be in the article because it is a very severe accusation that has not been made by the OHCHR before. Xenagoras (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Australian criminal?

As this issue has come up again, I would like some clarity. The "Category:Australian criminals" says, Australian criminals are Australians who have been convicted of crime of a notable nature or notable Australians who have been convicted of serious crimes. I don't think skipping bail was a serious crime. However, taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years was notable. Hence, I think skipping bail was notable by the way that Assange did it. There is also the 24 hacking charges that he pleaded guilty to in 1996. They are notable, being featured in works such as Underground (Dreyfus book) and Underground: The Julian Assange Story. Various sources name him as a former hacker:[61][62][63][64]. He pleaded guilty to hacking when he was 25, having been under police investigation since 1991. He was given a three year good behaviour bond. The Swedish charges arose in 2010. He skipped bail in 2012. Last year he was expelled from the embassy and imprisoned. He is now 48. For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system. Criminal charges have dominated his life. I can't see how anyone can say this is WP:NOTDEFINING...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What crimes has he been convicted of? Hacking - 3 year good behaviour bond - not a crime of a notable nature nor a serious crime. Breaching the Bail Act - 50 weeks - (the bail breach itself is) not a crime of a notable nature nor a serious crime. I do agree that seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean Consulate is both notable and defining - but that might warrant adding Australian asylum seekers or Seekers of asylum in Ecuador.
As for NOTDEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having. "(career) criminal" is not how reliable sources generally describe the article subject, though I'm sure some could be Googled up with the right search string. Simply being involved with the justice system for extended periods of his life does not make him a criminal nor make him eligible to be categorised as one. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No not notable the A UN special Raporture has commented on it? So not notable 60 doctors world wide have commented on it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that either the UN Rapporteur or the 60 doctors have commented on either the "hacking" conviction or the "breach of the Bail Act", or on any other convicted crime, but am happy to be shown sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No they have commented on his jailing (and on him being effectively jailed in the embassy), he was jailed for a crime.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased I hadn't missed anything then. But their having commented on the psychological effects of his prison time, when combined with the time in asylum, doesn't make the crime itself a crime of a notable nature or a serious crime; and it doesn't mean that reliable sources generally refer to (define) the article subject as a "criminal". - Ryk72 ^talk 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Debatable I think it does, as without the crime he would not be going the time, but his crime was notable anyway, look at the sources, Assanges arrest was global news, his trial was global news, the crime he committed (bail jumping) was global news.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Only because, he was already notable. The category's entry ticket for notable persons is "a serious crime". Skipping bail is not a serious crime. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Skipping bail is not a serious crime, but it is notable when the offender goes into an embassy and stays there for seven years!!! That is the "entry ticket". If he simply applied to Ecuador for asylum, he would not have been holed up in the embassy. The reason he didn't want to leave was there was an arrest warrant for him.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought we'd come to crime of a notable nature at some stage, and here we are. "Crime of a notable nature" is not "notable crime". It speaks to a quality of the general crime committed, not to a quality of the specific crime committed. Also, to hear him tell it, he didn't want to leave because he feared not an arrest warrant, but extradition, via Sweden, to the US. And, as I'm reliably informed, seeking asylum is not crime. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) - add Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I mentioned "crime of a notable nature" in my original post. Where do you get your definition?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From reading the English words, in the order that they're written. "Crime of a notable nature", for the audience, is, of course, from the description of the "Australian criminals" category. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, the asylum seeking is notable, but the bail skipping is, itself, not a "crime of a notable nature"; certainly not in the same way that "serial killing" would be. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think your definition is linguistically invalid. Clearly, the bail skipping was of a notable nature because it lead to him staying in the embassy for 7 years. With regard to the other point, he was on bail because of the Swedish extradition request. When he entered the embassy, an arrest warrant was issued, and he faced arrest if he stepped outside. The arrest warrant remained in force even after Sweden dropped its investigation. The arrest warrant was the immediate reason he couldn't leave the embassy. When he was hauled out of the embassy, he was arrested for skipping bail. Of course, his legal problems are intertwined, but it is wrong to say that skipping bail didn't matter. The application for asylum was accepted under Ecuadorian law, but it also constituted a breach of bail under British law. Whether or not you like it, he was breaking the law the whole time he stayed in the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I could see support for "Australia Hackers" or similar; though "hacker" is a loosely defined term, not always associated with criminal hacking. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest Template:CL or one of its subcategories. His imprisonment is absolutely notable (it covers a full fourth of the lead and has an entire section devoted to it), but I'm not sure his conviction is, comparatively speaking. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• No, "criminal" is not his defining characteristic. As noted, he's only been convicted of two crimes that do not raise to the major crime level, and those convictions are a minor part of his biography. We have a higher bar for categorizations which may run afoul of WP:BLP concerns, and we should not place him in that category. As noted, Category:Hackers may be justified, as may the "prisoners and detainees" category noted above, but certainly not any criminal category. --Jayron32 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, he was convicted of 25 crimes. I don't accept that the hacking was minor just because he received a light sentence. He was treated leniently — because of his disrupted childhood apparently. Those convictions should be a major part of his biography because, as I said, they've dominated most of his adult life.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Labeling him an "Australian criminal" would be absurd. Please, don't descend to that level. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not? This is why I wanted clarification on the issue, because the nay-sayers never engage with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply because his convictions haven't dominated most of his adult life. You've made that call. I suggest you justify it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree The category is appropriate. This is self-evident. He is Australian and he is a criminal. Within the group, it is heterogeneous but that does not negate the use of high-level categorization. We do that on nearly every page of Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I did, in my original post.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

He's 48. An adult for 30 years. "Most of his adult life" would have to be at least 20 years. I find it hard to accept that his convictions (not just charges) have dominated his life for 20 years. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant crimes he was convicted for. He began hacking in 1987. In 1991, he was raided by police; his wife left, taking his son. He was hospitalised with depression, and spent some time sleeping rough.[65] His hair turned white.[66] In 1994, he was charged with 31 hacking offences. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 offences. The judge said the offences were quite serious[67] but ordered him to pay reparations and gave him a three-year good behaviour bond. Those three years bring us up to the end of 1999. Now some editors try to trivialise the hacking convictions, but I think it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally. In this period he also collaborated Underground (Dreyfus book), published in 1997, which established his first claim to notability. Then Assange had roughly a decade when he had no legal problems, as far as I know. In 2010, the Swedish and US government began proceedings against him. In 2012, he breached bail and faced arrest if he left the embassy, as discussed elsewhere. He was arrested for breaching bail and was convicted of the offence this year and served his sentence. A British judge has declined to give him bail now because of his history of absconding.[68] So the hacking crimes dominated his life from 1987-1999, skipping bail has dominated it from 2012-2020. That is roughly 20 years, though it don't understand how you arrived at 20. "Most" should mean more than half, so more than 15... My original statement was: "For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system", which includes facing charges, being on bail, serving a sentence etc. I think this is clearly true.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally" A little too much OR. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OR is OK on Talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OR is not okay as a justification for content changes to the article. Being "in the clutches of a criminal justice system" does not make one a criminal. The minor crimes Assange has been convicted of (and which are a very minor part of his biography) do not make him a "criminal", and he is not described as such by reliable sources. It's amazing that you were against labeling him a "journalist", despite dozens of reliable sources, but are now trying to label him a "criminal" without any sourcing at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of what I said. The crimes he has been convicted of are not a "very minor part of his biography". The hacking dominated his youth and gave him his first claim to notability. If he hadn't breached bail, he would have remained a free man. He would not have spent seven years of his life in the embassy. He would have fought the Swedish and US allegations and might have won. To say that the breach of bail is a "very minor part of his biography" is absolutely absurd. It was a pivotal point in his life. There is absolutely no connection with the question of whether he is a journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Assange's teenage hacking conviction is a very minor part of his biography. It's barely ever mentioned in coverage of Assange. You're taking the years that he spent as a political refugee and condensing it down to "skipping bail." He skipped bail in order to get to the Ecuadorean embassy, but that's a minor aspect of the entire ordeal. Compared to the things that Assange is primarily known for (WikiLeaks, journalism, political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy and the ongoing attempt by the US government to prosecute him for publishing government secrets), the two episodes you're highlighting are very minor indeed.

But the crux of the matter is that you're making up this "criminal" designation yourself, without sourcing. When we were arguing over whether to label Assange a "journalist," I presented dozens of news articles from reliable sources that unambiguously referred to Assange as a "journalist." You complained that I was supposedly cherry-picking sources, and that there were other reliable sources that didn't state either way whether or not Assange was a "journalist." Now, without even presenting any news articles that refer to Assange as a "criminal," you're insisting on labeling him as such. Your positions on these two labels are inconsistent, from the point of view of sourcing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think Assange is known as a journalist, do you think OJ Simpson is known as a football star? Ronald Reagan, cowboy TV personality? Cosby known as a family favorite comedian? One way these discussions can easily get derailed is to cherrypick outdated sources like the ones that said Assange was a journalist, when he later and currently is seen as a criminal. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to Thucydides: we don't need sources to say Assange committed crimes. That's not in dispute. The issue seems to be if the crimes were "notable" or "serious". By the way, I am not "insisting" on labelling Assange a criminal. I just asked for some clarity. This issue keeps coming up. If there is a solid argument, let's hear it. So far, the arguments are dismissive, convoluted, or emotional.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Get back to us when you find reliable sources that label Assange a "criminal". Until then, there's nothing to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Filed under "dismissive". Start a properly formatted RfC if you wish. Be sure to set up a separate section for discussion so all your comments don't get interleaved with the !votes. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

With regard to previous discussions about Assange's time in the embassy from 2012 onwards, the US indictment wasn't made until 2018 and wasn't unsealed until 2019. I don't believe he could have been arrested in Britain until the the indictment was unsealed and the USA made a formal request for his extradiction. Up till last year, the only arrest warrant outstanding was for him skipping bail, so I don't understand how this is not notable. I agree the US indictment is notable too, but I don't understand an argument that says Assange is not a criminal because there are outstanding criminal charges. Yes, there are. This is part of his life. Why deny it?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So why was he on bail?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

He was on bail because Sweden was trying to extradite him.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And not for any political crime in Sweden. Just a serious crime. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at other examples, celebrity doctor Geoffrey Edelsten has the category "Australian criminals", public servant Michael Coutts-Trotter has "Australian drug traffickers", actor Tim Allen has "American drug traffickers", and actor Mark Wahlberg has "American people convicted of assault", as does rapper Jay-Z. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that these crimes are a defining part of their lives. While their convictions are confirmed by sources, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the terminology in the category is confirmed by sources as such. I doubt you can find a plethora of reliable sources labelling Tim Allen a "drug trafficker".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't label Assange a "criminal" without strong reliable sourcing. I remind you that this is a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• No Assange is best known as the guy who was locked in the embassy, and his actions are alleged by some to be criminal and others to be heroic. He has not yet been convicted of any real crime, other than the slap on the wrist for hacking. He certainly was and is not known for some minor conviction in Australia, no more than Tim Allen is well known as a coke dealer. This is POV pushing again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, but Tim Allen gets the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, to be repetitive, he was stuck in the embassy because he had committed a crime, breaching his bail.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OSE about these comparisons. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What part of that are you referring to exactly?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To be added to the above examples: Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in prison, a $30,000 fine, 250 hours of community service and one year supervised release for the college exam cheating scam. This is a far lesser sentence than Assange's recent one. She has the categories "People convicted of fraud" and "21st-century American criminals". Also, George Michael who has the category "British people convicted of drug offences" and apparently he only served four weeks in prison.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. In his teens, an Australian court let him go when he was first charged with hacking. The decision argued that his intrusions had been harmless explorations and not profit-focused or malicious. Can we say that the nature of the crime he was convicted of was harmless and not serious? His hacking activities endangered the national security of some countries as well as the lives of people. A case in point was his exposure of people (journalists, religious leaders, political dissidents, etc.) throughout the world who provided information to the U.S. This included the identities of the more than 100 Afghans assets who were informing on the Taliban. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive headings

Currently we have two headings following each other: Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy and Asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Previously, the second heading has been "Later years in the Ecuadorian embassy" or "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy", but editors keep changing back. Is there a consensus for an alternative, or is repetition OK?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would combine them into one heading: "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would make a big section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We cannot insinuate "asylum" for a fugitive wanted for rape and conspiracy, now charged with espionage, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We already have!--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs fixin'. These articles must be NPOV. Fanboy and Original Research stuff needs to be weeded out. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I have taken a quick look at the whole article. It's almost bad enough to blow it up and start from scratch. It's full of editors' insertions of Assange's own discredited narratives and deprecation of the facts reported by RS and supported by national and international law. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fact that Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. It is also a fact that he was on bail facing extradition to Sweden. That's why I added "Breaching bail" to the first heading, to clarify the situation. I think there is nothing wrong with using "asylum" in a heading, but we have to avoid presenting a false narrative which simply says Assange was facing a US indictment for his work with WikiLeaks and so he sought asylum, in other words, presenting Assange as a martyr. I agree that there is too much of Assange's own narrative here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well like many criminals, he claimed he was a victim of political persecution. The British for their own reasons did not enter the Embassy and seize him, but they could have. Why Ecuador went along with the charade is another question. The Brits could have grabbed him. If he'd tried to flee, they would have. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Truish, but so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So the narrative that he's a fine lad, a journalist threatened and persecuted for political reasons other than his criminal acts, reflects neither RS reports nor the facts. It needs to be way way toned down and editors should not push that propaganda and its false narrative from some self-appropriated righteous stance. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I've replied to that straw man above. He claimed he was hanging out there for "asylum" and the governments who needed to bring him to justice declined to press the issue by entering to extract him. The Ecuadorans finally got sick of it and we know the rest. It's like you going to the bus station and claiming asylum there. The authorities might let you stay for a long time, but that doesn't mean they waive their right to extract you. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In which part and in which way is What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. a "straw man"? What actually does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? - Ryk72 ^talk 23:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I just explained that immediately above. This did not fit the definition of asylum. He was not under political persecution. He was under indictment. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address, directly or indirectly, either of the questions that I asked. But, insofar as it is a comment on what article content should be ... got source? - Ryk72 ^talk 00:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ecuador Grants WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Political Asylum". I'm not "insinuating" anything. It is a fact that Ecuador granted Assange political asylum in August 2012. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the question of whether he got asylum is like the question whether he is a criminal. Perhaps he shouldn't have been given asylum; perhaps he shouldn't have been convicted. But our opinions don't change the facts. Two jurisdictions collided, and we should acknowledge both.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Has anyone got a response to my original question?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There have been no further responses, so I have made my own changes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I would merge to one section. The nonsense above about asylum is POV pushing, as it asylum was used in the majority of sources. Agree Jack, doesn't make sense to repeat the section headings. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That would make a big section. Previously, the two sections were divided because the information about the Democratic Party was inserted between the two. Now the article is out of chronological order. My preference would be to have two sections because I think it is easier to navigate. Alternatively, we could create more subsections.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are just talking about the time at the embassy, subsections would be better in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the time in the embassy. I can see we could have a subsection, "Applying for asylum and breaching bail", but after that the only way that I can see to divide it up would be chronologically, for example 2012-2016, 2017-2019. Do you have any suggestions?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am good with chronology. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Jtbobwaysf: I think the changes you made Jack are fine. As I've written previously I also think we need to condense down the 2016 election publications material: maybe less than what I'd done previously, to please all parties, but the section headings and text are currently bloated compared to the rest of the article. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: I support your proposal to condense the 2016 elections, I suggest by half of current text. A summary would be fine, this is a BLP after all, not a history of the 2016 elections, which there are whole articles for. A lot of this section is POV pushing that Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks influenced the election. Neither of these allegations are proven and thus WP:NOTCOURT applies. Better to just summarize it so it isnt the weight issue that it is today. I guess most it duplicated from other the wikileaks and other 2016 election articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The Manual of Style/Biography for opening paragraphs says that the opening paragraph should, among other things, state: The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; Why the person is notable.

The current opening paragraph describes Assange as an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006 and then discusses the leaks published in 2010. This is now a decade old. It doesn't mention the seven years in the embassy; it doesn't mention that he is currently in jail. I understand the lead is chronological, starting in 2010, but that doesn't fit the MOS. It's also not reader-friendly.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Catalan independence

The following text was recently removed:

===Catalan independence===
Assange has stated that did not take a position on the outcome of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. However he believed that Catalans had the right to self-determination. He provided assistance to Catalans in the lead up to the referendum by providing instructions on how to communicate and organise through secure channels, providing historical background on the struggle for Catalan independence, correcting misreporting of events and providing live video updates about Catalan protests and actions by the Spanish police. When the Spanish Government disabled voting apps, Assange tweeted instructions on how Catalans could use other apps to find out information about voting.
The Ecuadorian government, responding to pressure from Spain, removed Assange’s internet connection and stopped his access to visitors at the Ecuador embassy. 
Assange was awarded the 2019 Dignity Prize by The Catalan Dignity Commission for his efforts during the 2017 referendum. 

Reasons for adding the text are:

1. Assange received an award for his work
2. His work had severe consequences for him - loss of internet and visitors
3. This is his page. It is about him including work he has done.

Burrobert (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well form a start "Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped." is what the source says it does not say this was due to Spanish pressure. The Award is not (as far as I know) a major award.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the standing of the award the source says “has not stopped him winning a major award”.

Yes I cheated by saying that Spain’s pressure caused assanges internet and visitors to be stopped. The source doesn’t say this explicitly but does imply it by saying “Assange’s support for the democratic process led to a backlash from Spain sparking concerns within Ecuador’s government. Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped”. I don’t think he Ecuadorian government ever confirmed that the two things were linked though there are sources which speculate that there was a connection. This part of the text can be amended to say something like Spain expressed its displeasure to the Ecuadorian government about assanges activities” which can be sourced to say this guardian article if the news.com.au article isn’t enough.

I should comment that the fact that assanges actions around the Catalan referendum created an international situation between Spain and Ecuador adds to the significance of assanges actions.

Burrobert (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it could have a brief mention, but not its own section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert, Jack Upland, and Slatersteven: I think this definitely needs to be mentioned in Assange's biography, but shouldn't have its own section. -Darouet (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to also not involve "cheating" and must accurately reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: great. I'm sure we can come up with text everyone's happy with. I suspect that Burrobert's use of the word "cheating" may reflect some linguistic or translational barriers. If you read the opening paragraphs of these Guardian and News.au articles [69][70], you'd probably agree, Steven, that the text Burrobert added approximately follows what the sources write. Because the Guardian article notes that Ecuador's decision was based on multiple factors, and because I agree we should always be cautious, what do you think about this text instead?

Template:Talk quote

I'd propose adding this to the end of "Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy" section, right after the CNN paragraph. It seems related, since it concerns Assange's political activity while at the Embassy. Let me know if you suggest something different. Also happy to hear your thoughts Jack Upland. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: does my text address your concern that the sources were not properly represented? -Darouet (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I still think this is undue, but even if we have it, the stuff about the Ecuadorian government needs attribution, it may not be a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it doesn't need attribution since the president of Ecuador stated "We do not want to intervene under any circumstances with respect to Catalonia... We have reminded Mr Assange that he has no reason to interfere in Ecuadorian politics..." [71]. However I suppose there's always room for interpretation there. How about "Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government, and according to The Guardian increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government."? There are other sources as well but The Guardian is probably strongest. -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This Guardian article suggests the Internet was cut off because he intervened in a dispute between Britain and Russia. If we are going to mention this Internet cut-off, I think we should just stick with the Ecuadorian government's statement that it was concerned about him interfering with other countries.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: agreed - which is why my proposed text only states that Assange's position / actions regarding Catalonia increased tension (as per the source). -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support adding in a neutral way. Jack's proposed text looks fine to me. No full section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

90's travel

The following paragraph has been just reverted with rather obscure justification "We do not need a list of everything he has ever done"[72]. Certainly we don't have to list everything he has done but frequent travel to Eastern Europe and Russia in 90's is certainly a relevant information in a biography of someone accused of supporting Russian foreign policy in 2000's. The paragraph is also very well-sourced, by both Assange's interview and autobiography:

In 90's Assange visited Russia and developed interest for Russian literature, mentioning Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak and Dostoyevski as his favorite authors, as well Soviet children cartoons. After release from prison, between 1996 and 1998, he started traveling worldwide, visiting Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Irtkutsk and Beijing.

Cloud200 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What does this tell us, its just a facotd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with it. The main problem with this article is excessive wikileaks content and a lack of biographical content on the subject. This summary seems ok as it points to the subject's interest in a summarized way. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"After release from prison"? We have had extensive discussions on this, and everyone has agreed he did not go to prison in the 1990s. The fact that he visited Russia does not imply he supports the Russian government. In the interview he is very critical of Putin.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph nowhere alleges his support for Putin. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on this wording because from legal point of view "arrest" or "custody" is not the same as "prison sentence" even if he was locked under guard. Let's just leave "Between 1996...". Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I support its inclusion. It is not unusual for a bio to contain this type of personal information. I can only verify the first sentence as I don't have access to the autobiography. Burrobert (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

You do have. The book is available on Google Books[73] with the relevant fragment in the beginning of Chapter 7. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

it seems that he only spent a few days in each city during a roughly 5 week trip. Was that his only overseas travel? If so would it be better to remove the cities and mention the countries he visited instead? The book has some other interesting information such as his study of maths and physics at Melbourne Uni that would be worth including here. Burrobert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of mentioning a five week trip. It's pretty clear from all the sources, he didn't go to prison. He was not held in custody prior to his trial in 1996 and didn't get a prison sentence. If anyone has any other information, please let us know. Prison time is more significant than overseas travel.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It was not a tourist trip. He clearly mentions the purpose was to meet with fellow hackers. Not many Australians travel to places such as Irkutsk just to meet some people they knew online. Another part of the autobiography also mentions Assange meeting people from Chaos Computer Club in Germany, both of which are closely related to Assange's presence in the hacker community but not even mentioned in the current version of the article. This is precisely the kind of background information you find in people's biographies. Cloud200 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if it's couched in terms of the meeting the global hacker community, then it should be included. (So long as it's accurate...)--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and if he just went on a college tour of europe, we dont need to list the countries one by one. Also agree the above comments that there might be other good information in the book as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think some of this could be included, if attributed to Assange's autobiography. It does certainly seem that meeting people from the Chaos Computer Club would be important in an Assange biography. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

interview to Melzer by

Other than on german language ( www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange ), the UN relator Nils Melzer interview by is also in english language:

www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

And there is another (english language) source about this:

www.swissinfo.ch/eng/un-torture-investigator_assange-being-set-up-to-be--burned-at-the-stake-/45530514

--5.170.47.204 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

5.170.47.204 and Da Vinci Nanjing have been adding "According to Melzer Assange's Layers contacted him in December 2018 and sent him documents related to allegations of rape in Sweden.". Can either of you explain what the relevance of this is? According to the source, the lawyers asked him to intervene in Dec 2018, and contacted him a second time in March 2019 and that's when they sent him documents. How does that matter to the article? Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the Da Vinci reasons, and also why he posted only the german language link instead that (only) the english language link; but i'm according with him ("The interview with Mr. Melzer is a lot to comprehend, I will go on with it asap") that in this source there is a lot of relevant about all the Assange current-story.
By the way, the Da Vinci edit was deleted not because was not relevant, but with (different) wrong reasons: "Not a mainstream source"; also swissinfo.ch is not a mainstream source, now?
...so please stay tuned to this (the deletion of Da Vinci edit was wrong motivated), not inventing different reject-reason. --5.170.47.204 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not clear on the bit about the source, ignoring that. I get there's a lengthy interview with Melzer, but anything from the interview added to the article has to be pertinent and relevant. And honestly, adding that the lawyers sent him papers is pointless. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree: it seems pointless. And we have way too much about Melzer.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the current material relating to Nils Melzer in the article, which relates largely to allegations of torture, should be condensed. However, there is a lot of material in the Republik interview which should affect the contents of the article: contradictions of the version of events given by news organisations, including detail about Assange's rebuffed approaches to the Swedish police; allegations of malpractice by the Swedish police and authorities including changing a statement and leaking material to the press; moves by the Americans to "deluge Assange with all kinds of criminal cases for the next 25 years"; the previous handing of two men over to the CIA without any legal proceedings; the disappearance of Assange's laptops from locked luggage during an SAS flight to Berlin; confirmation that pressure was applied by the British to stop the Swedes from dropping the case; failure of the British and Swedes to co-operate with Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, by their response to his questions.     ←   ZScarpia   10:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)   (12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC): extended comment after Burrobert's response below)

Yes I agree the interview put a lot of information together. Some of the information appears to be new and is available to Melzer because of his position and standing. Burrobert (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it, or is it because he was fed it by Assanges Lawyers (which seems to be implicated).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That Melzer received some documents from Assange’s lawyers is not implied (if that is what you mean), it is stated openly - “They sent me a few key documents and a summary of the case”. He also says he has all the documents from the Swedish investigation including emails, and text messages and is able to read the original documents in Swedish. Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

So? The cal,im is his claims must be authoritative because of who he is. But do we know which of his claims are based on the lawyers documents and which on the Swedish polices (who would not be allowed to discuss the case with the press, so could not contradict him).Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no case in Sweden as the investigation has been dropped. If someone on Melzer's standing were to misrepresent documents or invent facts then it is almost certain that the relevant authority in Sweden would defend itself by providing a statement of some sort. Melzer makes a number of claims about the Swedish prosecution that are quite serious. No authority would let those claims stand uncontested if they were false. As far as I am aware the relevant Swedish authority has not disputed Melzer's claims in any form, even to say it disagrees but cannot discuss the matter. For our purposes all we have is Melzer's analysis and silence from the other end. Burrobert (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea about Sweden but in the UK confidentiality extends even after a case is dropped.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As a representative of the United Nations, it's Melzer's job to report on the legality and circumstances of Assange's case, and the implications for press freedoms more broadly. Melzer is doing that. It's our job to present what Melzer has stated, without converting his statements into fact without further corroboration, and without trying to discredit him as if we were prosecutors in the case against Assange. I agree with ZScarpia and Burrobert that some of this material is both relevant and can be presented in the article neutrally. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

He is also only one person, whose views are be given way to much prominence in an article not about him. No it is not out job to present his views,It is our job to present an article about Julian Assange. No we should not try to discredit him as if we were prosecutors in the case against Assange, but nor should we act in the opposite way and give too much coverage to attempts to defend him as if we were his defense council in the case for Assange. IN fact in can be argued that as the case in Sweden has been dropped anything relating to that is now largely irrelevant to Mr assagnes story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Put any relevant information in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include contents from the German language interview and point out where there may be any conflicts with what the press has reported. Verbatim from an expert is reliable for WP. Statements made by this expert should be deemed more reliable when taken verbatim than quotes from so called RS, that may have a POV on this issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What is he an expert in? What is he being used as an expert for?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jack's idea of putting information in the article Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. There is more scope for adding detailed information about the rape investigation from Melzer's analysis there and at the moment Melzer's name does not appear at all. I also think the important points or a summary of them can be included in the current article. Something along the lines of "Using his access to emails, text messages and other documents from the Swedish investigation, Nils Melzer made a number of criticisms of the investigation and claimed that Sweden was never interested helping the two women or in finding the truth but deliberately left Assange in limbo for nine years without a chance to defend himself". Of course Melzer's analysis included other parts of the story, such as the actions of the British justice system. Perhaps a similar approach would work. The various Arbuthnot articles may be a good place to include the detail of this information and perhaps a suitable summary could be included in Assange's article. Burrobert (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He is (at best) an RS in the area of his expertise, what is his area of expertise?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent developments

Assange was recently released from solitary confinement in the medical wing at Belmarsh prison and placed in a wing where he can interact with other prisoners. It seems that this was as a result of the intervention of other prisoners who found Assange's treatment appalling and wrote to the governor. It has been mentioned in a number of places and WikiLeaks Ambassador Joseph Farrell has made a statement that it is a breakthrough. One of the sources had this quote "Julian is finally released from solitary in Belmarsh because the other prisoners in the prison were appalled by his treatment and took up action on his behalf. A small victory for basic humanity – and it took criminals to teach it to the British state."

On 3 February The Guardian published an article by Roy Greenslade who wants to organise a statement by British editors opposing Assange's extraditon before the hearing starts.

Burrobert (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is according to The Guardian. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Roy Greenslade mentions solitary confinement. It's just another opinion piece calling Assange a hero. Associated Press has picked up the story about Assange being released from solitary, but the source is Wikileaks...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126322565001
"Julian Assange removed from solitary confinement" (25/01/2020)
--5.170.47.12 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 5.170.47.12 that is a good catch. The article states that "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been moved out of solitary confinement and into a wing with other inmates at Belmarsh prison near London. The breakthrough occurred after his legal team and three petitions by inmates said his treatment was unjust and unfair". No mention of Wikileaks as the source. I think we can accept that this is what happened. Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and Assange - detour around the First Amendment

FAIR has published an article ‘’These are new tactics being employed to silence journalism’’ which compares the Assange and Greenwald prosecutions.[74] Here is one quote referring to an op-ed by James Risen in the New York Times:

Well, James Risen had an op-ed in the New York Times saying that Greenwald's case, and that of Julian Assange—also charged with aiding his source, Chelsea Manning, to access a military database—that “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” And what I thought was also interesting, was Risen says governments like Bonsonaro’s and Donald Trump's “seem to have decided to experiment with such draconian antipress tactics by trying them out first on aggressive and disagreeable figures.”

What do editors think about a brief section providing commentary about the similarities between the two cases? Burrobert (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll revise a bit

James Risen stated in op-ed in the New York Times that Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, both charged with aiding sources, are “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” 

I think this is a bit more neutral. The POV editors wont like it anyhow, so we have to see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: we can't have every bit of commentary about Assange, and this is nothing new. What we need is summaries, not quote farms.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Been saying that for ages.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Council of Europe sides with Julian Assange

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the 28th of January asked the State members to support Assange, 'cause his detention is a detrimental to press freedom; also UK representants asked for this.

independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/council-of-europe-declares-support-for-julian-assange,13565

www.assangecampaign.org.au/council-of-europe/

assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en

--5.170.47.185 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes 5.170.47.185 we do have a sentence about this under "Other reactions": "In January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to oppose Assange’s extradition to the US". Burrobert (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

allegations

@Jack Upland: you reverted an edit by Nishidani that looked interesting. Your summary was that it was "too POV," and that is not a valid justification for revert. I didnt revert your revert (yet) as I think we also need better RS for this type of statement. Nishidani, do you have any other sources that support these claims? Specifically was Assange charged with rape when only one woman had alleged it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be good to work Melzer's analysis into the article in some form. It should be attributed to Melzer unless further sources come forward confirming his analysis. We have been discussing his interview in a previous topic above. There was a suggestion that we include a summary of Melzer's analysis and put the details in the article about the case. I suggested as a summary "Using his access to emails, text messages and other documents from the Swedish investigation, Nils Melzer made a number of criticisms of the investigation and claimed that Sweden was never interested helping the two women or in finding the truth but deliberately left Assange in limbo for nine years without a chance to defend himself". Burrobert (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever, the revert was inanely incompetent. I corrected the allegation that two women denounced him for rape because an impeccable source, written by one of the world's foremost experts in torture, Nils Melzer, corrected the systemic misreporting of the facts. That is not POV pushing. The text is in error, sincde what newspapers reported at the time has turned out to be flawed, after alòl relevant police reports werer examined by an international jurist, for chrissake. The Upland fellow thinks that a newspaper report contemporaneous with the event is more valid than an eminent legal scholar's review of the primary evidence, in the original language (Swedish), where he writes:

Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.

On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.

Use attribution by all means, even if, unlike all the newspaper reports, this one was written by a professional lawyer who actually read all of the official Swedish documentation. A lot of this article has defects reflecting dated journalistic meme reproduction. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Jack Upland: both of you are highly reasonable editors and I think there's a way of adding specific information — that SW did not accuse Assange of rape, and that tabloids misrepresented this — in a manner that is brief and more neutral. For instance Nishidani, the word "whatsoever" is over the top and does not need to be used to convey this information, per Upland's concern. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Darouet's comments, this needs to be presented more neutrally in the article. If Sweeden's position was misrepresented in the early press and now it is corrected, will state it as such. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Competence means not dragging editors into pointless talki page discussions by making a revert that, were the edit summary reasonable, would suggest the complaining editor remodulate the contested edit to suit perceived NPOV issues. But the gravamen here is that I fixed per WP:BLP a patent error, since the articles at the time reported what is now known to be a misrepresentation, simply by adding that the story of two rape complaints was what newspapers at the time reported. This is elementary, very basic. Reverting instead of using commonsense is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An expert on torture does not make them an expert on Rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Slater, these statements are contrary to fact and totally unproductive here. Melzer's short bio is available at the UN website [75], where it is explained that

Template:Talk quote

In other words, he's one of the world's most respected human rights lawyers, and in that capacity he is qualified to comment on all aspects of Julian Assange's case. It is also his mandate at the United Nations. -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

His "mandate" from the UN is to report on what he think is torture. His area of expertise appears to be humanitarian law, not rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If the magazine Republik [76] reports on Melzer's legal opinions regarding Assange's case, per our policies editors here can edit the article to include that commentary. Do you have a news article stating that Melzer is unreliable regarding Assange's case in Sweden? -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Melzer is very pro-Assange, and Republik states, "Its purpose is to criticize the powers that be".[77] My concern was about neutral wording. A while ago I suggested that we have more information about this issue, which has been pivotal in Assange's life, but I was knocked back. Now that there is a source which supports Assange on this issue, the attitudes seem to have changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this is just the sort of content this article needs. Way too much content right now on the elections (really wikileaks opinion of it and maybe participation in it) and way too little content on Assanges life. Given that Assange has and probably will spend the majority of his life in some sort of dungeon, it is notable what notable people say about Assanges choices and the consequences. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Melzer is very pro-Assange": Melzer has publicly stated that he actually had a very negative impression of Assange before he began investigating the case, not that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether his views should be noted. As for the notability of Melzer's commentary, I'd like to bring something new to the attention of editors here. A group of 130 very prominent German politicians, journalists and artists recently issued an appeal for Assange's release, and they prominently cited Melzer. This appeal is kind of a big deal in Germany, given that it was authored by one of Germany's most famous investigative journalists, and signed by a former Foreign Minister, a former Interior Minister and politicians from most of the major political parties. I added a short, solidly-sourced description of this appeal to the article, but it was reverted a few minutes later on the basis of the compelling argument, "So what?" It's apparently back now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack above. I.e. Melzer is very anti-torture, in line with international law, and the legal systems and practices of most democracies. That means he is doing the job he was appointed toi carry out, and when I used his 2008 book here in several articles unrelated to Assange, no one stepped in to personalize it by saying his defense of victims of torture means he is opposed to the countries that practice them. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• By the way, with regard to the Swedish allegations, this much of this material is not new, but was aired 10 years ago.[78]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Appeal by Prominent Germans

The recent appeal by over 130 prominent Germans is manifestly DUE. When perhaps the most famous investigative journalist in Germany writes an appeal calling for Assange's release, which is signed by politicians from across the major parties (including former government ministers, alongside many members of the Bundestag and European Parliament) and dozens of journalists, and this receives coverage across the German press, then it's clearly an event that warrants mention in the article. I added two short sentences about it: [79]. SPECIFICO immediately reverted me ([80]) and commented "So What?" ([81]). I find this flippant response troubling, as I suspect many other editors here will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All well and good. But, there are a lot of countries. It's hard to see how Germany figures into this. O3000 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"It's hard to see how Germany figures into this." To answer your own question O3000 you could consider reading the articles that are the subject of this discussion [82][83][84][85]. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Remain calm, Thucydides411. I did not revert you. Just your article text. In a nutshell it's primary source and cherrypicked. We have these things come up in the US-related articles on Donald Trump -- 600 attorneys say this, 200 clerics say that, 300 doctors say whatnot. It's all primary-sourced and unless there were something very noteworthy about this, I can think of dozens of other assessments of Assange that belong in the article before this kind of thing. Not sure about the "prominent German" expression either -- is that a "thing"? SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources used in the text you've contested are primary sources [86][87][88][89]. When you write it's "cherrypicked" what do you mean? Usually that phrase implies a source is misrepresented. Here, you're saying you'd like us to ignore this and write about other things. What other things would you like placed in the article? If you were notable enough to have a biography, 130 prominent German figures made an appeal on your behalf, and major German papers covered their appeal, that would certainly go in your biography. Every argument of substance you've made here - primary sources, cherrypicking - is simply untrue. -Darouet (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to find a way to deal with these expressions of a support in a succinct way: two sentences on prominent Germans, three sentences on Comrade Pamela Anderson, 11 paragraphs on Melzer... where will it end?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: When reliable sources stop writing about them? -Darouet (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point there's been enough campaigning on Assange's behalf, there could easily be an article titled "Campaign to free Julian Assange." There's no reason to write that article because all the material is plainly within the WP:SCOPE of his bio here. -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for a POV fork. If we start including "free Julian Assange" statement as valid content for this article, we would need to assess its relative significance vs. the opposite POV, which I suspect dwarfs anything in his favour. It's primary in the sense that you are relying on the notability of the folks who signed the letter rather than the noteworthiness of the letter itself when you assert this is significant and deserves inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability is determined by reliable sources, and we have them in abundance here. It's unclear what other metric you're asking for. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Notability" has nothing to do with it. DUE WEIGHT is the question, and your sourcing is weak. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, if you think this is a DUE issue, what's your analysis of this issue? The Deutsche Welle is one of Germany's most important national and international papers, and states that

Template:Talk quote[90]

The Evening Standard [91] writes that

Template:Talk quote

Another major paper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, writes [92] that

Template:Talk quote

The FAZ is arguably Germany's biggest paper, and the SD its second.

This seems like a relatively significant event, given the broad support behind the appeal. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here for your view. There are millions of famous people and opinionated people in the world, some of them German. That doesn't mean their personal opinions are significant to the life story of Assange. If this is being discussed a month from now in the mainstream media, not just a few German publications, let's revisit your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A good inclusion and I support it. We should include information as it appears in reliable sources. If a person or organisation stands up to defend Assange's treatment or prosecution then we can include their view too. It doesn't seem to be happening though. Burrobert (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Germany is not party to any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thucydides411, given the power of the cult of Assange, it's not especially difficult to come up with a collection of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. Demonstrate significance by reference to third party coverage beyond the initial press release. Guy (help!) 09:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, according to WP:ONUS, reliable sources do not mandate inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you're comparing 130 of Germany's most prominent figures, including perhaps its most famous investigative journalist, a recent leader of one of the two major parties (he was foreign minister, which is the second most important position in the German government), numerous members of the Bundestag and European Parliament, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and cultural figures, to random people who write letters to newspapers. I don't have to explain why this comparison is absurd. In case you're not moved to click on Sigmar Gabriel's Wikipedia page, I'll cite a small extract, which should make the absurdity of your comparison obvious:

Sigmar Hartmut Gabriel (born 12 September 1959) is a German politician who was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2017 to 2018 and Vice-Chancellor of Germany from 2013 to 2018. He was Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from 2009 to 2017, which made him the party's longest-serving leader since Willy Brandt. He was the Federal Minister of the Environment from 2005 to 2009 and the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy from 2013 to 2017. From 1999 to 2003 Gabriel was Minister-President of Lower Saxony.

This appeal is manifestly significant to Assange's biography, based both on who signed it and the press coverage it has received. It's obviously going to be included in the article. No valid reasons have been given above for excluding it. The only question is if there are any suggestions to improve the wording I gave. I think I wrote a concise, neutral description of the appeal. If there are no suggestions to improvement or valid complaints (beyond comparing Sigmar Gabriel and Günter Wallraff to random malcontents who write to their local newspaper, or falsely claiming that secondary coverage in the Süddeutsche Zeitung or Tagesschau constitutes a primary source), I'll add the material back in shortly. In the meantime, I welcome any suggestions to improve the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your text seems fine to me and, at two sentences long, is the right length. Burrobert (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Most prominent? {{citation needed}}. See also appeal to popularity. Guy (help!) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Under any reasonable definition of "prominent," the long-time Vice Chancellor, leader of the 2nd largest political party, and foreign minister of Germany is one of the "most prominent" people in Germany. Reading appeal to popularity, I see

an argumentum ad populum [...] is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it

I'm not arguing that the appeal is correct. I'm pointing out that it's notable, because of the people who signed it and the coverage it has received. "Appeal to popularity" does not apply here.

I still don't see any policy-based or logical objections to the proposed text. I still welcome any suggestions for improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, your comment is not responsive to the concerns several editors have raised to demonstrate that the text you added was invalid. "Notable" - ??? - aren't we past that one yet? Please review the thread, check the related policies and guidelines, and share your analysis with reference to PAGs and sources, if you still believe this is appropriate article text. Insistence and repetition is not going to move things forward. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, have you tried citing sources covering this beyond the original press releases? That might be persuasive in a way your hectoring is not. Guy (help!) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't cited any press releases. I cited a number of secondary sources in major, reliable news outlets. It's pretty obvious that this material belongs in the article. It's an appeal by a large group of some of the most prominent people in Germany, which has gotten significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources.

There really is no reason for this much argument about such a straightforward addition to the article. The vehemence with which you and SPECIFICO have opposed it is really puzzling. Just as puzzling are the nonsensical objections being made. SPECIFICO has been pretending not to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. You've been comparing the former foreign minister of Germany to disgruntled nobodies who write letters to the local newspaper. I'm starting to get the impression that perhaps neither of you is interested in whether or not the material is DUE, well-sourced, relevant to the biography, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, see churnalism. Find sources from after the initial PR blitz. Lasting coverage would establish significance, in a way that the constant blitz of news noise around Assange does not. Guy (help!) 19:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: churnalism talks about "pre-packaged material" like "press releases [and] stories provided by news agencies" being substituted for original writing and reporting. Have you read the sources I cited? Two are original articles (Süddeutsche Zeitung Tagesschau), one is a news wire (Deutsche Welle). Other newspapers that have written original articles on the subject:

• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
• Die Tageszeitung
• Heise
• Bayerischer Rundfunk
• Der Tagesspiegel
• Deutsche Welle
• Evening Standard

The charge of "churnalism" doesn't hold. I'm seeing lots of original articles being written on the appeal. That's not surprising, given that some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany have signed on to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I fail to see how this development is so prominent that it needs to go into an biographical encyclopedia entry, or is due weight. I also see that there is clearly no consensus here favoring inclusion. I think Jack Upland is right that "we need to find a way to deal with these expressions of a support in a succinct way," and that this text is not that. Neutrality^talk 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's simple: 130 of the most prominent figures in Germany issued a public appeal for Assange to be freed. That appeal has been covered by numerous high-quality reliable sources. Assange is the subject of this article, so this event is obviously relevant to this article.

Since you've voiced a concern that the text is not succinct enough, perhaps you or Jack Upland can propose a more succinct wording. I'm sure we can find an agreeable wording for such a straightforward, well-sourced, obviously DUE addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your syllogism is not correct. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article." Neutrality^talk 19:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

But wide coverage of an appeal by 130 of the most prominent people in Germany does guarantee inclusion - and this will obviously be included in the article. Do you have any suggestions on how to make the wording more concise? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I disagree that the sources offered "guarantee inclusion." The fact is that Assange is a very famous figure, whom very many people have commented upon. Not everyone's opinions, appeals, statements, etc., must be included in this article, even if a newspaper happens to report them. If this particular appeal is actually biographically significant, then this will be borne out by some enduring coverage. This has not happened, and indeed I understand that this statement was made literally yesterday. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The appeal was made six days ago, not yesterday. I agree that not everyone's opinion on Assange is guaranteed to be included in the article, but a public appeal by over 130 of the most prominent people in a country of 80 million, which receives widespread news coverage, is guaranteed to be included.

You've expressed concern that the two sentences I wrote were too verbose. Can you propose a more concise wording before the text goes back in the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors are telling you that this bit is WP:UNDUE for this article. Don't pretend this is a different discussion -- about finding better wording. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like wording like: "After the medical report, prominent figures in Germany, Australia, and Swaziland called for his release". I don't think we have to go into a great deal of detail about everyone who makes a supporting comment about Assange, unless that comment actually leads to something, like him being released! Regarding the suggestion of including quotes from people attacking Assange, I don't think that's the way we want to go. We should document the state of play, not what the commentators say.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then what about 6 members of some football team or 23 members of the Pipefitters Union? The whole thing is UNDUE with no verification that it is relevant to the bio of Assange. It's like tweaking the wording on the flat earth or finding a succinct way to discuss dowsing in the climate change article. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Given the prominence of the various groups and individuals that have supported Assange's release from prison or opposed his extradition to the US, I think more than one sentence is DUE. Statements by UN Special Rapporteur for Torture Nils Melzer, for example, have generated a large amount of press coverage, and they should be given weight proportionate to that coverage. The same goes for other appeals on Assange's behalf, such as the Wallraff Appeal (by 130 prominent Germans). I'm open to thinking about how to better structure coverage of these statements in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Further on this point, I've already shown above that our article gives disproportionate attention to the US 2016 election, relative to coverage. I don't think the concern for concision is being applied equally across the article, since that portion of the article has expanded into something like 10 paragraphs, in a totally unwarranted fashion considering greater coverage of Assange prior to those elections, and current discussions about his extradition case.

It'd be reasonable to add at least one sentence on the German petition, in the section on UK and European reactions. I think we should also have a sentence on Corbyn [93]. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no support for putting this in the article. Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion. It's not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There are three editors supporting inclusion and 6 opposing. That means there's no consensus for inclusion, not "no support." The talk page is the place for discussion. It's also the place to bring specific sources, as I have done in my comment immediately above yours. Did you read the source I referenced? Why are you arguing I have no right to suggest the article note that Corbyn has opposed extradition? -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You really need to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Darouet, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion, but you're not allowed to argue for inclusion here, because there's NO SUPPORT. Is that clear?

But to be serious, there hasn't been any policy-based objection to the material I'm proposing, other than Jack Upland's concern that there is too much coverage, in general, of statements of support for Assange. Looking at the balance of coverage in the article, I don't agree with that assessment. We can discuss how to balance the article better, but in the meantime, it's inappropriate to block inclusion of a major event relating to Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, Assange's content is ok to add. We just need to deal with the way the sentence about the 130 people said something, sounds like a weight issue to me. Also this statement by Corbyn is certainly good to add. Darouet, please do a better job of summarizing and make things more neutral, I think you are just giving the POV editors ammunition to do a quick revert "so what" type of revert. These AP2 articles appear to be minefields, and the POV pushing on this article through WP:CIRCUS to exclude content from statement of Assange's supports is a sad POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Four editors commenting here want to add this information in some form, and six editors are opposed. That, and many reliable articles, certainly warrant discussion. Efforts to obstruct discussion or presentation of sources and proposal of text are unproductive and, I find, oddly disinterested in the topic at hand. -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it in this diff and reorged the words a bit to de-weight. If we can't find consensus here, I guess we need to do an RfC and maybe more editors will have a look. What is the issue with Corbyn? Is that content also blocked? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see three editors claiming that discussion is being obstructed but have seen no such obstruction. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

O3000, SPECIFICO asked me to stop writing about this topic twice in the last 24 hours, and less than 48 hours after discussion began:

[94] "Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion."

[95] "The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive."

Objective, you don't see this as a request, if not a threat, that this discussion should be terminated? -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, this entire discussion is getting bogged down in muck, the farther we stray from specific presentation and discussion of sourcing and text. If editors want to have larger metadiscussions about DUE WEIGHT and so forth, that's fine, but those discussions also need to be grounded in empirical evaluations of sources. Arguing about arguing is a monumental waste of time. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I see no "threat". I do see a suggestion that it's odd to discuss the text to be included when there is no consensus for inclusion of any text related to this thread. O3000 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Please don't start... time to move on" these are just suggestions? And the linking of WP:IDHT is not an accusation, with the potential for blocks or sanctions? If you're not sufficiently interested in the text or content to discuss its details, but will oppose its inclusion in any form on the basis of W:DUE, just write that. But don't ask other editors not to discuss it. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Is linking to WP:CIRCUS an accusation? O3000 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is. -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there's been sufficient discussion and presentation of sources to warrant an RfC, and have created one. -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

melzer interview about assange on german television ZDF

melzer interview about assange by german television ZDF:

consortiumnews.com/2020/02/06/ray-mcgovern-german-tv-exposes-the-lies-that-entrapped-julian-assange/

Der Tagesspiegel: www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/schweden-lehnt-kommentar-ab-wie-un-experte-melzer-wikileaks-gruender-assange-entlastet/25517070.html

--5.170.44.52 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with the source. But, it reads like a conspiracy rag. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely not the ZDF or the Tagesspiegel. Those are excellent sources. I'm not familiar with Consortium News. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Of note: the Tagesspiegel article also discusses the public appeal by 130 prominent Germans:

Template:Talk quote

I didn't choose this article, but it covers the public appeal. The fact that a random article on Melzer mentions the appeal is a sign of the how much coverage it's getting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That article shows why nobody takes Melzer's exaggerated and ignorant claims seriously. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

..can you please quote the sentences (both original german language and translation to english you made), where is showed what you say? --5.170.46.207 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The article actually states the opposite, as the passage I quoted above shows. Some of the most prominent people in Germany have come out in support of Melzer's assessment. SPECIFICO is giving you their own personal assessment, not the Tagesspiegel's assessment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

..well, in really, SPECIFICO wiki user don't tell "to me" his opinion: he's leading on bad way the edit of this article, by his totally wrong assumptions (see how "nobody" takes Melzer's seriously: "assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en" 6.2.), his personally Melzer bad opinion.
It's ok to wait for SPECIFICO reply on that, but - at the time - i think is better if he will be banned from edit this article, and he will become considered not relevant here in the talk, about decisions about how to edit the article. --5.170.47.67 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not an article about German punditry. Germany fans are entitled to their enthusiasms, but not to put POV text in Assange's biography here. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply; so you have nothing right on theme to reply, and you can only change the talk pointing on other (invented) things? --5.170.47.67 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC about German appeal

Recently, newspapers have described an appeal by 130 prominent figures in Germany for Assange to be released, citing their concern for a free press and the rule of law. Should we include this information in the article in some form?

• Option 1 Include two sentences in the article body, in the section Reactions to the US indictment. The proposed text is,

Template:Talk quote

The references are 12345

• Option 2 Exclude this information from any location within Assange's biography.

Please present your views below. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 A briefer mention of this, for example:

Template:Talk quote

Per Jack Upland. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Option 1, two sentences in the article body, or as a second choice, Option 3 per Jack Upland. This appeal has received a lot of attention in the German press, and press coverage suggests that the appeal is WP:NOTABLE and highly relevant to Assange's case (and therefore, our biography).

For example, the Deutsche Welle, one of Germany's most important national and international papers, writes [96] that

Template:Talk quote

The Evening Standard writes [97] that

Template:Talk quote

Another major paper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, writes [98] that

Template:Talk quote

The SZ and FAZ are arguably Germany's biggest papers. I think that given these statements and this coverage, a modest two sentences in the article would be highly appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: reasons as previously discussed. Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 3 because clearly notable content AND clearly encyclopedic as relates to the subject of a BLP who is most notable for his incarceration. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Option 3: a briefer mention of this, such as "In February 2020, over 130 German politicians, journalists and artists called for Assange's release, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: the discussion below makes me think that this is much more complicated than the proposed text suggests. To explain it fully would require a larger slab of text, and I think that would be undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Guy (help!) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or second choice Option 3. Per JzG, after some basic research I could find little mention or discussion of this letter. It seems to be a passing mention that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Germany is not particularly relevant to the Assange situation. If it is to be mentioned at all, one brief sentence would do. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. There has been a large amount of coverage of this appeal in the German press. All the major newspapers (the FAZ [99], Süddeutsche Zeitung [100], Die Zeit [101], Die Tageszeitung [102], Tagesspiegel [103]) have written articles on it, and it's been covered by the major news channels (Tagesschau [104], ZDF [105], Phoenix [106] and Deutsche Welle [107]). A quick look at who has signed on to the letter shows some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany. Günter Wallraff is probably Germany's best-known investigative journalist. Sigmar Gabriel was, up until two years ago, arguably the second most important person in German politics, as Vice Chancellor, Foreign Minister and leader of the second largest political party (the Social Democrats). Calling these people "Assange cultists" or "useful idiots" is just unseemly, and shows a lack of seriousness (WP:NOTHERE). This sort of event warrants one or two sentences in Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. per Thucydides411 Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or second choice Option 3 - My original comment, what does this have to do with Germany, has not been answered. WP:DUE O3000 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I have no doubts that any given 130 German MP's hold views on many subjects. That does not make those views relevant or pertinent. Eddy the eagle Edwards is notable, that does not mean we take notice of everything he says on every subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per User:JzG. ——SN54129 13:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Omit. WP:UNDUE. This seems to be German-centric fanboy stuff in a biography that has nothing else to do with Germany. There is no wide media coverage or discussion of this that would suggest it is significant for an encyclopedia article. These celebrity petitions are a dime a dozen, and absent other indications of significance, Wikipedia does not get all hot and bothered over them. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or second choice 2 – The long version is undue. We should strive for concision. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Omit as undue weight. The sources do not establish that the sending of this open letter (which just happened a few days ago) is biographically significant to the subject. There's no indication whatever that it will have any meaningful effect on the subject's life. Assange is a famous figure and so there are naturally be many opinions on the criminal charges against him. That does not mean that every opinion must be referenced in the article. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Thucydides411. In addition to reporting by all top tier RS in Germany and some in UK, among the signatories of that letter are the current vice president of Germany's parliament, 10 former ministers of Germany's government, several current members of parliament, Nobel Price winners and a writers' association. [108] [109] Xenagoras (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 – This is merely an appeal by an informal group that has no legal standing and whose influence on public opinion is yet to be determined (I myself haven't heard of this appeal except by having this article on my watchlist). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 3. There is notable coverage for this bit of information. The third option is more concise and upon reading the comments, I think that Websurfer2 made a valid case against Option 1. However, should this be written next to the parts detailing Melzer's report such as in the last paragraph of the Imprisonment in the United Kingdom section? It seems the appeal primarily stemmed from Melzer's report and his incarceration in the UK. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Very pertinent and well-documented.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or failing that Option 3. Certainly notable enough for inclusion and other good points made above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 2 - the long version is clearly undue, that said I would be okay with the shorter version at "Other reactions" subsection.--Staberinde (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 at most - the long version is clearly monstrously undue, and peacocky, even the sources do not refer to these 130 as 'prominent' - what exactly does that mean anyway? Two former ministers and a left-wing MEP? As others have said, the subject has no connection to Germany - if the German Govt, or even German party leaders commented, it might be worth a line or two. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: It received sufficient press coverage to establish it as a notable historic event, but is not notable enough by itself to warrant the verbosity of Option 1 in the context of this article. The RS citations are sufficient for people who want more details. Frankly, his whole embassy ordeal and subsequent imprisonment look lengthy enough to split into a separate article where Option 1 would be appropriate after scrubbing it for WP:NPOV as pointed out by others. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – This appeal is one of the most-covered reactions to Assange's imprisonment to date. Deserves a full paragraph per WP:DUE. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Most covered??" After the first week there has been no ongoing reporting or commentary on this. You'll need to document your assertion with fact. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - include in DUE Weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Totally, due to the mentioned reasons by the users above (concerning option 1) Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 1 Both contain relevant information. ~ HAL333 02:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 i think it makes more sense. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Striking comment of blocked sockpuppet. Neutrality^talk 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Quite undue weight, per others. Note to eventual closer, the above account "ImUglyButPrettyUgly" is as of this writing, 10 hours old. ValarianB (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 UNDUE weight. Geogene (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Darouet. This is well-sourced, extensively covered and appropriate. How is this undue weight? I would ask the closer to only weight the arguments made by editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. per Thucydides411 & Darouet. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• Please relocate your extended commentary to the discussion section. That's the reason for a discussion section. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe he is allowed to explain his vote. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion is for subsequent comments and arguments.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Small thing, was "had being" supposed to be "was being" or "had been"? To all: has the original FAZ article been published online? I couldn't find it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: thanks, fixed that! -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, for what it's worth, Lenin never used to term "useful idiots" — see our article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• RE: "What does this have to do with Germany?" The fact is that a large group containing some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany have signed an appeal on Assange's behalf, calling on the German government to act. All the major news publications in Germany are discussing this public appeal, which is why it is WP:DUE. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so the fact that this appeal occurred not in the US or UK, but in Germany, does not mean it does not require due weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that many of the Option 2 votes call the signers of the petition things like "celebrities," "fanboy[s]," "useful idiots" or "Assange cultists," compare them to Eddie the Eagle, and otherwise play them off as irrelevant nobodies. Keep in mind that we're talking about a long-time Vice Chancellor of Germany, one of the most famous investigative journalists in Germany, alongside many members of the German parliament, the European parliament, and journalism/media establishment in Germany. The closer should discount votes that make these sorts of uninformed and unserious comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thucydides411, no, I am not calling them any of those things. I am saying that the Assange cult has promoted this letter of concern, but that it is just one letter of concern, a single incident in the news blizzard around Assange that is driven by an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more. There's no actual evidence that Assange was treated any differently form anyone similarly situated. England is not one of those countries that tortures prisoners or jails people for criticising the establishment, so the fact that Assange's case was blown out of proportion, picked up by some people who were almost certainly operating on half-truths from the Assange cult, and got covered on the day but pretty much not since, suggests it can be ignored, as roughly 90% of news coverage related to Assange should be. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help!) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, I hope you realize you are making classical logical fallacies in your arguments. First above Thucydides411 points to the half a dozen pick-ups in German press. Thus these arguments bantered above (not by you) of not covering Eddie the Eagle is strawman. And now you are arguing to exclude because Assange is a bad person. We have whole articles on allegedly bad people such as Charles Manson, Hitler, Harvey Weinstien, etc. This is wikipedia, we are not curators of the pristine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, virtually every major German newspaper, television and radio news channel has reported on this public appeal - some of them with multiple articles. Are they all members of the "Assange clult"? The Bundespressekonferenz (BPK) invited the organizers of the public appeal to give a press conference. Are the organizers of the BPK "useful idiots"? Looking through the list of sources I gave in my vote, I don't see any "MRAs," "conspiracy theorists," "fanboys" or "cultists." I do see nearly every single major German newspaper and news channel.

  Your above comment shows deep personal and political animus towards Assange, as well as those in the media who have covered this public appeal on his behalf. I think you lack the necessary detachment to edit this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I don't understand your animus to "off-wiki" activity concerning Assange and referenced in your vote. All of life is "off-wiki," including statements opposing Assange's prosecution by the NYT editorial board [110], and pieces published by the Freedom of the Press Foundation [111] the Columbia Journalism Review [112], the Committee to Protect Journalists [113], the Electronic Frontier Foundation [114], and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [115], among many other "off-wiki" groups (ACLU, HRW, etc). -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I think unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists is a somewhat fair characterization, but I'm not sure I would go that far. Is the fact that journalists stick up for other people they perceive to be journalists enough to invalidate sources we would rely on otherwise? To me, yes, a source's COI does call it into question on a particular topic but I'm not aware of this being applied across Wikipedia. It seems like there are many cases where activist sources are allowed, sometimes without attribution. As an aside, I think Wikipedia itself has been attacked by MRAs and other manosphere activity and it does need to be kept in check. They really seem to be crawling out of the woodwork. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I haven't seen a single news article mentioning anything about MRA and Assange, haven't seen anyone propose adding one, and don't see a reference anywhere in the article. Where are you and Guy getting this? Would you mind linking some sources? -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I said "as an aside, I think Wikipedia itself has been attacked by MRAs and other manosphere activity." Not sure where you are getting "news article mentioning anything about MRA and Assange" from that. Also, if you want to address whether news articles have linked the questioning of allegedly false rape accusations in the context of Assange try: [116][117][118] for starters. It seems obvious that this topic is linked to men's rights premises to the point that I feel that it may be disingenuous to ask for sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What does MRA mean and is it justification to exclude content? I googled it an cant find anything. Is it a wikipedia term? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was similarly confused. I think they mean "men's rights activists". I haven't seen any sign of this in the arguments we've had on this site since I came here last year. However, I agree with DIYeditor about journalists sticking up for others in the industry.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No I wonder if these arguments intentionally drawn off into the fray of lunacy? I edit the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations sometimes and I have never once seen an "MRA" strawman like this raised (and it easily could be if there really is such MRA advocacy). I did google MRA before posting my previous comment and assumed I must be wrong as how could mens rights possibly be related to this article ;-) JzG did you introduce MRA (meaning mens rights advocates) as a strawman into this discussion? Or is MRA some other abbreviation I am missing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you have been very noisy in opposition in the discussoin prior to this RfC and now you argued "German-centric fanboy stuff in a biography that has nothing else to do with Germany." Can you please evidence for this claim? Are you saying if we removed the "German" from the text you would support it? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The word is "vocal" please, not noisy. Several editors have made the same point. "German" has nothing to do with Assange. Search the article text. No need to repeat, if the repetition offends you, but the point is valid. Maybe re-read the entire thread? SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looked through your responses again and didn't see anything relating to this, unless you are referring to your pipefitters union response. Please point me to the response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I'd like to correct a few things you say in your explanation of your vote:

• even the sources do not refer to these 130 as 'prominent': The very first source is titled, "More than 100 prominent Germans appeal for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's release from prison." The second source is titled, "Prominent Germans appeal for Julian Assange's release." The third source begins, "Eine Reihe Prominenter, darunter Sigmar Gabriel, Ex-Innenminister Gerhart Baum und Günter Wallraff, fordern die sofortige Freilassung von Julian Assange." The fourth source contains this subheading: "Viele prominente Unterzeichner." The fifth source is the only source that does not contain the word "prominent." Did you look at the sources before voting?
• Two former ministers and a left-wing MEP A former Vice-Chancellor of Germany and former head of the 2nd largest party (the #2 figure in German politics until two years ago), a former interior minister, the most famous investigative reporter in Germany, a former Vice President of the European Commission, a Nobel Prize laureate in Literature, a former President of the Bundestag (parliament), alongside 10 members of the Bundestag and 3 members of the European Parliament. There are lots of other important figures from German politics, journalism and culture on the list, such as about a dozen former government ministers and well-known journalists.
• clearly monstrously undue: Virtually every major newspaper and news program in Germany has covered this appeal. A large number of very prominent German politicians and journalists have signed it. How can two short sentences be undue?
• if the German Govt, or even German party leaders commented, it might be worth a line or two: The German government was asked about it repeatedly in one of their recent press conferences, and refused to take an official position on it. By making a German government comment the threshold for inclusion, you're setting up a political test for inclusion, because the German government's refusal to comment on the appeal is likely driven by political considerations (i.e., their relationship with the US and UK). However, the former Vice Chancellor of Germany and head of the 2nd largest party (until 2 years ago) is one of the signatories, and another signatory is one of the leading figures in the Left Party (Gysi).

Given these corrections - particularly on the word "prominent," the identities of the signatories and the extensive media coverage of the appeal - I hope you will reconsider your vote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• No más! SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the text, not the titles, where the word prominent was not used. Why would 130 Germans be relevant to a British judicial decision, relevant to UK, Australia, Sweden and US? You could probably find 130 Brits (or Australians?) who would take a similar stance - and an equal number taking the contrary - so what? He is a hugely divisive figure, and why would people from an uninvolved country be relevant? Your comments about the German govt precisely make the point that this stance is costing these individuals nothing. Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the very first source is, "A petition calling for WikiLeaks​ founder Julian Assange to be released from prison has been signed by more than 130 prominent figures from the world of art, politics and media in Germany" (emphasis added). 130 Germans are relevant because they wrote a public appeal that received coverage in virtually every major newspaper and news show in Germany. "Your comments about the German govt precisely make the point that this stance is costing these individuals nothing." Do you mean they suffer no personal cost? Why is that relevant? 130 highly prominent people have made a public appeal, which has received widespread coverage. That's really all that matters. "You could probably find 130 Brits (or Australians?) who would take a similar stance": maybe, but I'm not aware that 130 of the most prominent people in Britain or Australia have issued an analogous appeal. If they have, and if it's received as widespread of coverage as the German appeal, then it obviously should go in the article.

As WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." A view expressed by 130 of the most prominent people in Germany, covered by virtually all the German news outlets, requires at least some mention in this article. Not mentioning the appeal - particularly based on individual editors' opinions about whether the appeal will have any effect or whether Assange is a "very naughty boy" - would violate our neutrality requirement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Best to stick to policy-based reasons for omission. Arguments about which countries are relevant and the divisiveness of the central figure, taken to their logical conclusion, would mean not being able to mention the efforts of humanitarian bodies on behalf of, say, dissidents.     ←   ZScarpia   14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We also have WP:BALASP, now (OK) some (and not all the signatories are) significant, but what percentage of them? Moreover whilst this has received a lot of coverage in Germany, Germany is not an involved party (and thus this carries no weight). So (it seems to me) this rest on just how significant is this, and thre or 4 major figures is not a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• From what I've read, it's unclear what the petition is asking for. Is it saying that Assange should be released on bail, pending extradition hearings? Or is it saying that he should simply be released and the extradition request be denied without being heard?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The petition asks for Julian Assange to be immediately released from prison, both for medical reasons and so that he can properly prepare a legal defense against his extradition. They argue that his ability to prepare a defense has been severely restricted (this is based on reports about limited access to lawyers, documents and a computer). Beyond the text of the appeal, some of the most prominent signatories have argued that an example is being made of Assange (in order to frighten anyone else who might want to publish leaked government documents) and Assange's legal rights have been violated for political reasons.

The text I wrote (Option 1) explains these aspects of the appeal in two sentences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack, you are attempting to create ambiguity that doesnt exist in the text. They only ask for him to be released, obviously they are deferring to the British government to decide what to do with him after that. He is incarcerated in England without any charges, right (only excuse is pending extradition)? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me. Assange skipped bail and was a fugitive for seven years. He has just served a sentence for skipping bail. He and his supporters say he skipped bail because he feared a US indictment. He is now facing extradition for a US indictment. Are the prominent Germans saying he now has a "right" to bail? I think most people would say he is a flight risk. It would be different if they were calling for the US indictment to be dropped. I think this needs to be clarified. If it is important, it is important to get it right. However, I think this would take up too much time, so I now oppose including this.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You're making this sound much more complicated than it is. Option 1 precisely explains the content of the appeal in one sentence. The second sentence of Option 1 reports what two of the most prominent signers said when they presented the appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think you're oversimplifying. There are so many issues. Who is going to put up the bail money this time?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The appeal says nothing about bail money. I'm not oversimplifying. I'm just saying that you're making this overly complicated by raising your own personal objections to the appeal - objections that are not discussed in reliable sources. We just need to concisely describe what the news sources have reported about the appeal, which can be done in two sentences. We don't need to think of our own arguments against the content of the appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's vague. And that's a reason not to include it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not vague, release means release. We dont need to argue over a definition. Your explanation of your WP:OP of Assanges's potential for flight risk has no bearing on the word release in the statement. If someone notable (not an involved wikipedia editor) has something to say about the flight risk in response to the letter, we could include that, but your OR not. And your OR is not justification to exclude it either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Believe me, I haven't done any research, plagiarised or otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but the reason you're giving for excluding the appeal from the article is that you personally have objections to it (it doesn't recommend bail conditions for Assange). That's not a valid reason for excluding the appeal from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I didnt say you plagiarized something, did someone else? Regarding your statement I guess it is WP:JDLI explained by your idea that the German's should consider Assange a flight risk. But I dont see that we can include that POV in the article as that would be OR, even you are free to have your own opinion of course. Dont like it, your opinion, and/or OR none of those are valid reasons to exclude content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Release on bail is a lot different from release. The editors of this article have a history of glossing over practical issues and reproducing rhetoric instead. The German appeal seems inconsequential. They appear to be recommending release on bail, which will continue until the extradition is decided, which could be in a few weeks. Jtbobwaysf has said they are "deferring" to the British government on extradition. But it appears they want to overturn the decision of a British court denying him bail. If this happened, it would be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, it's wishy-washy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Again you are attempting to create vagueness. It just says "release." It didnt say release on bail. Maybe you dont like it that the germans didnt suggest bail and you have now added some new OR that the extradition might end in a couple of weeks and so we should wait. That is an appeal to authority fallacy. You continue with the logical fallacies to oppose inclusion of cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You continue to elaborate your own personal argument about why the appeal is faulty. You're free to argue about the merits of the appeal outside of Wikipedia, but here, our job is to figure out whether the appeal has garnered sufficient media attention to fulfill WP:DUE. Your opinion that the appeal is "wishy-washy" has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included. Given that the appeal has been covered by virtually every major German news source, it manifestly fulfills the requirements of WP:DUE and merits inclusion.-Thucydides411 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the point is the appeal is inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Some comments on remarks made by Guy (User:JzG) when stating his RFC preference at 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC) above:

- It's not a great look to start referring to cults and cult leaders, particularly in a BLP, unless the topic is something such as the Peoples Temple and Jim Jones, or is about figures with notorious personality cults such as Mao, Stalin or Hitler. If, say, in the UK context, an editor started banging on about the cult of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, it would not look contstructive, it would just indicate that the editor had strong opinions or prejudices about the subject. And strong opinions or prejudices tend to hinder neutral editing and give rise to the temptation to soapbox. Perhaps they also tend to give rise to double-standard behaviour, such as making quips (for example, "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!") about subjects disapproved of, then getting very upset when the same is done on ones in which there is an investment.

- It's always possible that opinions about which side the cultists and the useful idiots are on may be mistaken.

- As remarked on above, it's uncertain who coined the term 'useful idiots'. See the Origin section of the Useful Idiot article: "The phrase "useful idiot" has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin,[3] but he is not documented as ever having used the phrase." Also see the Usage section, for attributions of the phrase to Lenin, and the following: [119], [120].

Well, enough preaching!     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) The closer of this RfC will discount the unsupported !votes, the ones based on assertions of personal opinion, and the ones from Assangist and anti-U.S. Single Purpose Accounts. The reasoned contributions do not favor any inclusion of this. What is the ongoing coverage even weeks after the petition? None. WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 is brief and concise enough. Idealigic (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Corbyn comments Feb 2020

Added this about Corybn's comments. I recall there was a second source, but I forgot to save it. I self reverted since I am unclear if this content has been challenged or not (seems like everything gets challenged here). Also used twitter a source for Corbyn's comment today, is WP:SELF ok WP:RS for a notable politician if it comes from his verified twitter account? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a sentence about Corbyn. What about just adding one more recent reference (I'd suggest either this [121] or this [122]) at the end of this sentence? If a reader is particularly interested in the topic they can read both references. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, found that other comment Added here and dropped the twitter quote, as there are already similar quotes. I did input the additional sentence in that it is required for Boris' response, and it seems Boris hasn't been mentioned yet here on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent?

The infobox states his political party is "Independent" which links to Independent politician. I'm not sure how meaningful this is. Independent politicians have a wide range of views. Has Assange backed anyone in particular? Do we need to mention his party allegiance in the infobox anyway? The Wikileaks Party was just a failure (or perhaps a stunt). This article doesn't mention what happened to it, which is another problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks Party says it was deregistered in 2015 "for the party's failure to respond to a notice under s.137(1)". I am not aware of Assange ever having any formal connection with any other party. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I meant to say that the article doesn't mention what happened with his bid for the Australian Senate. I have now rectified this. I don't think it's necessary to go into more detail about the party here, though the fact that he had his own party amply justifies the first sentence calling him an "activist". My question was really about "Independent".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And what is the wikileaks political party in the inbox as well... Probably both should be axed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, arguably, the fact that he set up his own political party is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is. It might be appropriate to have a small annotation indicating that the party no longer exists. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added some text about the fate of the party. I don't think we need a note.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed my mind and think the party info should also be included. Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looking into it, the party wasn't just a stunt. It garnered the support of some slightly prominent Australians. Assange was not just a candidate; he was on the National Council, as well as his father John Shipton and some of his friends. Even after his defeat, he was still arguing the party had a future. This is part of his life that this article has neglected.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump pardon?

Washington Post: Assange lawyer claims congressman offered pardon on behalf of Trump in exchange for absolving Russia in WikiLeaks DNC case
SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Done It has been added to Julian_Assange#Extradition_hearings. NedFausa (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Further [123] [124] [125] [126] SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Are you proposing that those four links be added to the existing paragraph? If so, I am opposed. Please bear in mind Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Unless you are adding new content, the existing link to The Guardian, a WP:RS, is sufficient. NedFausa (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. I saw the press secretary's frequent Trump denial "I don't know him" and then looked for information as to whether this is plausible. It would require further article text, but I believe that we can't just juxtapose it without SYNTH. So basically, I was adding these for editors' background reading. If this turns out to be significant, there will be RS references that discuss the entire matter in context, including Trump's denial. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Now confirmed by Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher confirms the offer in an interview per Michael Isikoff [127] SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much information

I think there is already too much information about this minor point.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor?? SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a minor point. Assange's legal team has charged that the President of the United States, through a proxy, offered Assange a quid pro quo that would have dramatically changed the course of the life of the subject of our BLP. That makes it noteworthy enough to deserve full explication. Once the extradition hearing begins, you can expect this story to expand, not contract. NedFausa (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This claim has been denied by Trump and by Rohrabacher. It could just be a misunderstanding or memory lapse by Assange. There are many points that have been pivotal in Assange's life. In this case, it is purely speculative. Even if he had been pardoned by Trump, he would still have faced conviction for skipping bail. And we don't know what will be made of this point during the hearing.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim has been denied by the White House but not by Rohrabacher. To the contrary, as reliably sourced in our article, Rohrabacher in 2017 confirmed the 16 August meeting, saying he and Assange talked about "what might be necessary to get him out" and discussed a presidential pardon in exchange for information on the theft of DNC emails. On 20 February 2020, Rohrabacher confirmed that conversation anew. "I spoke to Julian Assange", said Rohrabacher, "and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails, I would petition the president to give him a pardon." If you think this is just going to go away, you're in for a surprise. NedFausa (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, Rohrabacher has said that he never spoke to Trump. He was just speaking to Assange in a personal capacity, he says. You are distorting the issue. And, no, we shouldn't try to anticipate what is going to be big news.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If trump and rohrabacher both deny it, we are dealing with a rumor/fake news situation. How much weight do we give in other AP2 articles to this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Naturally we would expect them both to deny it even if it were true, since it makes them look bad. That doesn't mean it's "fake news." -Darouet (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant The Donald's 'fake news' wink wink. I just mean we are dealing with unsubstantiated info, probably we shouldnt give too much weight (but we should include). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see Rohrabacher has a motive to lie. He is an Assange supporter.[128]--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again your opinion on if someone is a supporter or an opponent of Assange is your OR. Content gets included based upon sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Way too much personal opinion, Jack Upland. There is nothing minor about Rohrabacher acting in a role analogous to Giuliani's in soliciting personal political benefit for Trump in Ukraine, now confirmed. We don't need to anticipate what's next, it cannot be dismissed. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think this is just going to go away, you're in for a surprise. How about now? Does anyone object to me trimming this down?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No objection from me. A long paragraph about Rohrabacher is undue. One or two sentences should be enough to summarize the issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree. Complicated and contentious matters require more detail. This is a significant charge and is significant in Assange's defense arguments. If you want to change it, because of the DS sanctions, you should do it here first and see if we can create a consensus version so that the new version will stick. -- Valjean (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Structure again

The structure continues to be problematic. Assange's campaign to be elected to the Australian Senate in 2013 is in the "WikiLeaks" section, subsection "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". It isn't clear he was holed up in the embassy in London at that time. There is a huge chronological overlap between the "WikiLeaks" section and the sections relating to his time in the embassy. It seems arbitrary whether information is placed in the "Wikileaks" section or the embassy-related sections (for example, Assange's comments on Reality Winner). I don't think anyone would expect to find information about Assange's Senate bid under "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". Obviously a lot of Assange's notability is related to WikiLeaks, including his current imprisonment, but including it all in one section would create a huge and pointless section. I can see two options for improvement. Firstly, my preferred option, get rid of the "WikiLeaks" section, and concentrate on Assange's life, mentioning WikiLeaks when appropriate. Secondly, make the "WikiLeaks" section into an overview of the information published by WikiLeaks, and moving personal information about Assange elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree Jack, this info needs to be moved to wikileaks and we focus on the biography here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: we have been discussing this issue in general here. My position is that the entire wikileaks focus on this article needs a radical chop. The POV that Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks is assange is not supported in fact. I recall i saw this issued raised in the past on this talk page (maybe by me). What are the thoughts on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: My view is that Assange and WikiLeaks are very tightly connected. Assange founded WikiLeaks, and almost everything he is known for is bound up in some way with WikiLeaks. For that reason, it is appropriate for this article to focus heavily on WikiLeaks. As for how best to structure the article, I'll have to think about it further before making any proposals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions the indictment of his accomplices? SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Strike your comments about "accomplices" or I'll have to seek administrative action. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem with "accomplices"? Did Assange act alone? --Calton | Talk 08:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to my point above, see the Manual of style for biographies: In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Also, if Assange and Wikileaks are "very tightly connected", which I agree with, then it makes no sense to have a "WikiLeaks" section here. It's almost like having a "Julian Assange" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to move the article into a very rough chronological order, with regards to his time in the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking about chronology, can editors avoid sentences like, "In 2019, Gotham Times revealed that Assange had met Pamela Anderson in 2014 and voiced his support for Scottish independence"? The date that a story is broken is rarely important and gets less and less important as time goes by. This is an article about Assange, not about media coverage of Assange. It is completely illogical to organise an article based on the date of the publication of the information we are cited. Please stop it!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

DW Documentary

DW (German public tv) has a documentary out today

Melzer content:

what we saw was that mr. assange was showing all the symptoms a person normally displays when subjected to psychological torture over a long period of time. -Melzer [129]

You can hear the quotes starting around 23:20 in the video. Obvious top shelf WP:RS that lends creedence to inclusion of the Meltzer content in the article, that is often justified to exclude. This documentary shows the view is picked up by mainstream press and given significant weight.

Also gives a lot of time to content about surveillance by the Spanish security firm UC Global and bugging of Assange's room. Notes that broadcasters NDR and WDR are in possession of internal documents from UC Global that details the surveillance. Asserts that this information was handed over to US intelligence.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What does this add we do not already know he thinks?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read justification above for excluding the Melzer content is that it is fringe or too german. This neutralizes those objections. I believe there is also other content that is useful as well that is not related to Melzer, such as the surveillance content. Nice to have a high quality mainstream english source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Err its still German, so no it does not nullify the objection this is not really all that relevant as Germany is not party to this case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DW english is mainstream enough. Is there a policy that states that German public TV is not an RS in this case? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, but that was not your argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a top shelf mainstream source that has some good biographic info on the article's subject, as well as the Melzer issue (the Melzer content doesn't seem to be the subject of the documentary). You can watch it if you are curious and then we can discuss the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Or you can tell me what it adds we do not already know? It does not matter if its the Pope (its that good a source), what matter is why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pope might be a primary source. It tells us that Melzer's view is getting mainstream coverage in high quality RS. Nothing groundbreaking here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, Melzer is Swiss, not German, but we have a lot of his comments in the article already. This adds nothing to what we already have. We also already have a section about the surveillance.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle is just one of many major news organizations that has reported on Melzer's assessment of Assange's health and his accusation that Assange is being persecuted for political reasons. Just in the last week, the following news organizations have reported on Melzer's views:

• Newsweek: [130]
• USA Today: [131]
• Al Jazeera: [132] [133]
• The Guardian: [134] [135]
• Deutsche Welle: [136]
• Norddeutscher Rundfunk: [137]
• Deutschlandfunk: [138] [139]

Note that these are just in the last week. If you go back longer than that, you find numerous articles in the New York Times, Le Monde, and many other papers. The articles over the past week show enduring coverage of Melzer's views. Given that enduring coverage, there should be once sentence in the lede about Melzer's views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. We have already included Melzer's views in the article. Last year we had a RfC which failed to get consensus to include his views in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we please stop strawmaning this, Melzer's views are in the article, and at some length. This is about the TV documentary, not Melzer's views.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed excessive detail about Russiagate in lede

I've removed one sentence about Russiagate from the lede (diff):

In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charged the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread the stolen documents.

Space in the lede is limited. The indictment of GRU officers is only tangentially related to Assange. Given the desire expressed by many editors in above discussions to keep the lede concise, it makes sense to cut out this detail. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, no mention of Assange in this content, not biographical and over-weighted in lede. Article already has problems with excessive wikileaks focus and non-biographical information. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

By my count, here is the breakdown of coverage in the lede:

• WikiLeaks: 67 words (most of first paragraph)
• Sweden and Ecuadorean asylum: 142 words (2nd paragraph)
• Russiagate: 132 words (3rd paragraph)
• Extradition battle: 162 words (4th paragraph)

What is the justification for giving Russiagate this level of detail in the lede? Is it really twice as important than all of WikiLeaks' other leaks combined? Earlier, an editor did an analysis of media coverage of Assange that indicated coverage peaking in 2010 (link), at the time of the release of diplomatic cables and records on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are also the leaks that Assange's current extradition battle revolve around. That would suggest that these leaks are more important to his biography than Russiagate is. Even worse, it's hard to see what the justification is for dedicating 44 words (nearly as much as is dedicated to WikiLeaks in the lede) to Mueller's indictment of GRU agents - an event that is only tangentially related to Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You reverted my edit to re-add disputed content. Maybe I am confused by this, but I thought I was removing disputed content that had already been re-added by Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs). Maybe there is some earlier history before today that I am not aware of? Or are you and Snoogs re-adding disputed content? Your edit summary I understand to me I am adding content, which I am not. Or do the discretionary sanctions state that nothing can also be removed if someone opposes it as well? Or is it for the addition of content? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi my edit summary was incorrect. This was longstanding consensus content, at least since last November. So the removal was a Bold edit and Snoogs challenged the removal with his revert. My understanding is therefore that the Bold edit (removal) stands reverted, and the content restored, unless consensus is reached for the removal. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Russiagate is given too much detail in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't adopt Thucydides411's disparaging "Russiagate", Jack. You are not a POV editor. "Wikileaks" is indistinguishable from Assange, the person. Assange actively promoted the Russian interference even from his hideout in the embassy through statements to the press. The prosecution of his accomplices is entirely suitable for a brief lead mention. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: do we also need consensus to remove content as SPECIFICO is asserting? This article has an excessive focus on wikileaks the organization at the expense of biographical info on Assange. Jack and I have been discussing this above for a week I guess (with no input from either of these editors), then another editor tries to remove one thing, and the editors point to sanctions. Seems pretty extreme. Do we have to do an RfC one by one to remove content in this issue? Or do a larger scope RfC first to get permission to reduce the wikileaks organization content? I find this unbelievable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I found an answer to my own question. DS says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Thus it appears this would apply to both deleting content and adding content. Is my reading of it correct? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's making a mountain out of a mole hill. Most Bold edits are improvements and are never challenged. Then there's no revert, no DS "consensus" requirement and certainly no RfC. But as you well know, most of this article talk page file space consists of a small number of highly contentious issues raised by a few editors. So in those cases, that is what happens. At least, with consensus required, it's not at the expense of article stability. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What I am seeking clarification on is if the DS covers both removal of content and addition, or just addition. Probably whole paragraphs of wikileaks content needs to be summarized and removed, so if removal of once sentence is contentious then I guess more would be as well. Wikileaks has its own article after all. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to that point. A Bold change to longstanding content is presumed to be against consensus, but if there is no objection it becomes the new consensus. That is how it has been interpreted in the American Politics articles under "consensus required". Could you point us to the week-long discussion you referenced about removing this text? SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure Talk:Julian_Assange#Structure_again. Please join the discussion. Its not much of a discussion, only Jack and me agreeing ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Russiagate" is a neutral description of the entire affair (the accusations surrounding Russia and the 2016 elections, the Mueller investigation, etc.). It's given far too much space in the lede (about twice as much as WikiLeaks). As the media analysis I linked above (here it is again) shows, the leaks in 2010 dominate coverage of Assange. Over the last year, coverage has been dominated by the extradition case and the related political/legal issues (particularly freedom of the press).

Unless SPECIFICO or Snooganssnoogans want to respond to these specific points, reverting to reinstate the disputed sentence in the lede is inappropriate. WP:DS are not meant to be used as a tool for blockading any changes one doesn't like. You're still required to justify your edits. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Snooganssnoogans second ping, do you have justification for your revert? If not, we shall remove the content. You cant just revert and fail to discuss here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal: the "GRU" sentence is too much detail for the lead and is tangential to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal as well. There has never been an explanation provided for why this one part of Assange's life dominates the lead of the article. It is totally out of balance with available sources. It also fails to accurately reflect the most intense coverage that Assange received in his career during the Irag, Afghan and Diplomatic document publications. And it fails to reflect the fact that Assange is now facing extradition to the US while being charged for those publications. -Darouet (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal per Darouet.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal per Darouet Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal, for the reasons I explained above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If Assange's actions regarding the 2016 election are to be covered in the lead, along with Assange's denials of working with Russia, then it's obviously pertinent to note that the U.S. indicted a number of Russian intel agents for committing cybercrimes against American citizens and then handing the stolen info over to Assange's organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh no, you are still POV pushing that Assange = wikileaks. Your flawed justification could also be sufficient to delete the wikileaks content and merge it all on to this BLP. Obviously ridiculous Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If you somehow believe that Wikileaks is irrelevant to Assange (a ludicrous assertion, given that it's his main claim to notability), you should strike your "Support removal per Darouet", as his argument centers on how Assange's organization has received coverage for many more things than the 2016 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are not convincing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Because we do not count votes around here, "support per XXX" is irrelevant to the discussion. This will need to remain open long enough to gather some thoughtful views from more than the "usual suspects". At least the BLP claim has been debunked, so there's no basis to remove it because Wikilinks is not Assange, etc. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks is inseparable from Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks and Assange are certainly closely linked. But the GRU sentence is one of a number on the topic of the 2016 election that doesn't belong in the lead of the Julian Assange biography. Assange is facing extradition and as many as 175 years in prison for the Afghan War Logs, Iraq War Logs, and Diplomatic Cables publications. Not for the 2016 DNC leaks.

If you're interested in adding pertinent information about Assange's life to the lead of his biography, consider mentioning that Human Rights Watch [140], the Committee to Protect Journalism [141], the UN OHCHR [142], the ACLU [143], the Council of Europe, and doctors writing in the Lancet [144] all oppose his mistreatment and extradition [145]. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a stunning change of subject pivot that any US politician would admire. The part with your Original Research attributing his notability to everything except the DNC email hack is unconvincing. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your opinion of Assange's notability based on? You haven't yet backed up your view of the importance of the DNC emails to Assange's biography with any source analysis. On the other hand, Darouet has shown pretty convincingly that Assange is most notable for the 2010 leaks: [146]. So what's your basis for emphasizing the DNC emails? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is true, then this article should be redirected to the Wikileaks article. That's what we do with "inseparable" subjects. If not, then it would appear that are quite separable. GMG^talk 17:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of support here for removing the sentence about GRU agents from the lede. It looks like a rough consensus to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Per SPECIFICO, we don't do vote counts. This is rather important information, especially given that Russia is already trying to repeat its 2016 interference in 2020, and I would say there is no consensus to remove it from the lead. Guy (help!) 15:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, we don't do vote counts, but we have to have some way of determining consensus.

This is a page about Julian Assange, and what goes in the page should be based on relevance to Julian Assange's biography, not on relevance to the 2020 US Presidential election. The information about GRU agents may be very important to US elections, but it's only tangentially related to Assange.

The vote count - which doesn't count for everything but also doesn't count for nothing - appears to be strongly in favor of removal, and in my humble opinion, the policy-based arguments are as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand that you (and a few others) want to minimise and ideally remove any mention of the Kremlin's use of Assange as part of its 2016 election interference campaign. In my view, though, helping Putin to get Trump installed in the White House may well turn out to be the single most consequential thing Assange has ever done. The discussion above establishes little. Try an RfC with a few options. Guy (help!) 16:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your personal view about what's consequential in Assange's life is just that - your personal view. It's not the view that Wikipedia policy requires us to represent. We're required to go on reliable sources. Are there reliable sources that substantiate your view about the indictment of GRU agents being essential in a short recap of Assange's life? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, my personal view is no more important here than yours. So let's have that RfC. What are your two or three proposals for how we should reflect the Kremlin's use of Assange, within the lead? Clearly it does need an RfC because multiple non-WP:SPA editors dispute it, and you are a WP:SPA so you don't get to dictate. Guy (help!) 21:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Before going down the RfC route yet again, perhaps you could bolster your view with reliable sourcing. As I see it, there is both a sizable majority in favor of removal, and the argument for inclusion is not based on anything other than personal opinions. Those two things, in conjunction, suggest that there's a consensus for removal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an American analogy will help Thucydides and his cohorts to understand. The sports star O. J. Simpson was once a renowned and beloved celebrity for his athletic feats. However, he is best known today as the convicted felon whose later actions eclipsed his initial fame. JzG has put it in a nutshell, and Wikipedia is not going to mirror the denials of Assange's off-wiki fan club. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We have now reached going round in circles, this is not going anywhere slowly and so either an RFC or DR is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is needed to decide each and every edit to the article. Above, there is both a majority of editors in favor of removal, and proponents of keeping the sentence in the lede have not advanced any substantive arguments for inclusion. Personal views about what will turn out to be Assange's most important acts are not relevant here. Sources are. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Thucydides. This is unrelated and excessive details in the lead to push POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What POV would that be? Guy (help!) 21:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. POV, that Assange was a Russian asset. This article already suffers from American POV. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Pardon, but it sounds like you're saying it suffers from a lack of the Russian POV. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I always advocate for an Assyrian POV.

@Slatersteven: there's been a lot of discussion here about what weight to accord the 2016 elections, both in the body and in the lead. If you wanted to propose DR I'd support it. DR discussions are moderated and therefore tend to be productive. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It lacks from all POVs except U.S. POV. The U.S. POV is given undue weight in the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed this article has excess US focus, it was even tagged as such. Eventually the editors removed it without any significant change. Probably this NPOV can only be dealt with though RfC process, certainly consensus will not be formed on these talk pages among AP2 editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A quick Google indicates that you get twice as many hits for Assange + Russia as Assange - Russia, so it appears on the face of it as if the supposed US-centric view is shared by the real world, not just Wikipedia. This is not a surprise: Putin's destabilisation of the US and EU in 2016 has been globally disruptive. Guy (help!) 08:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam The "US POV" nonsense needs to stop. There is an international consensus view of what happened in 2016, and the fact of Russia using Wikileaks via the GRU cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks forms part of that. All denial of these facts is traceable back to the Kremlin - including the conspiracy theories promoted by Trump. Sure, Putin denies it. WP:MANDY. It's a POV in the same way that the Earth being a globe is a POV.

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia written from a mainstream point of view. Continuing to advocate for the idea that this is anything other than established fact is disruptive and indicates that your mechanism for telling truth from fiction is badly out of line with Wikipedia policy. Guy (help!) 08:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, this is an issue of weight and balance. There is no question about whether GRU agents were indicted in the US. The question is why that fact deserves a sentence in the lede of a biography of Julian Assange. You've argued that it should be included because you personally view the issue of Russia and the 2016 US Presidential election as the most important aspect of Julian Assange's life. I've asked you if that assessment is based on any reliable sourcing, and I have also pointed to evidence that Assange is actually much better known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications and his ongoing legal battles. I still have not seen a reasonable answer as to why the indictment of GRU agents has to take up limited space in the lede of a biography of Julian Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You and I agree that it's a question of weight and balance, and I suggest that is best resolved by an RfC with a couple of different options. SharabSalam, however, disputes the facts and characterises them as a "US POV". That is disturbing in a project that is supposed to be based on the shared body of fact. It's like encountering an honest-to-goodness climate change denier. We don't see many of them around here. Guy (help!) 09:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the climate change comment is off topic and sounds like an insult. I too support an RfC and think that step by step we can prune down the US focus. I think it is mostly related to the wikileaks involvement in the us election, we could start with that. If there are sentences that dont relate to assange at all, then start by deleting those (the argument that Assange = wikileaks I doubt will stand up to RfC inspection). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, there is no international consensus. There is a report by the US government that alleges that Russia intervened in their elections. In fact the U.S. refuses to allow an international investigation (just like they also dont want the International Criminal Court to investigate their war crimes in Afghanistan) Russia disputes that and only the U.S. government is pushing that -probably false- story. We should maintain NPOV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, English language RS are agreed that Russia interfered, and we base most of our content on them. There are many, not just one, sources for this conclusion: many investigations and reports, both Republican and Democratic, as well as foreign and domestic intelligence agencies and cybersecurity professionals.

You have not yet provided any RS which say otherwise. Claims made by you which are not based on RS are misuses of this talk page, and you should stop making such claims.

Russia denies they did it, and RS document their deceptive denials. We know that. RS tell us they are lying, and that Trump actively provides cover for them, leading to many notable accusations in RS of him acting like a Russian asset. No American president has ever acted like this. It's truly bizarre and worrying.

You state: "the U.S. refuses to allow an international investigation..." Please provide reliable sources for that claim. I have never heard that claim before in any RS. I have never heard any RS mention an attempted "international investigation". -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

English language RSs base what they are saying on the Mueller report findings. They are not the primary source. The only primary source here the U.S. government's own investigation. There is no international consensus or independent investigation. Russia disputes the U.S. findings.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

But we base our content on RS. You are not providing any RS which are contrary. You are also referring to the Mueller Report and the US government as if those are the only sources. There are many others. I mention them.

You state: "the U.S. refuses to allow an international investigation..." Please provide reliable sources for that claim. I have never heard that claim before in any RS. I have never heard any RS mention an attempted "international investigation".

Now answer that question. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If this happens again, I think it's time to put a stop to it. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Craig Murray sources

I think there is some relevant sources about USA extradition request cause on Mr. Craig Murray website, that need to be read, and rightly implemented in the article:

www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/

they are quoted on other internet place:

www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/24/pers-o24.html

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/british-state-destroying-assange

consortiumnews.com/2020/02/25/assange-extradition-your-man-in-the-public-gallery-day-no-1/

www.legrandsoir.info/compte-rendu-du-proces-assange-1er-jour.html

--5.171.0.17 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

not neutral. What does he say that is new?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

...the true? --5.171.0.17 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean "the truth", if that is the case as the source admits Assange is his friend it would violate wp:primary. In addition it might well violate wp:undue (why is this mans opinion worthy of inclusion?). Also its not "the Truth" its his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

i'm sure you can quote more and more wikirules to oppose the sources here above. I quote you only one in reply: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
Maybe is new and relevant the strange location of the debatement, instead than Westminster, explained by Murray. There is a lot of fact new and relevant, in the Murray sources. So you have to say to yourself: "the problem is the wikiroules that I love a lot, if there is new relevant facts or not in Murray sources, or that i'm against Assange?" --5.171.0.17 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK give an example on one new fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note that no one need (or have a duty) to help you on open your eyes, or reply your questions. If you can't find by yourself new relevant fact in the 2 above sources from the Murray website, fact not reported at now in the Assange wikipedia article, try to read them all again. --5.171.0.108 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually yes you do, if I cannot verify what you claim to have seen you have to prove the source says it with quotes. What I have seen is him saying stuff other people have said, all that is new is him saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Craig Murray writes a blog, so it's not a good source to use here (despite the fact that it is the clearest daily account of the extradition hearing). Most of the major points from his blog that one might consider including in this article, however, are covered by regular news sources. The issue about Assange being separated from his lawyers during the proceedings, for example, has been covered by both Reuters ([147]) and The Guardian ([148]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue about Assange being separated from his lawyers during the proceedings, is not the major trouble. Who else talk about the abnormal court place, near the terrorists-jail instead that in Westminster, keep focus on how this is a "new rule" just for the "public enemy number one", the nerd-like Assange?
And what other source - what media - talk about the very incredible James Lewis declaration that sound like "any journalist and any publication that printed the official secret would therefore also be committing an offence, no matter how they had obtained it, and no matter if it did or did not name informants"? (this is from Murray "hearing-day-1" report, url here above); What the media "remember" from Lewis talk is only that they need not worry, as the Assange charges could never be applied to them (...);
...and about all this, I see that nothing appear on the "free encyclopedia" that wikipedia claim to be, because *now* is regulated (WP:don't-do-this, WP:don't-do-that, WP:say-nothing) to be a fake free-place, but is in really a "consensus factory", a mass media and mainstream resonance box, a perfect establishment-protector device --5.170.44.202 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum, so its hard to address this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Consortium News and Le Grand Soir pieces were written by Murray. The material looks good, but Murray's articles appear to qualify as primary sources because they are first-hand accounts not written by journalists from reliable publications. The best approach for including the information is to find reliable secondary sources that contain the same information in non-opinion pieces. They may have gotten the information from Murray's first-hand accounts, but that is OK because it will have gone through a filter checking the truthfulness of the information Murray provided. Websurfer2 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of these pop-up issues fail DUE WEIGHT and are forgotten by all but the partisan Assange fans. Typical of such situations, it's possible to point to RECENTISM and coverage in the press outlets, but they lack ongoing coverage or commentary to establish anything more than passing interest. News media report on events. It's not their job to make real-time evaluations of long-term significance such as would establish weight in an encyclopedia. Flash in the pan stories about minor events -- this one or the 150 Germans or the UN health guy -- are par for the course, but without anything to suggest they're DUE for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Talking about pop-up issues, what's happened to the Trump pardon story?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The information about the August 2017 meeting between Assange and Republican representative Dana Rohrabacher was provided by the defence in Assange’s extradition hearing. At that meeting, Trump reportedly said he’d offer Assange a pardon if he provided evidence that Russia did not hack the DNC emails. Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson subsequently confirmed the story and Hrafnsson explained that Assange rejected the offer. When Trump denied making the offer, Assange's defence barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC said “in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies [witness at the Stephen Ward trial]: ‘Well he would, wouldn’t he?’. Fitzgerald also said that this whole pardon business shows that, just as the prosecution was initiated in December 2017 for political purposes, so too the Trump administration [was] prepared to use the threat of prosecution as a means of extortion to obtain personal political advantage from Mr. Assange.

The information hasn’t disappeared and is before the court. It will be considered by the judge as part of her decision. Burrobert (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

On February 19, 2020, numerous sources revealed that lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates' Court that Trump had Dana Rohrabacher visit Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London on Aug. 16, 2017. There, he made a quid pro quo offer of a presidential pardon to Assange, in exchange for Assange covering up Russian involvement by declaring that "Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks": "[Lawyer] Edward Fitzgerald...said he had evidence that a quid pro quo was put to Assange by Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin's favorite congressman."

The RS describe how Trump wanted a public denial from Assange as part of a cover-up in exchange for a pardon, described by RS as a quid pro quo. (About as classic a quid pro quo as possible.) Assange actually did his part by denying very publically, but the pardon....? Maybe it'll come later. Part of the cover-up was Assange and Trump pushing the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RSF monitoring mission for Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing from 24-27 February 2020

Other on-site source on Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing from 24-27 February 2020, by RSF/Reporters Without Borders:

rsf.org/en/news/uk-legal-arguments-during-first-week-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-highlight-lack-us-evidence

--5.170.44.129 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to the article. It covers some of the same ground as Craig Murray's excellent daily reporting from the hearing and has some good insights such as:

The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 48th out of 180 countries on RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

(RSF) was concerned by the clear lack of evidence from the US for its charges against Assange. RSF also remains concerned about Assange’s wellbeing and inability to participate properly in his hearing, following reports of mistreatment at Belmarsh prison and the judge’s rejection of his application to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom.

In the course of the prosecution’s argument, it became clear that the US still has no evidence for its claim that Assange had put sources at “serious and imminent risk,” but are pursuing the charges based on the risks that he is accused of knowingly causing.

They outlined that Wikileaks had worked for months with a partnership of professional media organisations to redact the leaked documents. The defence explained that as redaction was in progress, one of the media partners had published a book containing the password to the unredacted dataset, which led to its access and publication by other parties. The defence outlined how Assange had attempted to mitigate any risk to sensitive sources by notifying the White House and State Department that publication outside of Wikileaks’ control was potentially forthcoming, imploring them to take action to protect the named individuals.

On day two, Assange’s lawyer reported that he had been mistreated at Belmarsh prison; after the first day of the hearing, he was strip-searched twice, handcuffed 11 times, moved holding cells five times, and had his legally privileged documents confiscated on entering and exiting the prison. The judge stated it was not a matter within her jurisdiction. On day four, she rejected his application to be allowed to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom when evidence is given in May, despite the fact that the prosecution did not object to the request.

Burrobert (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Other about this from Il Fatto Quotidiano :
www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/03/02/julian-assange-is-the-defendant-journalism-is-under-trial/5722796/
--5.170.44.254 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good sources that deserve use here

Is there any particular reason why these informative articles aren't used as sources?

• What the Latest Mueller Indictment Reveals About WikiLeaks' Ties to Russia—and What It Doesn't
• Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12 cyberoperatives for Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate for the General Staff (GRU) suggests that Assange was, at best, an unwitting accomplice to the GRU’s campaign to sway the U.S. presidential election in 2016, and allegedly even solicited the stolen Democratic correspondence from Russia’s military intelligence agency, which was masquerading as Guccifer 2.0. "

BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Sources-talk

Ola Bini

Does Ola Bini really belong here? He was arrested and released without charge. It seems to be a minor incident with little connection to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Given there has been no response, I have removed the paragraph.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of RS content based on believing Trump's "fake news" claims

Jtbobwaysf just deleted content with one of the most bizarre edit summaries I've seen in a long time: " i think King Trump often refers to "obtained exclusively by CNN" as a fake news. regardless it is not reliable without more sources."

Trump is probably the least RS known, and CNN is definitely a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You have previously been warned on your talk page, and yet you've violated the DS sanctions again with this deletion. That content was "contested". Read the warning at the top of this talk page. I suggest you immediately self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This relates to the following:

On 15 July 2019, CNN obtained documents from an Ecuadorian intelligence official which confirmed that Assange continued to publish Wikileaks material while in the Ecuadorian embassy. The documents also revealed that during the 2016 election in the United States, Assange met with dozens of people within the Ecuadorian embassy. These included employees from RT, for which Assange regularly produced media content, and two German hackers.

I removed it because it doesn't tell us anything. We know that Assange was publishing for WikiLeaks. In fact, we devote considerable space to document this. Secondly we know that Assange met with people in the embassy. I'm sure that something useful could be dredged from this source, but these platitudes are worthless.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence deleted is uncited and uncited content can be challenged and deleted by any editor. A single source making inflammatory statements, even if it is CNN or King Trump, doesn't make it well enough sourced for controversial content. The sourcing policy should be obvious as should my making light of Trump (who is not a king as far as I know) should be pretty obvious. Maybe it would be better if we had a criticisms of Assange article to allow greater coverage. Then content like this could be added without much objection I suppose as it would be on topic. I'll create a section below to focus on the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You still violated the DS sanctions with your edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwayssf, there's no such exemption. Perhaps you're confusing that with a BLP violation, which is not pertinent to this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has now received an appropriate 36-hour Arbitration enforcement block for this refusal to self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI I made the offending edit at 06:36 finished another edit on a different and unrelated article one minute later at 06:37 and went to sleep. I did not refuse to self revert. My edit was already reverted by Websurfer2 at 08:30. The next edit I made at 15:07 long after my edit had already been reverted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: after you blocked Jtbobwaysf for reinstating challenged material, @Calton: did the very same thing, adding back a block of opinion text to the article [149] that was only just added that day [150], but had been contested by reversion [151]. The text Calton restored has also been challenged on the talk page [152], and they have not attempted to defend it there. The added text is particularly egregious from a content perspective because it expands an already bloated article section with a block quote from an opinion piece that doesn't even receive in-text attribution (though there is a reference). As far as consensus and conduct are concerned however, Calton's addition goes against the sanctions on this page.

I asked Calton here on talk to self-revert [153] based on page sanctions, and they were also asked to do so on their talk page [154]. Calton continues to edit [155] and has ignored their DS violation. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus user actions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: is this addressed to me, or to other editors discussing conduct above? -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Its adressed to everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a continuing situation here where editors revert and fail to engage in a discussion on the talk page, or maybe they provide some nonsensical explanation on talk (such as I was making light of in my King Trump comment that got me a 36 hour ban). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Then take it to ANI, this is not the place to discuss user conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller and GRU content in the lede

I make a new section, as the above section seems to focus on an editor's (mine) edit summary rather than the content. Jack Upland made some edits and at least as far as this one, seems correct and neutral.

This uncited statement is in the lede (two sentences in length):

Sentence 1: The U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as a Special Counsel investigation, concluded that the Russian government carried out a hacking campaign as part of broader efforts of interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Sentence 2: In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charged the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread stolen documents.

While uncontroversial and probably a summary of some other article, how does it relate to Assange? Was Assange named in the Special Counsel's report? Both statements imply a connection. If Assange was in the report then these statements are WP:WEASEL and must be re-written. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Assange was named. That content is about proven GRU actions with WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks=Assange. It's very relevant:

"The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."

Assange is an enemy of Hillary Clinton and a Trump ally who has obeyed Trump by denying that Russia was involved in the hacks and dissemination of stolen documents by WikiLeaks. Trump offered him a pardon for doing so.

This is one of the best documented cases of Russian hacking around, and we can thank Dutch intelligence for it. Starting in 2014, long before Trump's campaign started officially (but already in 2013 the Russians were starting to publically promise him their support for his coming candidacy, long before Trump let Americans know of his plans), Dutch intelligence succeeded in "monitoring" Russian hackers by hacking the surveillance cameras inside and outside where they did the hacking. They got pictures of each hacker, identified them, compiled dossiers on each hacker, recorded their keystrokes, and watched them perform the hacking in real-time. That's why specific Russian hackers have been indicted.

When you think of all this evidence, the denials by Trump and Assange, and efforts to cover-up Russian involvement and Trump campaign complicity, are pretty ludicrous. They were "caught with their pants down", and we have the "pictures to prove it", so to speak. Of course, Trump claims this is all "fake news". I suspect there's a diagnosis for those who believe that one. Template:;) -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Julian Assange: Choosing Between Trump or Clinton is Like Picking Between Cholera or Gonorrhea Template:;)

CIA Director Pompeo Calls WikiLeaks ‘Hostile’ Entity ‘Often Abetted By State Actors Like Russia’ , Mike Pompeo About CIA : We lied, We cheated, We stole Template:;) -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, I don't think this belongs in the lead. It is only tangentially related to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• The latter part is clearly relevant. The former part is probably necessary for context, especially since it's difficult to understand the extradition without it. Guy (help!) 10:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Overlong maybe, but yes this is very relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, this should be included. And speaking on the essence of the controversy (this and and next thread), yes sure, Assange effectively works as an agent of influence on the behalf of Russian government. This is a well sourced view outlined in the Mueller report (see also, for example, here: [156], [157]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, it must not be included. It is not relevant to Assange as Assange is not in the report paragraphs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Assange comes up 44 times in the unredacted parts of volume I of the report.[158] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• @SharʿabSalam: What is your basis for saying that Assange is not in the Mueller report? This strains credulity. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wow! SharabSalam, I have spent days (weeks!) searching the Mueller Report (it's stored on my PC and is always open), and the word "Assange" occurs 40 times, "WikiLeaks" 200 times, Guccifer 59 times, DCLeaks 68 times, and GRU 139 times. Keep in mind that Assange=WikiLeaks. Mueller describes the coordination between Assange and GRU agents, including their cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. They did a lot together, making Assange a central figure in the Russian interference. Of course, he lied about it all, and obeyed Trump's wishes for him to deny the Russians were involved, in exchange for a pardon offered by Trump. Yes, there are RS behind this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, no response? Do you still maintain that Assange is not in the Mueller report? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• I meant the two paragraphs at the top. They don't mention Assange. I didnt notice your responses. I just added this article to my watchlist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: several editors have said this is "relevant" or something similar. But that isn't the question. The question is whether it should be in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Very notable and should be included in the lead. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, it's USA-centric Undue weight. Most people outside the United States have never heard of the Mueller Report and don't care about U.S. domestic politics. Assange's WikiLeaks has published leaks from many other countries. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Tobby72, that's an irrelevant "other things" argument. We do both, not just one. One does not exclude the other, so don't try to exclude. Be an inclusionist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Inclusionism doesn't apply to the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe not, but its also an exaggeration to claim that the report is is almost unheard of outside the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Block quote for an opinion piece etc

For some reason an editor has highlighted a quote from an opinion piece and not mentioned that it is an opinion piece. The same editor has changed the text from the sources they used. E.g. changing contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" to "direct messages". I tried to repair the damage but it appears there are other editors here who condone that behaviour. Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The opinion piece should not be included at all. What's the reasoning for viewing this particular opinion piece as DUE, let alone worthy of a block quote? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not have included the opinion myself and wont defend its inclusion. However, if it is included we need to tell the reader that it is an opinion and who is providing the opinion. It is currently presented as a proclamation having the same force as a commandment brought down from the mountain by Moses. Burrobert (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that none of the three editors involved have had the decency to use the talk page to try to defend their actions. Burrobert (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It might help if you'd tell us which quote is under discussion. There are several possibilities. Regardless, per WP:Preserve (a policy), the solution is to fix and improve, not delete, the content. If it needs attribution, then do that. If it belongs at another spot in the article, then do that. If it needs to be worded better, then do that. Do everything possible to preserve properly-sourced content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The opinion piece quoted in this diff. As one opinion piece, without any compelling argument to include it, it's undue. It's certainly far less worthy of inclusion than the appeal by 130 prominent Germans, which has generated extensive press coverage and which was signed by some of the most well-known figures in Germany. By comparison, what secondary coverage has the opinion piece in the Washington Post generated? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor who inserted the quote has, conveniently or otherwise, overlooked the fact that an attempt was made to “preserve” the text. The introductory phrase "In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Allison Stanger wrote:" was added to alert the reader that this was an opinion and not holy writ. Apparently this addition didn’t suit the agenda of the three amigos, most of whom are still conspicuously silent on the issue. The offending editor has also, conveniently or otherwise, failed to explain how contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" became contact via "direct messages". Burrobert (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, I was unsure of what quote you were talking about because you, both in your opening comment and here, seem to be attributing to one editor (me?) actions made by two different editors (I'm not sure who the other one is). It's confusing to me, and besides having other things IRL and here to do, I am careful to not make edits which might trigger DS warnings. I'd rather see how discussions play out before doing much. I also find it hard to keep track of what's happening because I'm not an SPA. I edit and follow many, many, articles. My watchlist (three days are open) is currently at "1,809 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)". At one time I had over ten thousand on my watchlist. That was a bit too much. Template:;) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly not UNDUE. Please read up on that. I agree with BullRangifer here. If it can be improved, make specific suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The "undue" argument is specious and not based in policy or normal practice here. The edit summary provided enough justification for using the quote. Quotes over about two lines are supposed to be in a quote template according to the MoS. It's not "highlighting".

We don't write hagiographies here, and actions that might be seen as attempts to keep out properly-sourced content that may reflect negatively on Assange are a violation of NPOV. We don't allow anything that might be seen as whitewashing. All editors should stay far away from such actions.

Opinions from RS are perfectly proper content. If controversial (and we give such content more weight), then attribute them. Problem solved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

With that amount of work on hand I can understand why you find it hard to keep things straight. I’ll try to keep things simple and pass over the edits of the other two editors who don’t seem interested in engaging on the topic. Your initial edit was bold but I believe had some flaws which I tried to correct while preserving the quote and the other items you added. I don’t particularly like the quote you added but am not interested in censoring content that is suitably sourced so am more interested in ensuring it is presented in a fair manner. The issues with the quote are firstly that it is highlighted by separating it from the rest of the text. Secondly it is not presented as an opinion but is thrown at the reader as if it is holy writ (sorry to repeat myself there). The other issue with your edit is that you changed contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" to contact via "direct messages". This is a small change but still I think significant. I attempted to correct these issues but two other editors (not you) intervened. Since you did not attempt to rectify the issues that I identified in my edit (while making other unrelated edits to the page) I assumed you agreed with the actions of the two other editors in leaving the quote and other items in their original states. Regarding the policy about block quoting long quotes, do you have a reference for the policy? I would be interested in looking at it. Burrobert (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, thanks so much for the concise reply. Much appreciated. It's so easy to misunderstand each other online.

I am still confused when you mention that I "changed contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" to contact via "direct messages"." I don't recognize that. Please help me with a diff to that edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer Here is the text from the Washington Post article you used as a source:

"June 22, 2016. An unnamed organization, later indirectly identified in the indictment as WikiLeaks, reaches out to Guccifer 2.0 (apparently over Twitter) to request he/they “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.""

Here is how you described this in your edit:

"The investigation also unearthed direct message exchanges between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, in which they coordinated the release of the shared material".

By the way I haven't mentioned your use of the term "unearthed" which I put down to artistic licence on your part. As far as I can tell the WaPo article doesn't mention whether the contact was hidden or conducted in public view. However, it is probably too trivial an issue to be of concern.

Did you notice that the WaPo article uses the qualifier "alleged" or "allegedly" 37 times? Whenever the WaPo article discusses contact between Wikileaks and Guccifer it always inserts the qualifier "allegedly"?

Burrobert (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, now I'm even more confused. Are you certain I am the editor who made those changes? I have only made four edits to this article: [159][160][161][162]. I don't see any edits of mine that even slightly resemble what you're talking about. Please provide the diff to that edit you're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. It is my mistake for which I sincerely apologise. Sorry to waste your time. The text was added by Dead Mary sometime last year. You had moved the text as part of your edit here: [163] but are not responsible for the addition. My criticism of the text stands but I should not have mentioned you in relation to the criticism. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What makes it not UNDUE? It's one opinion piece. Has this opinion piece generated significant secondary coverage? I haven't seen any argument yet for why this piece is DUE. @SPECIFICO: It's especially odd that you're arguing for inclusion of this one opinion piece, when you're simultaneously arguing that an appeal signed by 130 of the most prominent politicians, journalists and media figures in Germany, reported on by dozens of newspapers, is UNDUE. What's the reasoning for treating this particular Washington Post opinion piece as more DUE than the German appeal? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, that's not an "opinion piece", it's a concise summary of what Mueller found, specifically in relation to Assange. It is highly relevant and, being independent, it's better than us dreaming up our own summary. I am concerned that you give a very strong appearance of denying the established facts that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election, and that the GRU used Assange as a conduit to publish stolen information. Guy (help!) 10:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is in the "Opinions" section of the Washington Post, and is titled, "The Mueller report confirms it: Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of the piece. It is in a reliable source, penned by Allison Stanger, a notable political scientist and member of Council on Foreign Relations. Stanger is well-credentialed and is speaking on her area of expertise. That it is in the opinion section of the WPost doesn't invalidate its inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The "News" section of the Washington Post is a reliable source. The "Opinions" section is for opinions, and there's no implication that the Washington Post newsroom or editors stand behind the veracity of the opinions offered. As WP:RSEDITORIAL states, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." If the opinions are particularly noteworthy, (often evidenced by significant secondary coverage, which hasn't been shown in this case), then there's a good argument that they're DUE. If there is eventually a consensus here for inclusion, the quotation will have to be given with appropriate inline attribution (in accordance with NPOV), and not written in authoritative Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

So, attribute it. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me refer you back to the start of this topic. Attribution was attempted but was rejected by a trio of editors. And it seems that a fourth has now joined the group. Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with the quote returning in its most recent format, attribution is unnecessary. Russian interference in the '16 US election is established fact, long with Wikileaks and by extension Assange's, involvement therein. This quote is a summation of what we know, as written by an expert in the field of geopolitics. ValarianB (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, summaries and analysis by notable experts are exactly the kind of tertiary source that help give NPOV balance to these current events articles. They give a considered overview of the significant facts that's far preferable to WP editors cherrypicking daily reports and breaking news articles. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Opinion sources are just as legitimate as fact sources. They are just treated slightly differently. We don't attribute facts, and that includes when those facts are in an opinion article. Attributing a fact is a not-so-subtle means of shedding doubt on the statement, and we are not allowed to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose block quote: this gives to much weight to one point of view. Assange has not be convicted of anything in relation to this, and has denied many of the accusations made against him. This is inappropriate in BLP article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant arguments not based in policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Bureaucratic subterfuge.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's the quote again, and the following paragraph:

The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process.

The next paragraph:

This is not a partisan issue. Democrats certainly would have agreed with Mike Pompeo, speaking in 2017 as CIA director before becoming secretary of state last year, when he said, “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

The quote in question isn't even an opinion, but a statement of fact. Anyone who searches the Mueller Report for Assange and WikiLeaks will read about all the proven scheming, secret communications, planning, coordinating, and lying by Assange, all between him and the G.R.U. agents. The evidence is there. Whether he knew they were Russians or not is a different matter. The evidence shows that he did these things, so that quote is a short summary of the facts, and Mike Pompeo knew it too, and his quote is also worth including.

The author is actually being generous to Assange, because he isn't a "missing link", he's a proven link, a key link, an essential link. The stolen documents were worthless without his distribution of them at the exact right times. A highly regarded subject matter expert has stated the uncontroversial facts, and the quote is very due.

The fact that it's in a quote template is a requirement of the Manual of style for anything longer than about two lines:

• "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."

Depending on how one counts the words, we are at just over 40 words, so we might be able to deviate from this MoS requirement if editors truly want to bury the quote from view. I have never made a big deal about it. Let consensus rule about its format here, but that consensus should follow the MoS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Stanger is not neutral. She is closely associated with the American establishment and the Democratic Party. If we have a block quote from her, we should have block quotes from Nils "Rubber Ducky" Melzer, John Pilger, Barnaby Joyce, and Comrade Pamela Anderson. They are all prominent in their respective fields.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland: "Stanger is not neutral." So what? What's that supposed to imply? You've been here long enough to know that neither sources nor article content must be "neutral". We use biased sources all the time, and they are considered RS as long as they are still factual. When their bias becomes extreme, that tends to affect their factuality and they end up at RS/Perennial and/or blacklisted.

The subject of using biased sources is so fundamental to all we are supposed to do here that I have written a very well-sourced essay on the subject. I suggest you study it:

NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

Stop objecting and blocking RS that are biased. We use them all the time, so learn how to do it properly. Your objections are directly against NPOV policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Haven’t seen that policy before but it seems to apply here if we decide to include the quote. Does WP:otherstuffexists apply to decisions within the same page? There are other quotes in the Assange article over 40 words that haven’t been blockquoted. Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Stanger is not a politician, nor is she non-neutral, you can't just assigned a concocted "bias" to a credentialed expert in the field of geopolitics just because you disagree with her positions on the issues. ValarianB (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point comrade Jack. There is plenty of scope for blockquoting there. In fact Stanger is a stranger to me which made it even stranger to see her words (but not her name) up in lights on the page. Burrobert (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:otherstuffexists wouldn't apply, but rather the MoS does apply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The use of blockquotes helps to visually break up an otherwise boring article. There is a situation where their use can be seen as a violation of NPOV, and that is by highlighting only the longer quotes from one POV, or by using a different template for one quote than the template used for all the others. All longer quotes should use the same template, and their POV should make no difference in their treatment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's absolutely ridiculous to have this quote. The opinion piece is totally undue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could you please support this statement with some facts or analysis that might provide a basis for you to engage with and possibly convince other editors as to your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, sure, the op-ed author claims that the report concluded that Assange with the help of the Russian government played a crucial role in the US election. However, this is just the op-ed claim nothing more or less. I mean no other sources are offered here except the op-ed. I can't find any support for his claim in the report that the author based his claim on. His own conclusion is not noteworthy to be included let alone be highlighted. The quote is not even with attribution! its just quote in the middle, just like that!. This is obviously an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources, not op-eds per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and also this is a biography of living person, per WP:BLP, challenged material should be removed during the discussion yet editors are adding it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I have pinged you above because you have not replied to my documentation that the Mueller Report has considerable content about Assange. (Please reply to my ping there.)

The quote under discussion is a simple statement of the facts in the Mueller Report, and we really prioritize the use of secondary source commentary from notable subject matter experts:

"The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."

BTW, the quote is not in the article because it's under discussion here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I have recently disabled all types of notifications (except my talk page) because I can't easily mark the notifications as read. I have added this article to my watchlist.

I have many objections about that quote, first, it's not attributed. If its a fact then it should be paraphrased and not inside quotations. This seems like disruptive highlighting without any reason. Second, if it's a simple statement of the facts in the Mueller Report then why can't we have other sources making the same claim?. Why are we using an op-ed? As I said extraordinary claims requires extraordinary sources. Fourth, it's not related or contradicting to Julian Assange's claim in the next paragraph which is that the {{the Russian government was [not] the source of the DNC and Podesta emails}}, the quote is not about the DNC or the Podesta emails its about the election in general. Juxtaposing these paragraphs imply that Assange was denying that the "Russian intelligence played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Several of your objections are already discussed above. We are discussing how to properly use the quote, and attribution may be one of the solutions, so don't get worried. We'll work it out.

Assange's role in the election is solely in relation to those emails, not the election in general, so the quote is right on target. It states the findings of the Mueller Report, which, if you read it, describes in detail the evidence for Assange's coordination with Russian GRU agents, and his lies about it. That's why Assange's denials are so clearly false, and rather conveniently are denials which Trump, through Rohrabacher, had requested, in exchange for a presidential pardon if Assange covered-up Russian involvement. Assange did exactly that. (Search for "pardon" in the article.)

Also, please answer my question immediately below. Maybe you can enlighten me, and I'll thank you for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer most of my questions. I don't want it to be attributed, in fact I don't want it to be included as it serves no purpose. My question was why if its a fact we don't have other reliable sources for it. Could you quote where it says in the Mueller report that Russia is who leaked the DNC and Podesta emails? Also, you should be careful with the inflammatory language that violates BLP like "his lies about it" or "rather conveniently are denials which Trump, through Rohrabacher, had requested, in exchange for a presidential pardon if Assange covered-up Russian involvement" this is unconfirmed conspiracy theory and not related to the current discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We have lots of other sources for it and have at least one article about who stole the emails. You'll find many of those sources there. Here's one article here: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. That Assange lied about it is common knowledge. He even lied about Seth Rich, trying to claim that it wasn't the Russians, but Seth Rich, who sent him the documents, except that Assange got the documents four days after Rich was shot, so it couldn't have been Rich. The Seth Rich conspiracy theory is just a ploy to deflect attention from the fact that it was the Russians who hacked and stole the emails. The part about the offer of a pardon is from Assange's lawyers in court. Yes, very on-topic here. They described how Rohrabacher tendered the offer of a pardon from Trump, if Assange would deny that the Russians were involved in the theft of the emails. Assange obliged, IOW he lied. There are lots of RS for this. Here's one.

Now, please explain what part of this quote is an "extraordinary claim".

"The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."[1]

BullRangifer (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, now I'm really curious. What part of that quote is an "extraordinary claim"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Sources-talk

US centric bias

@Tobby72: you added the US centric bias to this page. Thank you for doing that, and I support this tag. I also see this article as focusing on Assange and the US election, and excessive justification of wikileaks as related to us elections being inserted here. This article is a BLP and should focus on Assange's life. Just my thoughts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for saying at least part of what I think many of us have been feeling for some time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should go contribute to RUWiki, then? English Wikipedia, hosted in the US, funded primarily by the US. A leaning towards covering us is natural and expected. Julian Assange's role in the meddling of the 2016 election is critical and noteworthy, coverage of that here is appropriate. Zaathras (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the US is funding Wikipedia we should be biased towards the U.S.?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but leaking US documents and the extradition are what he is most notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree but the content is presented from the American government POV. It's not neutral. None American would say Assange exposed the wrongdoings of the U.S. government a U.S. government official would say he attacked the U.S.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

In what way does this take some US POV?Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If anyone cares to look at the list of most notable leaks by WikiLeaks, it strikes that all of them are directed against the US government. This is not a bias, but the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Such an emotional none objective argument.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's an ad-hominem and an inaccurate one at that. Guy (help!) 20:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the tag. It has became an attack article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We document what primarily English sources say, this being the English Wikipedia and all that. The Russian Wikipedia will cover this subject differently. So be it. There is no attempt to harmonize and duplicate formats or content across the various languages. There will also be considerable differences in what are considered RS. If one wishes to edit here, one must submit, yield, and resign oneself to the rules and norms here, just as one must do there.

This article, according to primarily English RS coverage, should document the evolution of Assange=WikiLeaks from a non-partisan journalist/whistleblower to a dedicated and scheming (with the Russians) Russian asset who now selectively and partisanly releases only some content, and now always in a manner to damage America and cover-up Russian involvement in its interference in U.S. elections. "CIA Director Mike Pompeo blistered WikiLeaks in a speech Thursday, calling WikiLeaks a "hostile intelligence service" aided by Russia and accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of making "common cause with dictators.""

That's the narrative and historical development painted by RS, so that's what the article should document. Your quibble is with RS, not with editors or the English Wikipedia. We just follow the policies and document how RS describe the evolution of all things Assange=WikiLeaks. Sometimes we put content in the WikiLeaks article, sometimes here, and sometimes both places, since Assange=WikiLeaks. The overlap makes it hard to distinguish them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is US centric bias. One example is the material on the 2016 US election. As discussed previously, many sources don't think this is important in Assange's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with those obsessing about Assuage being an evil anti-American is that they also felt the need to bring the evil Russians into this discussion. Totally irrelevant to the matter at hand and demonstrating the lack of rational thought on display in this article. To much hate guys. Stick to facts, from ALL over the world. As for ever expecting balance here, I gave up long ago. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The Russians are only brought into it because RS, cybersecurity companies, and allied and U.S. intelligence agencies all are agreed that all the evidence shows that the Russians illegally interfered in the U.S. elections, and are still doing it. The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".

Since our content is based on RS, we have no choice but to document it. HiLo48, are you implying that they did not interfere in the elections and/or that RS don't say that? You seem to be downplaying what is accepted fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha. Did you even realise that your justification for mentioning Russia in Assange's article did not mention Assange? Even more writing of the style "Assange is evil. Russia is evil. Therefore...." It's pathetic really. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That's only because you complained about Russia being mentioned, so your objection makes no sense. RS mention the nexus of Assange and Russia a whole lot. If you hadn't griped about Russia, the response wouldn't have mentioned Russia. It's hard to describe Assange's role in coordinating and facilitating the distribution of stolen documents without mentioning that he was working with the Russians who stole them. Details without context is not how we work here.

This type of griping is not helping us improve the article and is getting into notaforum territory, so let's just stick to the topic of this thread (US centric bias). Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I wasn't the first to mention Russia, so drop the irrational abuse. Acting as if there is some automatic connection between Assange and Russia that "everyone" simply knows about it is idiotic, and only comes from American haters of both. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The connection happens to come from RS, the Mueller Report, etc. Don't get upset with me or other Wikipedia editors. Now please don't continue this line of thought, as it's not on-topic and will only get this hatted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You mean US-centric RS. I'm from the city Assange is from. We laugh when we see obsessed Americans thinking that all he has done in life is somehow rig an election there. Please look wider. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Assange mentioned in the Mueller report? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Many times. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the noun Assange is mentioned 40 times, and the noun WikiLeaks 200 times in the Mueller Report. There is lots of evidence there of his lies and coordination with GRU agents and their cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thank you for clarifying that Assange and wikileaks were mentioned in the Mueller report. This means the content should be summarized on this article as it relates directly to Assange. However, it should not be in detail as the election Russian meddling issue has its own article and it can be covered there in detail. It only gets summarized on this article. Nor should it be covered as it relates to wikileaks and not to Assange. You advocate for inclusion of this content, please ensure that it is sourced by RS that directly mention Assange. Advocating using WP:SYNTH that suggests it is related to Assange because he is mentioned by Mueller or because the source mentions wikileaks does not meet the standard for inclusion per WP:BLP. I think if you really want to continue to push for expanded election coverage relating to Assange you should follow WP:NEGATIVESPIN and create a sub-article. But here on the BLP main article it is creating a weight problem and your only response to it is essentially you think it is important (eg WP:RGW). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand and agree with several of your points. That's basically what this discussion needs to work out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert Mueller was the FBI director who, in February 2003, went before Congress to help the Bush administration spread the "Iraq has WMDs" lies and "America is under attack by evil Muslims" paranoia. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, but many others grew rich and Mueller’s career continued to advance... Over and over we have heard from the United States about evil Muslims, evil Russians, evil Republicans, evil Democrats, evil Mexicans, evil Iranians, evil Chinese... Seems to me there's too much hatred, xenophobia, Cold War paranoia and warmongering in your country. It should stay out of Wikipedia. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Which begs the question: what is xenophobia? This is generalized accusation of people who belong to a certain ethnic group, a country, etc. In this regard, that your statement is an example of xenophobia. Over and over we have heard from the United States about evil .... What do you mean by "United States"? Robert Mueller? State Department? Publications in NYT? Publications in Breitbart News? Public opinion? There is no such thing as "views by the USA". "Views by the USA" is a propaganda stunt by people who invented "main adversary". Yes, these people are xenophobes. As about staying "out of Wikipedia", no, we have big Category:Xenophobia. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

What is xenophobia? Definition of xenophobia: "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign."[164] A few examples of xenophobia: Donald Trump, James Clapper, Rachel Maddow, My very best wishes, Jeanine Pirro, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Fox News, Politico. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to smear Mueller, as if a mistake (made by many at the time) forever discredits everything else a person does after that.

Even more important is that this isn't just about the Mueller Report (which involved one of the best legal teams and group of researchers ever assembled), but the consensus of cybersecurity professionals, numerous allied intelligence agencies, U.S. intelligence agencies, and even some prominent Republicans. They all agree that the evidence shows that Russia (with the help of Assange), not Ukraine, the DNC, or Seth Rich(!), interfered in the U.S. elections. So dissing Mueller doesn't affect that fact at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller's "mistake" has cost at least 400,000 lives. Maybe Putin also made a "mistake". At least nobody died.Template:;) -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, yes, that was a mistake of enormous scale, but not by Mueller because he did not make such decision. Here is his presentation about the threat of terrorism. Apart of a few things he did not knew about, that was mostly a correct assessment. I responded on your talk page if you wish to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be drifting into forum land.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, as I mentioned above. We need to stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Mueller Inquiry, consider whether there might be some validity in Craig Murray;s criticisms: "The Real Muellergate Scandal" (reposted by Consortium News), "Muellergate and the Discreet Lies of the Bourgeoisie", "In the World of Truth and Fact, Russiagate is Dead. In the World of the Political Establishment, it is Still the New 42".     ←   ZScarpia   20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC) (Etended: 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC))

Ummmm....nope, won't consider it. I only "consider" RS. The weight of evidence proves Russian interference on a large scale. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Might have to wait a while for some truly worthwhile RSs to be published. The weight of evidence or the weight of conclusions from a botched inquiry?     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Our content is based on currently available RS, not on what is hoped will come. We also revise our content as new information comes along. We do not put off documenting current realities or refuse to use current RS based on the hope that wishes, based on what is now found in unreliable sources, will somehow come true in the future. If their views are later shown to be true, we will include it. We document the flow of history here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Since you created your account 13 days before I created mine, I suppose that gives you some entitlement to teach me about policy, though note that my comment, "Might have to wait," doesn't mean, "We should wait." There are different degrees of reliablility and the mainstream media, which you're depending on, are the bottom-feeders of the reliable source world. They are good for simple facts, but, on controversial topics, they can be abysmal (I've even come across "highly reliable" newspapers obviously cribbing from stuff that I've written on Wikipedia ... and getting it wrong).     ←   ZScarpia   00:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of chronology of Seth Rich murder and documents

Jtbobwaysf deleted my addition of this content from the source:

• Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".

with this edit summary:

• (Undid revision 944406852 by BullRangifer (talk) adding more non assange content, contrary to talk discussion)

The deletion also left an incorrect quote I had fixed.

Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Jtbobwaysf is right. This is the biography of Julian Assange, not the Wikileaks article. I think there has been discussion about this per what Jtbobwaysf said? why are you adding irrelevant content?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to fix your quote issue mentioned. But dont add more Wikileaks content and dont combine those two issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Who acts for Wikileaks that is not named "Assange"? SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kristinn Hrafnsson. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No agency. SPECIFICO talk

Are you suggesting that we merge the article Wikileaks to this article?-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I asked you a question. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support Assange=wikileaks? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you define any real difference? Sometimes we put content in the WikiLeaks article, sometimes here, and sometimes both places, since Assange=WikiLeaks. The overlap makes it hard to distinguish them.

The content I added was directly on-topic for the section, so the deletion is improper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, we will take that as you dont have any evidence that assange=wikileaks. Next, why are you adding this content on this article and not on the Murder of Seth Rich article? I am not very familiar with this murder, but I dont see the word damning on that article nor mention of this Mike Gottlieb. Curious why it is relevant here when you are not adding it on that article first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That is no argument against inclusion here. Sure it can be added there as well. I'll do it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary is factually wrong: "...adding more non assange content, contrary to talk discussion." The content is directly about Assange and is on-topic for the section. Also, what "talk discussion" had decided this new content should not be included? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The text in question is as follows: "Similarly, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Assange knew Seth Rich could not have been his source for the hacked emails, because he continued corresponding with the Russian hackers after Rich's death. Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning". Of course it is about Assange (whose name is noted), and 2nd phrase is important for explaining the controversy. Please include. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody should be editing the Assange page or discussing Wikileaks if they are not familiar with the Seth Rich lies and the Mueller Report. You're not obligated to follow these matters, but it does become necessary if one chooses to edit this particular article. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. When one admits one does not know about the subject, one should not make substantive or controversial edits on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this is US centric bias, as discussed above. Assange is an Australian who set up WikiLeaks in Iceland and who took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after sex crimes allegations were made in Sweden. His involvement in the 2016 US election is just one incident in his life. The article should not be focussed on this, and editors do not need to be familiar with it to edit this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Our language (and personal political) bias should be the same as found in RS. It just happens to be (!!!) that most of the RS for the English Wikipedia are English language sources. It can't be any other way. There is, of course, nothing against translating and using other sources here. Go for it. That does not mean we should downplay what RS say about Assange's key role in the Russian election interference. Their hacking and theft of documents would have had minimal effect if not for Assange's willing role in coordinating and facilitating the dissemination of only the stolen documents that could hurt Clinton and the DNC, while withholding documents that could hurt Russia and the GOP. That makes him a key figure in that whole affair. We will not ignore what RS say.

Editors are welcome to edit the article, but should be cautious about edits on subjects and aspects of which they are ignorant. They may not intend to cause disruption, but that is often the effect of such editing. That is just common sense advice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack, that doesn't pass muster. WP does not have articles on every accused rapist and every fugitive from justice. Nor does it matter what domiciles he chose for his entity's interference in the U.S. elections. That's like saying you used a credit card issued in Switzerland to purchase an Italian automobile, so we shouldn't say it was a Fiat. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is properly sourced material that is apropos to the location it was added to. The first sentence should be kept. However, while Gottleib's description of the chronology is appropriate in the cited article, the brief mention in the second sentence doesn't add much and gives the appearance of undue weight. I can see how Assange supporters would view it as bias. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, the election hack incident has its own wikipedia article and detailed coverage can be put there. What we cover on this BLP is only that directly relating to Assange in summary format. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly: Assange's actions using his position as the leader of WikiLeaks to promote a Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The election hack, and Assange's role in it, are probably the most notable events in Assange's life. Geogene (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notable by what measure? Google Trends shows worldwide interest in Assange peaking in 2010, when WikiLeaks published documents on the Iraq and Afghan wars and US diplomatic cables. The second most significant peak is in April 2019, when Assange was arrested and the US government announced it would seek extradition for the publications in 2010. There are lesser peaks in August 2012, when Ecuador granted Assange political asylum, and in late 2016, when WikiLeaks published the DNC and Podesta emails. By this measure, the two things Assange is best known for are the publications in 2010 and the ongoing legal battle related to those publications.

Restricting Google Trends to the United States, however, the 2016 US Presidential election increases in importance, to second place after the 2010 publications, just ahead of the ongoing legal fight. I personally think this article should use worldwide interest and media coverage when weighing balance, both because Wikipedia is a global project and because Assange is an internationally known figure (an Australian who has published documents about many governments around the world, who received asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while facing accusations in Sweden, and is now fighting extradition to the US).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only ever heard of one statement that Assange made about Seth Rich, and I know of at least one other statement that WikiLeaks made about Rich. Has anyone done media analysis to assess how much weight the Seth Rich issue should get in this article? It currently gets two full paragraphs, which seems way more than WP:BALASP would suggest. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Assange implied that Seth Rich was the leaker (and was knowingly BSing, as the Mueller report makes clear). According to a study by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, Assange's BSing was the main driver behind attention to the Seth Rich murder.[165] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that all to be true, for the sake of argument, it doesn't answer the question about proportion in the Julian Assange article. It would be an argument for giving weight to Assange in the Seth Rich article, but not the other way around. Has anyone done any analysis to show that Seth Rich is this significant in Assange's biography? Google Trends suggests otherwise, and I strongly suspect that an analysis of newspaper articles would as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Pink Raw data suggest nothing. Google suggests nothing. It's just appropriating google software to support Assange's attempt to deflect from Russia's culpability. We don't know all the reasons Assange perpetrated this deception, although there's plenty of circumstantial evidence relating to his relationships with Trump and with the Russians. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You'd like us to accept your speculations over quantitative analyses of newspaper article references over time? -Darouet (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the data supports a conclusion directly opposed to Thucydides411's assertion. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The corrected quote should be added back into the article. As for the additional comment from the lawyer of Seth Rich, my view is that the sentence itself is fine in sourcing and content, but as many editors have noted above [166], there is already too much weight being given to this topic in the article. So we need to decide what, regarding the 2016 election publications, is absolutely necessary to keep in the biography, and what is not. Seth Rich conspiracy material falls into this category. -Darouet (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please specify the category? SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

2016 U.S. Presidential Election, here [167], and see section above here [168] with comments from Jack Upland, Nishidani, etc. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an ANI thread related to this article

There is currently a discussion at ANI relating to this article.See here. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

add new section - something like "Assange supporter"

i think a new section - or subsection - named "Assange supporter" or something like this, have to be placed in this article. Is valuable part of the Assange life - even in resist against the bad things - the worldwide support that simple people, and famous people, showed and show for him.

one more:

Australia: “Teachers for Assange and Manning” campaign in Melbourne

www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/07/cfpe-m07.html

--5.170.45.99 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Australian teachers are simple people? HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If so, you're right.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Compared to some famous people supporting Assange (as in example www.assangecampaign.org.au/petition-to-german-parliament-release-julian-assange-from-prison/ ), Australian teachers can be named "simple" (common) people; is not an offence.
In the same way, teachers - especially famous university teachers - can be considered more important people compared to other (even if famous);
But please stay on the topic, the proposal for a new section, with a cronological list of worldwide Assange supporters / Supporter actions.
...uhm, maybe, as the list is very long, here can be placed just a short paragraph about this, and the full list can be placed in other dedicated article.
--5.170.47.70 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it? lots of people have fans, that does not mean we list every Jon Pertwee fan club.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious?
If yes, i suggest you do other in your life instead than edit/vinculate the edits of wikipedia.
If you're not: HAHAHA!! :-)
--5.170.47.70 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am serious, why are what some teachers in Australian thinking relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I think it is relevant but we can't have a standalone section for this. It can be placed in the section "Reactions in Australia". Is that okay?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is not restricted to the Australian teachers mentioning; what is missed in this article about Julian Assange is something like what is present at Pussy_Riot#International_support; then is required not just adding the australian teachers source on Reactions in Australia, but a new section Julian_Assange#International_support with a lot more (and the local reaction sections can so be deleted, moving here what there present); at the moment, even the heartfelt support of Roger Waters to Assange is not reported ( don't you know? see www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-extradition-protest-london-wikileaks-parliament-embassy-vivienne-westwood-a9352831.html and rogerwaters.com/assange-london-speech/ ). --5.170.47.36 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So what percentage of teachers belong to this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note: "Reactions in Australia" are reactions to the US indictment. With regard to the Australia teachers, that article is published by the World Socialist Web Site. It says that, '“Teachers for Assange and Manning” was initiated by the CFPE as a result of a series of resolutions passed at Footscray City Secondary College moved by Will Marshall, a longstanding Socialist Equality Party (SEP) and CFPE member.' The CFPE (Committee for Public Education) was established by the SEP.[169] Socialist Equality Party (Australia) is a tiny Trotskyist group which gets miniscule electoral support.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

proposal to add "International support" section in Julian Assange article

As the most part of the few reply has not been on topic ( pointing focus only on a marginal part of the proposal), is better to start again:

I think is good to add a new section named "International support" in the same way as is present Pussy_Riot#International_support, to be similar, in order expose the worldwide support to Assange.

At the same time, i propose to add the two source below, quoted in the new section (and anyway in the article)

www.assangecampaign.org.au/petition-to-german-parliament-release-julian-assange-from-prison/

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-extradition-protest-london-wikileaks-parliament-embassy-vivienne-westwood-a9352831.html

--5.170.46.77 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• indifferent Oppose but it should not turn into a list of every village school assembly that passes a resolution supporting Mr Assange. Nor should it be sourced to primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  Changes to oppose as any proposal that is treated so flippantly by its proponents cannot have any real solid ground.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Proponents was not Burrobert; you change idea 'cause is your right, but you're not right.
Anyway, I hope none never more start tell you in flippantly way anything, and especially something like "2+2=4", otherwise you will probably conclude that in real it's not. --5.170.47.221 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"proponents", those who support this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• No thanks. Support for Assange might be historical, prior to his establishment as a Kremlin asset, or might pre-date the rape accusations. When someone has had such huge changes to their reputation over time, any section focusing on support has the capacity to seriously mislead. Also the first source fails WP:RS. Guy (help!) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You're pushing it: "cultists"; "Kremlin asset"; "rape accusations".     ←   ZScarpia   00:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder where the line is for WP:BLPTALK, or whether there even is a line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy makes a good point. For example, Jemima Goldsmith is a lot less supportive than she was.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

*You're talking about nothing related to this topic*; as is show above this is not a proposal of section for " worldwide Assange official fan club Historical members", but to do a list of supporter/actions for his freedom/denial of extradition, like - and as *above quoted* - what is present on Pussy_Riot#International_support (where is about what happended as support for pussy riot members when they face prison for the "surprise show" in a churc);
So please read better the question before to do off topic answer. --5.171.0.82 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
p.s.: and even, what about "first source fails"??? where is the "first source" in the proposal? (....) --5.171.0.82 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea. Can it be done without disrupting the current article. There is already a lot of international support spread through the article which would then need to be moved to avoid duplication. He has received a large amount of support from various parts of the world (though notably little from his own country's leading politicians) so creating a section under that heading could work. On the other hand placing the support in its relevant chronological section would also work. By the way, while we are speaking about support here, the same argument would also apply to criticism, except that this hasn't been as plentiful. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nix. First off he's kinda stateless these days, so everything is "international". Second, it's just a cherrypick trap and would lead to all sorts of snippets of this guy liked his hair, this one liked him helping Putin, this one liked him publishing this or that. Editors can't be in the role of "curating" from the vast number of statements that have been made referring to him over the years. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! You're not the first that don't full read the question before reply (se above "Guy" and "Jack Upland") ...but i hope you will be the last. --5.170.45.2 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We've already rejected the 150 Germans thing. It's easier to discuss when it's out of the context of exaggerated German-centric views of world affairs. So it's worth commenting on the larger issue before Spaniards and Congolese chime in with their own petitions. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Now you add 1 reply in topic (you reject to add the link about german petition), you don't reject Roger Waters source, but you forget to reply to the main topic question (new section proposal), and you mainly freely speak off topic - about i can't understand other things (note: i'm not german): not so good. :-(
So try again: What your opinion about the proposal?
--5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I see you are not a native English speaker. "Nix" means "No" No new section as proposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You said *nix* to nothing related with what is proposed. What is proposed is a Pussy_Riot#International_support section style; if you check it, you can see nothing of what you reject with your *nix* is present. --5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• No The last thing the article needs is slurping fan club missives. Zaathras (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So nobody read what is Pussy_Riot#International_support: not a place for fan club, or other stupid things. --5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have. Not applicable. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF when you can spare a moment of your busy day. Zaathras (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

...too busy, i'm already reading WP:don't-do-this, WP:don't-do-that, and WP:say-nothing
--5.170.44.21 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

How did this get into the International Support section of the Pussy Riot article? Aren't they monitoring German influence over there?:

A letter of support from 120 members of the German parliament, the Bundestag, was sent to the Russian Ambassador to Germany, Vladimir Grinin. It described proceedings against the women as disproportionate and draconian.

Burrobert (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Guess the difference is this was a letter signed only by German MP's, and was sent to the Russian ambassador, rather than just being published in the media.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is because their Germans wrote the letter in black ink and our Germans used blue ink. Burrobert (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was there are real differences between the two documents.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So was mine. Burrobert (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You have seen the original letters, care to provide a link?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I admit that some educated guess work was required to deduce the colours but it is a very plausible explanation. Burrobert (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot take this seriously neither can I, hence why I have now changed my choice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the two documents have differences, as is not these differences leading the wiki reject of the german petition for Assange. Also, check the Roger_Waters#Other_activism last edit (not mine), about Aamir Aziz: check how it was, and ask yourself why it was not reported the London event cause.
Let me start a question: the same people that is fighting Assange reputation, with fake rape in Sweden, with spy-crime accusation, etc., can let Assange free to appear as defended by the world on wikipedia? after having doing so much to put the support to Assange under silence on all the other massmedia? I don't think so. --5.170.47.221 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Point of fact: the RfC above is tending very strongly towards inclusion of the German appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

well.. we will see the final result (...) What i want to say is that we are in the same circumstance of the questions about if 1946 Italian institutional referendum had a fake results: would the United States ever allow a true monarchy (perhaps hostile, perhaps not - it doesn't matter) to remain at the head of the nation they had defeated? I don't think so. --5.171.0.136 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Point of policy The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. This nonsense died out after approximately 4 days and has not been mentioned since. The Americans call this "nothingburger" the Germans might translate to nichtsschnitzel or something. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is he being defended by the whole world? What percentage of German MP's have supported him openly? As to why the media do not do something, that is not our concern, our concern is what we do.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

See the above discussions, including the RfC. Given the widespread media coverage of the German appeal and the prominence of the supporters, I've argued for inclusion of two short sentences. The RfC is leaning heavily towards inclusion in some form. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is also not the whole world. In fact I seem to recall reading about how his case has not has quite the impact among ordinary people it should have. Just one in nine Britons (11%) have a positive opinion of Julian Assange. Sorry but he doe not enjoy huge support or sympathy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of support from prominent politicians, jurists, journalists and cultural figures. Some of this is mentioned in the article. I don't know if it's better to organize this support into a separate section or to discuss it in the relevant sections. What guides how much overall space in the article to give international support for Assange, however, is the weight of coverage in reliable sources, not opinion polling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a moment in the big facts history, where people become accomplices to historical crimes, even killing none, simply by not doing what is necessary to maintain rightness and freedom in their world; and it can happen even following wiki-laws without feel when something is wrong. --5.171.0.136 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The article already has a very high opinion/fact ratio. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article already has a large amount about "supporters", especially in the "Reactions" section. Given that opinions change over time (like Jemima Goldsmith's), and that there are different shades of opinion (e.g., Nils Melzer does not argue that Assange is innocent), putting them all together would be misleading. Wikipedia policy is opposed to Criticism and Controversy sections (see WP:CSECTION), and I think a supporters section would be just as bad.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article is already overwhelmed with unencyclopedic content of this sort. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and users need to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

others supporting Assange against torture and human rights violations

March 07, 2020 - "The Lancet" calls for Julian Assange's "torture" and "medical neglect" to be brought to an end are now supported by 186 physicians from around the world:

sputniknews.com/uk/202003111078537803-186-physicians-now-back-demands-to-end-julian-assanges-torture-and-medical-neglect/

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext

March 10, 2020 - "IBAHRI" condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020, and urges the government of the United Kingdom to take action to protect him

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/rights-body-turns-its-sights-on-uk-over-assange/5103407.article

www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750

--5.171.0.169 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

sputniknews?Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the lancet did not call for anything it published something called "CORRESPONDENCE".Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the lancet letter (which bemoans the fast they have been ignored, thus I would argue its not significant) is from "117 doctors", not 186.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page comments and article content need to be grounded in reliable sources, with links

While I'm not going to argue for the moment that this letter [170] should go into the article, the letter received significant global news coverage. Because of this, it's reasonable for IP to argue for its inclusion, and this discussion should not be collapsed as if it's so obvious that inclusion is inappropriate.

Did you even check to see if the letter received coverage in the news?

Also, "Correspondence" in The Lancet does not mean "not notable." If you're unsure whether the Lancet would publish your correspondence to written to the most prestigious medical journal in the world, let me save you some time: they wouldn't.

Here's a partial list of major papers that carried the story, after all of a couple minutes looking online:

• The Australian [171], A group of 117 doctors, who haven’t seen Assange, are sufficiently concerned about Melzer’s report to have had a letter published in the medical journal The Lancet this week calling for an end to the medical neglect of Assange and questioning his fitness for the legal proceedings.

• The Guardian [172], The Australian MPs’ appearance in London before the start of an extradition hearing next week came as a letter by a group of doctors representing 117 physicians and psychologists from 18 nations called for an end to what they described as “the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”. The letter, which was published in the medical journal the Lancet and has also been sent to the Australian foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, expresses concern over Assange’s fitness to take part in the legal proceedings.

• The South China Morning Post [173], republishing a piece written by the Agence France-Presse. More than 100 doctors on Monday called on Britain to end Julian Assange’s “torture” in prison pending his extradition on espionage charges to the United States... A group of 117 physicians and psychologists from 18 nations wrote in a letter to The Lancet medical journal that Assange was being subjected to “torture” in prison.

• The AFP report was also carried by the The Taipei Times [174], and what appear to be dozens of regional Australian papers.

• Deutsche Welle [175], Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is facing a controversial hearing which could result in his extradition to the US. The Lancet medical journal has published a letter signed by more than 100 medical professionals. It accused Britain of denying proper health care to Assange.

• The Evening Standard [176], A 117-strong group doctors and psychologists has called for an end to what it calls the “psychological torture” and “medical neglect” of Julian Assange. In a 1,200-word letter published in the medical journal The Lancet, the Doctors For Assange group expresses concern over his fitness for the legal proceedings.

• Sky News [177], A group of 117 doctors and psychologists has called for an end to what it calls "the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange".

• In at least some cases large news outlets appear to be reposting from PA Media, a major UK broadcasting company. For example, the Belfast Telegraph [178], A group of 117 doctors and psychologists has called for an end to what it calls “the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”.

It's extraordinary to me how in this talk page section, and in some sections above, editors are actively calling upon us to exclude material from the article without even bothering to look and see if that material has received significant coverage in the news... or sometimes, editors are actually arguing we should ignore news coverage. Needless to say this wholly contrary to policy and is a terrible formula for writing a biography or any other article on wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lancet is not RS for political rants. Usually OK on medical research. Your 117 comrades -- have they examined Assange or are they repeating that UN factotum we rejected months ago? SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, your comment contains zero links, just your political opinion. This isn't helpful. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a link to where it says posts without links are not permitted. BTW you misrepresented policy in this section. That's more serious. I suggest you drop it. This is going nowhere, which is why I collapsed it. We know there's an army of off-Wiki Assangists watching, but nobody versed in WP is supporting any of your POV stuff here. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"SPECIFICO" have to stop to fight "german ghosts", and other ideological war. The Lancet is already RS, here (Julian_Assange#cite_note-426 "End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange". The Lancet. 17 February 2020.") and on other article (Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights#cite_note-14 " The Lancet, 12 February 2020. “End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”"); also, here another RS: newmatilda.com/2020/03/12/assange-show-trial/
--5.171.0.169 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) (ah, are IBAHRI sources good for you now?)

• I don't really understand why any of this is here, when there is a main article for Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. And yet this article contains around 3,000 words on the matter anyway, despite the fact that it's already 60kB longer than the article on Abraham Lincoln and 10kB longer than the article for World War II. Just a reminder that WP:LENGTH recommends 30 kB to 50 kB for most articles. This article is currently 240 kB, nearly five times the recommended maximum.

So if we want to add substantive new content, you probably need to first look to spin off sections into stand alone articles and work over there instead. GMG^talk 20:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You point to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange as the right place for the arguments of the above new sources? you're wrong, or the Article is bad structurated: at now, Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange is quoted as main article for the Julian_Assange#Indictment_in_the_United_States section, but the source above are related to other section, the Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_in_the_United_Kingdom and/or Julian_Assange#Extradition_hearings. --5.171.0.169 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't really understand why those other sections are level two headers instead of level three, given that they are directly related and subordinate in scope. This article doesn't need to be expanded; it needs around half of the content either removed and more concisely summarized if appropriate, or moved to a different sub-article. GMG^talk 21:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If you see the topic above, you see that there is a proposal in this way, new section for all the worldwide support to Assange, that will be short, with a new related article. But this will so include even source that "someone" really don't want as present (the german petition), and can show a massive view of all the worldwide support to Assange: maybe this is not what someone else want, the someone that in a bad Court - surely not really ruled by the Queen - need to paint Assange as the public enemy number one. --5.171.0.169 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really give a damn about Assange or the Queen. I'm in the encyclopedia business. GMG^talk 23:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, is better you start to care about Assange and the Queen before to do an encyclopedia Article about Assange (which is a Commonwealth citizen), especially if you want to do it with a lot of people that you don't know who they really are, what they really want; or they will fool you for get their objectives (that is not to do encyclopedias for *fun*). --5.170.45.89 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There is massive global appreciation of spotted dick and haggis, but those articles don't have fanclub sections. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in the same way as a lot of people can read, but not everybody understand the meaning of what they read. --5.170.45.89 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, this is supposed to be about Assaange, not his trial, not his imprisonment. This whole issue takes up far too much space.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's fine to make mention of the fact that some think his imprisonment is problematic. But, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. O3000 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's by this point pretty much Jimbo's First Law of Contemporary Politics: left to their own devices, Wikipedia editors will persist on a political topic until they have successfully written a book. There is a reason Wikibooks is yonder, and Wikipedia is hither. GMG^talk 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I and other editors have pointed out the balance issues in the article. I think there can be significant rebalancing of the article around what reliable sources have given more coverage to, without increasing the length of the article. For example, Google Trends indicates that Assange is best known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (of documents relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables) and his ongoing legal battles, in that order. If we begin with the lede, however, we see that significantly more space is devoted to the 2016 DNC/Podesta emails than to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. There are problems like this throughout the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

IBAHRI (more) RS

• www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/iba-slates-assange-mistreatment
• www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/27699-michael-kirby-throws-support-behind-julian-assange
• www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/latest-news/news/iba-condemns-british-treatment-of-julian-assange-in-extradition-trial
• dailytimes.com.pk/574781/human-rights-body-condemns-alleged-mistreatment-of-julian-assange/
• irishlegal.com/article/human-rights-body-condemns-alleged-mistreatment-of-julian-assange

--5.171.0.169 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. One of our editors is keeping a record of Assange related articles on their talk page. Burrobert (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is very important, and must be added in the Article.
My point of view, about the whole Assange arrest for fake rape in Sweden (and his keeping in prison after that this fact has been understood), is that we are talking about a crime that is breaking the basics of the Laws, of the international Laws, the respect of the Law that is right - but only until the power itself show that it respect the Laws. This is not more simply a case of journalism freedom, this is a case of leggittimity of the Justice System - of the "Rule of Law" - for Sweden and UK.
I think about policeman's that keep Assange in prison: how can they still believe they are serving the right side? --5.170.46.196 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for help to the Queen

• www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1243706/Royal-Family-latest-Julian-Assange-news-queen-elizabeth-ii-wikileaks-founder-rape Tabloid, fails WP:RS

@JzG/Guy: I'm not sure you're right rejecting this RS;
I've found a lot of Articles where www.express.co.uk is quoted as RS:
British_Heart_Foundation#cite_ref-19
Henning_Wehn#cite_ref-13
Napalm#cite_ref-30
HM_Prison_East_Sutton_Park#cite_ref-5
Nao_(robot)#cite_note-23
UK_Independence_Party#cite_ref-129
Babylonokia#External_links
Stagecoach_East_Scotland#cite_ref-14
Eid_Mubarak#cite_ref-1
Ray_Quinn#cite_ref-12
...
--5.170.47.130 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• consortiumnews.com/2020/02/23/assange-a-tale-of-three-extraditions/ Fails WP:RS, see prior discussions at WP:RSN

@JzG/Guy: Can you please tell what topic on WP:RSN is related?
Also, about consortiumnews.com, I see that Robert Parry (journalist), one of the last director, was awarded with George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984, I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015, and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2017: so it seems the consortiumnews.com can be a reliable source, and I'm not sure you're right rejecting this RS. --5.170.47.130 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• twitter.com/kungfu_mandarin/status/1229038902452813831 Random Tweets fail WP:RS

@JzG/Guy: I'm not sure you're right rejecting this RS;
I've found a lot of Articles where twitter.com is quoted as RS:
Muse:_Drones_World_Tour#cite_ref-2
2017–18_Kuwaiti_Premier_League#cite_ref-2
2019_Chicago_Fire_season#cite_ref-48
2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado#cite_ref-7
Blue_Swan_Records#cite_ref-5
2020_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Georgia#cite_ref-16
...
--5.170.47.130 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Go and ask at WP:RSN, you'll get the same answer. The Express has a long history of printing utter bollocks about the Royal Family especially, Consortium News is little more than a blog and has been discussed several times and found unreliable, Twotter is a primary self-published source and not authoritative, we use it only for the comments of notable people about themselves. Don't be misled into thinking other abuses of a source in any way supports adding one more abuse. Guy (help!) 21:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

--5.170.45.89 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Which she has turned down, none issue.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also this:

• [Redacted] evasion of spam blacklist, do not reinstate.

"Petitioner's Request for Royal Pardon for Julian Assange from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" (22nd January, 2020)

--5.170.47.219 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You need reliable independent secondary sources. Also if you reinstate the blacklist-evading content again you may be blocked from editing. Guy (help!) 14:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Other RS for "Chris Lonsdale letter" and "Phillip Adams petition" to the Queen

About "Chris Lonsdale letter":

• rightsandwrongs.co.uk/quick-links/136-politics-britain/34611-free-julian-assange-you-pathetic-man-boris

"Queen Elizabeth won’t get involved in Julian Assange case because it’s a POLITICAL matter – Buckingham Palace" (16 Feb, 2020)

• dailytimes.com.pk/559758/queen-elizabeth-wont-get-involved-in-julian-assange-case/

"Queen Elizabeth won’t get involved in Julian Assange case" (February 17, 2020)

About "Phillip Adams petition" for Royal prerogative of mercy:

• www.assangecampaign.org.au/prerogative-of-mercy-with-250000-petition-signatories-delivered-to-the-queen-of-england-and-australia/

"Prerogative of Mercy with 250,000 petition signatories delivered to the Queen of England and Australia" (January 23, 2020)

• andrewwilkie.org/massive-petition-to-free-julian-assange-tabled-in-australian-parliament-today/

"Massive petition to free Julian Assange tabled in Australian Parliament today" (10Feb, 2020)

• www.assangecampaign.org.au/the-petition-officially-tabled-in-the-australian-house-of-representatives-10-2-2020-by-andrew-wilkie-mp/

"The Petition Officially Tabled in the Australian House of Representatives 10-2-2020, by Andrew Wilkie MP" (February 10, 2020)

• www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2020/02/11/auricht-all-the-way-with-usa-on-fate-of-assange/

"Cr Auricht: All the way with USA on fate of Assange" (13 February 2020)

• www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO2002/S00131/global-protests-speak-up-for-julian-assange.htm

"Global Protests - Speak Up For Julian Assange" (21 February 2020)

Please do not edit what above; anything to say about this above can be placed here below.

Remember that we are here to talk about what can be good to add - where and how - not to do censure.

--5.170.47.130 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what a reliable independent secondary source looks like? All those fail at least one and often all three parts of the trifecta. Guy (help!) 21:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I see there's a bit of press on this issue, but it's minor, and in the end the Queen isn't getting involved. I don't see a point in adding material on this. -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there's something relevant about that the Assange case is called "political" in Queen's reply.
Also, the reply to the "Phillip Adams petition" maybe is not already done, and can be important.
Anyway having ideas of this things can be useful in further eveniences, or when a subsection/new wide article about the support to Assange will be done. --5.170.47.130 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Futile petitions are very rarely notable, and the sources you have provided thus far do not suggest this is an exception. Guy (help!) 13:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to know also what do you think about the "political case" in Queen's reply, related to the extradition request. --5.170.46.196 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reasons why they are futile will vary, but they remain futile and rarely, if ever, significant. As above, you have yet to provide the necessary evidence of significance. Guy (help!) 20:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments

There is a discussion about due weight in the lede, which contains this paragraph WikiLeaks' role in the 2016 US Presidential election:

Template:Talk quote (emphasis added)

Should the bolded sentence be removed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove as undue weight. The lede discusses the 2016 US Presidential election, as it should, but this aspect of Assange's biography receives undue weight. Internationally, Julian Assange is best known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (of US diplomatic cables and documents relating to the Iraq and Afghan Wars) and the legal battles which have resulted from those publications (including Assange's political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2012-2019, and the ongoing extradition proceedings in the UK). This is evidenced, for example, by Google Trends, which shows the largest spikes of interest in Assange occurring in 2010 and 2019 (when he was arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy). The US indictment of Russian intelligence officers is only tangentially related to Assange (indeed, Assange is not even mentioned in the CNN article that is cited in the body of the article to support this sentence: [179]), and the level of detail given is unwarranted. Why it is important to Assange's biography that precisely 12 officers were indicted, as opposed to 11 or 13? The reader can understand the basic context of 2016 without the sentence about GRU agents: WikiLeaks published emails from the DNC/Podesta, the US intelligence community concluded that Russia hacked the emails, Assange denies this. In fact, the issue of the 2016 US Presidential election receives more space in the lede than WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. This level of detail unduly focuses the article on one issue that is of particular interest in the United States, but which does not reflect broader international interest in the subject of this article. The subject of this article is, after all, Julian Assange, and not specifically the 2016 US Presidential election. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove uncited content in which the sentence refers to wikileaks, makes no mention of Assange. Additionally article has problems with excess US weight, and this is a solution to getting started on this. No reason to believe that Assange is most known for wikileaks alleged relation to GRU. Quite a WP:SYNTH stretch to jam into the lede here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It is one of the main accusations against him that he was a Russian stooge. Nor am I sure what he is most noted for, but certainly the election is one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is a straight choice between what we have and nothing, then what we have is an absolute must - this is why Assange is being extradited, it is the primary driver for the current controversy, and to include his denial without the principal facts he is denying would not only violate WP:NPOV, it would be very weird. Guy (help!) 13:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The principal facts are already mentioned in the other three sentences in that paragraph. The sentence about indictments of GRU agents is not necessary in a short overview (which is what the lede is), and the connection with Assange is very tenuous. The RfC is not about removing the entire paragraph, but rather only about removing one sentence with limited relevance to Assange (and which is sourced to an article that does not even mention Assange: [180]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, in your opinion. In mine, the GRU connection is vital because it establishes the link to ongoing criminal proceedings and adds specificity to the jeopardy Assange faces if and when extradited. Guy (help!) 13:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I have to correct one extremely important fact that you've gotten wrong twice above. The current extradition proceedings against Assange have absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 US Presidential election. They're related entirely to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, and Assange's interactions with Chelsea Manning. Does this information change your view on the relevance of the GRU indictments? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your loud assertions do not constitute importance, or indeed corrections or, for that matter fact. I don't give a rat's ass about Assange, but you clearly very much do. Guy (help!) 20:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not an "assertion" - it's a fact that the indictment against Assange is related entirely to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, not its 2016 publications. But don't take my word for it. Take it from the BBC.

You grounded your vote with a false statement of fact. After I pointed your factual error out to you, you didn't correct yourself, and have instead chosen to go after me. Others can make of that what they will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So you keep saying. But you are a WP:SPA so I am entitled to ignore you. Guy (help!) 22:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to ignore me, but not reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Zinger! Not. The problem is simple, we don't base articles on POVs from primary, fringe, and UNDUE references. We do ignore fringe, primary, cherrypicked distortions. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you calling the BBC's factual reporting "POVs from primary, fringe, and UNDUE references"? It is a fact that the indictment against Assange is for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, not WikiLeaks' 2016 publications. The BBC article I referenced explains this, as do countless other news articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as entitlement goes, it doesn't extend to: making personal comments such as referring to an editor as an SPA; ditto for not assuming good faith; being uncivil.     ←   ZScarpia   03:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"not assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Looks lie you left an important bit out. --Calton | Talk 09:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. ... Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I very much doubt that there is clear evidence that T411 has malign intentions which conflict with building a good encyclopaedia.     ←   ZScarpia   12:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, please comment on article improvement on the article talk page. Other comments can go on your talk page or a noticeboard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Articles are helped when all editors respect each other, reminding us all of WP:AGF is no bad thing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Assange's complicity in the Russian interference in the US election is the most consequential action of his life. He initially became famous for earlier deeds, but the tangible and ongoing effects of this collaboration are currently the most notable fact about Julian Assange. Denials from Assange and Russia are empty and must be contextualized with the facts of the matter accepted, reported and discussed by independent RS worldwide. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep of course. This is the centerpiece of the involvement of Assange in US elections, and it is about one of the defining moments of his biography. It tells about his de facto GRU connections, something that was claimed in a variety of sources, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I do not see any real argument for removal. I would only remove "accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria"". That is a propaganda by Assange. It is enough to say that he denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove: it is undue weight and is not directly connected with Assange. The indictment against Assange relates to Manning, not Russia and the 2016 election.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed related to the indictment against Assange (so it is about Assange) and to the GRU (as citation tells). This is something really important I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: no, the indictment of the GRU agents has nothing whatsoever to do with the indictment against Assange. Assange has been indicted in the US for charges related to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (sources: [181] [182]). The CNN article that's used to source the statement about GRU agents does not even mention Assange (go to [183] and Ctrl+f "Assange"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to mix issues here. The preceding paragraph in the lead is about the significant 2010 issues, and the one under discussion is about Assange's cooperation with GRU agents in the 2016 Russian interference. This is also significant enough for mention in the lead. As I've stated, I'm not satisfied with the current wording, but the content should not be removed. Instead, it should be improved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I agree that we should not mix issues. That's why it's concerning that two editors have now incorrectly stated that the indictment against Assange is somehow related to the indictment against the GRU agents. This is just flat-out false. Assange has been indicted in relation to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, and not for anything related to 2016. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The GRU agents were not involved in the 2010 incidents, but they are in the current subject of this discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

In light of the abundant sourcing about Assange's collaboration with GRU and his complicity in their interference in the American elections, this "remove" is not credible. Are you relying on the "Assange is not Wikileaks" thing? If so, let's merge the articles. It's less pain than going through a straw man every time we discuss the crowning achievement of Assange's career. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. This is biographically significant, abundantly well-sourced, and hugely consequential in terms of Assange's notability. Best regards, Neutrality^talk 00:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's going to mention that Wikileaks and Assange interfered in the 2016 election with material stolen by Russian intel officers, then it's clearly DUE to note the Special Counsel investigation concluded that, despite Assange's claims otherwise, the Russian government disseminated the materials to Wikileaks, and led to the indictment of 12 Russian intel officers. The unredacted parts of volume I of the Mueller report mention Assange at least 44 times by name. These mentions include how Assange willfully misled the public into believing that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, was behind the leaked material (when Assange knew it could not have been so), thus putting fuel on the fire of Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. While I'm not totally satisfied with the wording, as it doesn't present the chronological narrative properly or completely, this has enough weight for mention in the lead. As such it should remain, and attempts to improve the wording can continue. There is no question this is about Assange himself, regardless of whether some source mentions his name or WikiLeaks. RS mention both in this connection, and this was all happening at the embassy where Assange was located. During this period Assange=WikiLeaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Assange's ties to Russia and their collective manipulating of the 2016 American election is well-sourced and an important aspect of his biography. Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Not in the leading section. Maybe in the body as background on the events. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Only indirectly involves Assange and is too descriptive for lede. ~ HAL333 03:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as undue weight. Mentioning the event makes sense in the Assange bio, and the two other lines do that. Going down into details of counting the strangers to him and their life events makes no sense for the Assange bio. These details are only mentioned once at a low level -- middle of 9.3 -- and it's just not a big part of the article and makes no difference to the Life of Assange or even to the events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, at least in substance, because it is a historic event that the press has written about extensively in which Assange was notably involved. Whether the coverage was U.S.-centric or Euro-centric is irrelevant. However, I do agree that it should probably be rewritten to make it as much Assange-centric as possible. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Partial keep, in substance, but present text could be reduced, the substantive point is the allegation of Wikileaks complicity in the release of illegally obtained emails. I fail to understand how the Manning-provided material can be considered relevant, but alleged involvement in attempts to affect US Presidential election is too 'local'/US-only! These are the two main reasons Assange is well known and controversial. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The proposal is not to remove the paragraph about the 2016 US Presidential elections. The proposal is only to remove one sentence from that paragraph that has little relevance to Assange. The lede currently spends more time discussing details of indictments against GRU agents than it does discussing Manning, which is completely out of line with RS coverage on Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, most of the bolded sentence and even some of the previous one could go as being off-topic/unnec detail, but "working with WikiLeaks … to spread stolen documents" is crucial IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the bolded sentence and replace with another noting that a US court ruled Assange committed no crime in publishing these documents, per the ruling that threw allegations against Assange out of court [184]:

Template:Talk quote

It is inappropriate to insinuate that the subject has committed a crime, when the law has explicitly ruled otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, that's a different topic than the one under discussion. What you're describing might be added, but has no bearing on this discussion. We are not talking about any allegations of criminal activity by Assange, but about his coordination with GRU agents and then lying about it. Assange not only lied about it, he tried to frame Seth Rich, a dead man who was totally innocent. Those false accusations have caused great grief to his family, and they are suing Fox News for spreading those lies. -- Valjean (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: thanks for your comment. The topic of this RfC is what is suitable for the lead of this article. As I've shown repeatedly on this talk page, Assange's 2016 DNC publications are given coverage here far beyond what is WP:DUE given coverage by reliable sources. The mention of the GRU indictment in the lead is an example of gross misuse of a BLP to effectively slander its subject. This is particularly egregious since Assange's publication of those documents was found to be wholly legal and in the public interest in a US court of law. -Darouet (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the RfC is about one sentence. You're introducing another subject, which I do consider a legitimate subject, but not here. Also, there is far more 2010 content than 2016 content, so your "undue" argument doesn't carry much weight. Pun intended. Template:;) -- Valjean (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: thanks for your pun. The RfC subject is: should we remove the lead sentence about GRU agents? I answered yes. The US court's exoneration of Assange for his publication of 2016 DNC documents is not mentioned in the RfC, but I think it's relevant, since that publication is the topic of the paragraph under discussion. Seth Rich is also not mentioned in the RfC, but in your comment above you imply it is in fact somehow a part of this RfC's subject. I think a neutral observer would agree with me that a court deciding in Assange's favor for his 2016 publications, in a paragraph about his 2016 publications, is more relevant than Seth Rich. -Darouet (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in total sympathy with your desire to include that content. I really am. It is currently in the small "DNC lawsuit" section, and maybe that should be mentioned in the lead. I don't know.

I just don't think that's the topic of this RfC, and I also think we can do both things, so start a different thread about that topic. That's all.

That I apparently mentioned other things is because, since our discussions had been dragging on for weeks without getting anywhere, I did what I often do, and that is to step back and look at the bigger picture and then make a concrete suggested improvement. That way we can work on improving it and hopefully break the deadlock. I saw that the whole paragraph was a fucking mess and was missing important points. I wasn't looking at that one sentence anymore, so I started a whole new section where we all could work. -- Valjean (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: OK, well that's reasonable. I'll think about it and write you outside this thread. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

These statements are a gross misrepresentation of the cited sources and falsely cite a summary judgment in a civil case to infer that there was no criminal act. We may conclude that this misrepresentation was made in good faith, but it is ignorant and incorrect and irrelevant to the text under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't call something "gross misrepresentation" and "ignorant and incorrect" without explaining how. Your comment actually sounds like a WP:PA.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Darouet gave an excellent argument why this should be removed while other editors like this here made totally uncivilised responses without any arguments.SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – Removing the sentence leaves a disconnect in the logic of the paragraph. Inclusion is needed for the ending of the paragraph to remain DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Like Specifico said, The problem is simple, we don't base articles on POVs from primary, fringe, and UNDUE references. We do ignore fringe, primary, cherrypicked distortions, no matter how much the obvious POV pushers want to rewrite reality. --Calton | Talk 09:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove As per users Thucydides411, Jtbobwaysf and others, it is undue weight and is not directly connected with Assange. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• @Slatersteven: Why are you voting to include uncited content? Can you point us to where this content is cited. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not uncited, the lede does not need to be cited if its cited in the body, it appears to be.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, found in the article. Are you referring to these two citations in the article body? Quote from the source is below.

• "An unnamed organization, later indirectly identified in the indictment as WikiLeaks"
• "an entity known as Organization 1, which appears to be Wikileaks"

I am wondering why the lede is summarizing the article body, when one source in the body refers to an unamed organzation and the other refers to something that "appears to be wikileaks." Sure isn't very decisive text to be summarizing in the lede. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The sentence about GRU agents in sourced in the body to this CNN article: [185]. It's worth noting that the CNN article does not even mention Assange, which underlines my point: this material is only tangentially related to Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:lede it is supposed to be a summery of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That doesnt allow the lede to summarize poorly sourced content in the body to synth a new position. As Thucydides points out, there is no mention of Assange in relation to this GRU issue in either source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash the same arguments above and allow other users to chip in?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for whole paragraph

Many who have !voted above to keep the content also agree that the wording isn't the best. I believe the whole paragraph contains jumbled and non-chronological information that isn't always clearly related to Assange. There is also important information that is missing in the current paragraph:

New version with more relevant information that flows in a better chronological order. (I recognize that some of this will also need to be added to the body first.):

BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of this content relates to wikileaks or has no connection to Assange. I support deletion, not a re-org. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you need to read more carefully. Assange=WikiLeaks so much that evidence from Assange's computer proved that he was personally involved in the transfer of stolen documents from the Russians to WikiLeaks (himself). The Mueller Report mentions Assange by name in this connection, and the evidence on his computer, as well as other evidence they found, proved that he was lying when he made his denials. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looks better. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Where is this statement coming from: "found evidence on Assange's computer"? Burrobert (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The Mueller Report, p. 47, which is what the rest of the quote is referring to (the "file-transfer evidence described above" p. 48). -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Let's take this one step at a time. Did the investigator have access to Assange's computer? Burrobert (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Of course. We want to get this right, hence my proposal here, rather than just editing without discussion. Here's the whole paragraph from page 47:

"An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172 The WikiLeaks site also released PDFs and other documents taken from Podesta that were attachments to emails in his account; these documents had a creation date of October 2, 2016, which appears to be the date the attachments were separately staged by WikiLeaks on its site.173"

That, with the later comment on p. 48, indicates to me that investigators had access to Assange's computer and other evidence from the WikiLeaks' site. The wording is purposefully vague, and some wording is blacked out as "Investigative Technique", but what's readable is pretty clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant, its what the official investigation found.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Steven, to whom is that directed? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought the indentation made that clear, not you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

At the time the investigator made their report Assange’s computer was located in the Ecuadorian embassy. How did the investigator examine the computer? The passage you quote shows the investigator didn’t know what operating system Assange used so obviously they didn’t have assess to the computer. Apart from the documents published by Wikileaks, the only other tangible item mentioned in the excerpt from the report is “metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site”. There is no mention that the investigator claimed to have found anything on Assange’s computer. Burrobert (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably the same way that Putin, Assange, et al got a hold of the stolen documents? Or maybe the Ecuadorans were already having mixed feelings about their famous guest using their network, possibly to commit crimes? It's not our job to guess how it was known. C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There's this thing called "hacking", which gives great "access" to a computer. Template:;) I strongly suspect that the "investigator(s)" have some of those skills, and that the Ecuadorans might have even helped. We don't know, but physical possession ("access") of his computer wasn't necessary to know how it had been used, and I wouldn't put too much weight on that little bit of knowledge about the operating system.

Anybody who has a website can get that information about everyone who accesses their website (and the search terms they used to find it), all for free and without hacking. I suspect he uses multiple operating systems, and elaborating on that subject was unnecessary detail for the report.

What we do know is that they knew exactly how "Assange's computer" was used. That's in the Mueller Report, so we shouldn't speculate beyond that, but just use that info without any OR.

If the proposed wording "found evidence on Assange's computer" is problematic, we can change it to "found evidence from Assange's computer". Whenever Assange used his computer to upload content to the WikiLeaks website (Assange=WikiLeaks), that computer left a lot of evidence about the computer, evidence that's accessible to anyone who hacks the website or computer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The passage you provided doesn’t say that the investigator found anything on Assange’s computer and in fact shows they didn’t have access to it. The passage is also from a primary source so you need to be careful about interpreting what it is saying. If you have secondary sources which support your proposed version you should provide them. Burrobert (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Read my last paragraph immediately above. Does that meet your concerns? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source (Associated Press) which refers directly to this matter. I haven't read it yet:

• WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange threaten with charges from Mueller report.

It's originally from the Washington Times, which isn't always a good source, but still interesting reading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

From the AP News source:

• "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report specifically implicates WikiLeaks’ founder the now-jailed Julian Assange in the direct cybertransfers of stolen Democratic Party documents from hackers in Russian military intelligence to his anti-secrecy group."
• "Mr. Mueller brought an indictment in July against Moscow’s elite cyberwarriors who conspired with WikiLeaks..."
• "Mr. Assange repeatedly denied receiving thousands of emails from Russia and suggested his source was a Democratic insider. The Mueller report accused him of lying by using such words as “dissembling” and “implied falsely.”"
• "The special counsel’s 448-page report confirms the Russia-WikiLeaks alliance in a narrative that suggests U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications."
• "How the Mueller-FBI prosecutor team obtained its information is contained in this partially redacted paragraph:

"“The Office was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by GRU. Assange had access to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England.”"

"The next sentences are blacked out with the explanation “Investigative Technique.”"

BullRangifer (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I still can't find where it says that the investigator found evidence on or from Assange's computer. What evidence you are referring to? Is it a photo, document, screenshots etc.? If you let us know what evidence you mean it will be easier to work out from the sources where the investigator says they found it. The source mentions a "a narrative that suggests U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications". Perhaps you should phrase it with a level of uncertainty that matches the source. Burrobert (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The evidence seems to have been "file-transfer evidence" in the form of dates. Here's the source material:

"An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172" p. 47

"d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials

"As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged, WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks's claims about the source of material that it posted." p. 48}}

From that I understand that metadata about dates was created when files were transferred between the GRU and Assange's computer, described on p. 48 as "file-transfer evidence described above". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The mention that "U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications" might be the "how" of how they gathered this information, but that information is not essential to the topic at hand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: In response to concerns about undue weight being given to details of the US investigation into Russia, you're proposing giving even more weight to those details. You're also adding in a fair bit of dubious original research about "evidence on Assange's computer". Your proposed text would seriously exacerbate the problem with undue weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern, although I don't agree with the view being pushed by several here that Assange's involvement in the Russian interference (specifically the attacks on Clinton, whom Assange hates) should be downplayed. My proposal is just that, a proposal we can work on and improve. That's why I didn't make an edit, but decided to see if we can come up with a concrete improvement here on the talk page.

The current content does not adequately portray the full role played by Assange. I also recognize that some of it must be mentioned in the body of the article first, as it is woefully lacking there. The Mueller Report contains important matter on this which we don't mention at all.

Right now my main concern is to get it right. After that, we can discuss how much to put in the lead. I suspect it can be summed up and made shorter. Does that make sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer on this. The fact that editors continue to deny the mainstream RS narrative of Assange's complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 elections indicates that the article's text needs to be strengthened, so as to make that point unambiguously clear. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an issue of weight. You haven't presented any systematic review of sources to show that Assange's relation to the Mueller investigation - let alone the GRU indictments - has received proportionally more coverage is RS than we give it in the article. This article can't cover every detail of the Mueller report, not only because this article is specifically about Julian Assange, but also because we have to maintain balance between different aspects of Assange's life. You're proposing adding a lot more detail about the 2016 US Presidential elections and the ensuing Mueller investigation to this article, but a number of editors feel that this article already spends too much space covering these issues, compared to aspects of Assange's life that have received much more RS coverage and international attention (e.g., WikiLeaks' 2010 publications). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we're all done responding to straw man arguments against consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no one is "proposing adding a lot more detail about the 2016 US Presidential elections and the ensuing Mueller investigation to this article." I think my proposal adds one or two more sentences. That could result in a few more sentences in the body, but there is far more 2010 material in the article, so your due weight argument doesn't weigh much. Your fears are unfounded.

Even if we added a ton more 2016 material, policy would still allow that, and then, because it might create an undue weight situation, policy provides the WP:SPINOFF solution where we'd spinoff a large part into a sub-article. We do that after the actually is so much content that it creates a problem. We aren't even close to that yet.

There is also the argument that the 2016 matters have overshadowed the older 2010 matters, and thus the 2016 stuff has more due weight. That is often the case as newer stuff overshadows older stuff. C'est la vie. Old stuff tends to lose its luster and weight with time. In this case it's still alive and not dead yet, but that doesn't mean other matters have little weight. The 2016 matters have a lot of weight, so let's see where this goes before you cry that it has too much weight. If that happens, we can spin it off. We can't know until it's actually in the article. We must never try to prevent the creation of reliably-sourced content, but sometimes we do try to channel its location. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the US indictment against Assange and his current extradition battle does not relate to the 2016 US election; it relates to the "old stuff". I suggest editors read the article and educate themselves before proceeding further.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. There is far more stuff related to 2010 than 2016. What we need is better organization chronologically, and in the headers. 2016 is mentioned in a header, but we need a header that mentions 2010. Would someone please do a bit of organizing? There is also a bunch of content about his reputation and support without any heading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As Jack Upland says, the current extradition battle relates to the "old stuff," WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. This is what almost all current coverage of Assange is about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia says, WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of that are you relying on?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Due weight doesn't tabulate how many indictments Assange racks up. It evaluates mainstream coverage and narratives. As B.R. says, the basis of notability can change as it did in the case of O.J. Simpson, an infamous American felon formerly notable as a star athlete. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Mueller report is a primary source and represents the position of prosecution. It is not even remotely neutral. The other source you provided from AP simply says "the Mueller report says." We can attribute these claims to the Mueller report, but we cannot put them in wikivoice for a multidue of WP:RS and WP:NOTCOURT reasons. Under no circumstances would we put info on a BLP in wikivoice coming from a primary source. Your suggestions reflect continued POV pushing on this talk page, please stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Jtbobwaysf, the Mueller Report is an eminently RS. It is cited widely here, and we can also cite it for straight facts (its statements are treated as facts), but not for editorial opinions. We don't do that. Opinions and interpretations about the Mueller Report which are found in secondary sources can be used here. That's what the AP News source is all about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. A false equivalence between RS and Russian disinformation? Still nonsense. Not how we source content around here. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: As Jtbobwaysf says, the Mueller Report is a primary source. Among other things, it makes claims of criminal activity which would have to be substantiated by a court. As we all know, legitimate judicial systems don't automatically take the prosecutor's word as truth, and we shouldn't be in the business of repeating allegations made by prosecutors as fact on Wikipedia. Attribute claims and source everything to reliable secondary sources (e.g., news articles that discuss the Mueller Report, rather than the report itself). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Already answered above. Attribution is provided. We agree.

It's rather remarkable that the editors who defend Trump and Assange now object to using the Mueller Report, but they had no objections to using the Mueller Report for adding the following Trump-favorable content to several articles here:

"In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

We have long used that content from the Report in several articles, and those editors who don't like Trump did not object. Stop and think about that. Objections to the inclusion of properly-sourced content violate NPOV and the principles described at Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.

Claims of criminal activity (which were proven by the evidence uncovered) are handled like any other BLP claims and by following WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We know how to do that. We use RS, not unreliable Russian propaganda. There is no equivalence.

Certain types of "the sky is blue" claims can now be stated in wikivoice. The facts that Russia interfered in the elections and that Assange coordinated with Russian GRU agents to transfer and spread stolen documents (and he lied about it) are two of them, but we still provide sourcing. They are settled and established facts, backed up by myriad very reliable sources.

We should not discuss those events as if there is any doubt, and we consistently remove words like "alleged" when they are added. I really think we should sanction experienced editors who dare to use the word "alleged" about those events after they have been warned. That's a newbie mistake, but when made by experienced editors it's disruptive, tendentious, advocacy.

Those who doubt the RS we use at the English Wikipedia should edit at the Russian Wikipedia where sourcing standards are different. They should not bring their disruptive doubts here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From the WP:Publicfigure section:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.

Burrobert (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. That's for unproven allegations. Later, when there is proof, we also include the evidence and treat the matter differently, as do RS. We follow their lead. The event has then become a fact and is no longer a mere allegation, and to continue to call it an allegation is to deny the facts. We do not allow that, and we stop allowing the use of "alleged". When RS treat something as fact, so do we. Wikipedia always sides with the narrative in RS when there is no longer any doubt among RS. OTOH, as long as there is still serious disagreement in RS, we continue to call it an allegation. BTW, the last sentence is my addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

And the proof is? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You have already been informed about this, so I'm not wasting more time on you. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Both proposed paragraphs fail to note that legal claims against Assange for his 2016 publications were thrown out of a US court, with prejudice, because the judge found that Assange did not engage in wrongdoing in acquiring the documents, and per many other prominent cases in US legal history — including the Pentagon papers — he committed no crime in publishing them. In fact, BullRangifer, the proposed text insinuates the opposite of these facts. -Darouet (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, that's a different topic than the one under discussion. What you're describing might be added, but has no bearing on this discussion. We are not talking about any allegations of criminal activity by Assange, but about his coordination with GRU agents and then lying about it. Assange not only lied about it, he tried to frame Seth Rich, a dead man who was totally innocent. Those false accusations have caused great grief to his family, and they are suing Fox News for spreading those lies.-- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• The text Assange and WikiLeaks have consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks and accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria". needs to go: that appears only in one of the three sources, and it's Fox News, so is unreliable for content connected to the Clinton 2016 campaign. Guy (help!) 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Guy, even if that wording is removed, something about his denial should be included, as Mueller responded to it and showed it was a lie. Seth Rich had already been dead four days when the GRU transferred the files to Assange, so he knew it couldn't have been Rich who gave him those stolen emails, yet he persisted in trying to frame an innocent man. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, no, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't have to give the subject the last word, especially when it's WP:MANDY-level denials in the face of overwhelming evidence. Guy (help!) 08:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not giving him the last word. We are giving the facts the last word. Sadly, there are many people, even here on this page, who believe his denials and seek to turn this article into a hagiographic defense that ignores those facts. When RS debunk notable lies, we give RS the last word and silence those who would repeat those lies. -- Valjean (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The assertion of "neo-McCarthy hysteria" is his opinion and not a fact. The facts, in as much as they can be established at this point, are that the Kremlin stole emails from the DNC and Podesta, fed them to Assange through cutouts, and Assange, who hates Clinton, released them at a time that was damaging to her campaign. There are a very large number of reliabel sources that agree on this, and the main source of dissenting views is an unholy mix of Kremlin propaganda and far-right websites. The "neo-McCarthy hysteria" turns out to be robustly supported by evidence. Guy (help!) 15:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you are responding without addressing my point. We are totally agreed about the facts, and it may be that the "neo-McCarthy hysteria" wording is a bit much, but his denials are very notable (we don't have to quote them, but state it and provide a couple RS), as myriad very RS have addressed them, so we should mention that he denies his involvement and then give RS the last word by debunking his lies. Please read what I wrote above. We should not ignore the matter. The denial(s) and their debunking(s) should be covered in the body and briefly mentioned in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

this article is not neutral, but just a support for the USA's thesis of accuse

Julian Assange is worldwide known as - also - a journalist.

This appear also always on the wikimedia projects:

• commons:Category:Julian_Assange:

from the infobox: Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist

Deutsch: Julian Paul Assange (* 3. Juli 1971 in Townsville, Queensland, Australien) ist ein australischer politischer Aktivist, Journalist und ein Sprecher von WikiLeaks.

English: Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3rd of July 1971) is an Australian journalist, programmer and Internet activist, famous for being the Wikileaks editor and spokesman.

Español: Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3 de julio de 1971) es un periodista, programador y activista de Internet australiano, conocido por ser el portavoz y editor del sitio web WikiLeaks.

Français : Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3 juillet 1971) est un journaliste, programmeur et activiste Internet australien, connu pour être l'éditeur en chef et le porte-parole du site Internet Wikileaks.

Italiano: Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, 3 luglio 1971) è un giornalista, programmatore e attivista australiano con cittadinanza ecuadoriana, noto principalmente per la sua collaborazione al sito WikiLeaks, del quale è cofondatore e caporedattore.

• :

Julian Paul Assange [əˈsɑːnʒ] (* 3. Juli 1971 in Townsville, Queensland) ist ein ', australischer Politaktivist, ehemaliger Computerhacker, Programmierer und Gründer sowie Sprecher der Enthüllungsplattform WikiLeaks, welche es sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, geheimgehaltene Dokumente allgemein verfügbar zu machen.

Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3 de julio de 1971),1​ conocido como Julian Assange, es un programador, ' y activista de Internet australiano conocido por ser el fundador, editor y portavoz del sitio web WikiLeaks.

• fr:Julian_Assange

Julian Assange /ˈd͡ʒuːlɪən əˈsɑːnʒ/1, né le 3 juillet 1971 à Townsville, est un informaticien, journaliste et cybermilitant australien. Il est surtout connu en tant que fondateur, rédacteur en chef et porte-parole de WikiLeaks

• it:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, 3 luglio 1971) è un giornalista, programmatore e attivista australiano[1], cofondatore e caporedattore dell'organizzazione divulgativa WikiLeaks.

• el:Τζούλιαν_Ασάνζ

(infobox) Ιδιότητα: δημοσιογράφος, Ίντερνετ ακτιβιστής, Μάρτυρας δημοσίου συμφέροντος, χάκερ, προγραμματιστής, επιστήμονας, υπολογιστών, τηλεοπτικός παραγωγός, σκηνοθέτης, τηλεόρασης, παραγωγός ταινιών, συγγραφέας, business executive, παρουσιαστής

• sl:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (əˈsɑːndʒ), avstralsko-ekvadorski politični aktivist, raziskovalni novinar, bivši računalniški heker, programer in tiskovni predstavnik WikiLeaksa, * 3. julij 1971, Townsville, Queensland, Avstralija.

(infobox) Ocupació: ', ciberactivista, revelador, furoner, programador, informàtic, productor de televisió, director de televisió, productor de cinema, escriptor, executiu d'empresa i presentador

ジュリアン・ポール・アサンジ（Julian Paul Assange [əˈsɑːnʒ]、1971年月日 - ）は、オーストラリアの'、出版社、発行人、インターネット活動家。内部告発およ

朱利安·保羅·阿桑奇（英語：Julian Paul Assange，發音：/əˈsɑːnʒ/，1971年7月3日－），澳大利亞'，洩密網站維基解密的董事与发言人。

ג'וּלִיאַן אַסַאנְג' (באנגלית: Julian Assange; נולד ב-3 ביולי 1971) הוא ' ואקטיביסט אינטרנטי אוסטרלי, הידוע כמייסד, הדובר והעורך הראשי של אתר "ויקיליקס", המפרסם נתונים שנשלחו או הודלפו אל מערכת האתר בעילום שם.

جوليان أسانج (3 يوليو 1971، تاونسفيل، كوينزلاند) هو ' وناشط ومبرمج أسترالي، أسس موقع ويكيليكس ويرأس تحريره.

• da:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (født 3. juli 1971[1], Queensland, Australien) er en australsk journalist, redaktør og aktivist, der siden 2006 er bedst kendt som talsmand for WikiLeaks, som er en netbaseret whistleblower-organisation.

• no:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (født 3. juli 1971 i Townsville i Queensland i Australia[22]) er en australsk[23] journalist, dataprogrammerer, internettaktivist og hacker.

Джулиа́н Пол Асса́нж (англ. Julian Paul Assange [əˈsɑːnʒ]; род. 3 июля 1971, Таунсвилл, Австралия[5]) — австралийский ' и телеведущий, основатель WikiLeaks.

• fi:Julian_Assange

(infobox) Ammatti: Wikileaksin tiedottaja ja päätoimittaja

• pl:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (ur. 3 lipca 1971 w Townsville) – australijski aktywista internetowy, dziennikarz oraz programista

Julian Assange ([əˈsɑːnʒ]), född 3 juli 1971 i Townsville i Queensland,[1] är en australisk ', programmerare och nätaktivist, mest känd för sitt engagemang inom den internetbaserade visselblåsar-plattformen Wikileaks.

• pt:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange ( /əˈsɑːnʒ/; nascido Julian Paul Hawkins; 3 de julho de 1971) é um ativista australiano, programador de computador, jornalista e fundador do site WikiLeaks.

Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, 3 juli 1971) is een Australische ', programmeur (voormalige hacker) en internetactivist, bekend van de oprichting van WikiLeaks, een klokkenluiderwebsite.

• ...

..there is only 2 place where Assange is not described as a journalist: one is this article (this one in english language on en:Julian_Assange), and the other is the bank of lawyers asking for Assange's extradition to the USA.

This article in english language on en:Julian_Assange is not neutral; must be added, in the incipit, that Assange is a journalist.

Also: the incipit is very too long, but at the same time empty about facts of the life of Assange, which he was live and doing facts for a lot of years before 2010; incipit is very too long, and not neutral: why nothing about that UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded - on 2015 - that Assange had been subject to arbitrary detention by the UK and Swedish Governments since 7 December 2010, including his time in prison, on conditional bail and in the Ecuadorian embassy? (and that according to the group, Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation?)
This seems to be, at now, not an encyclopedic article about Julian Assange, but just a USA-propaganda paper that point to paint Assange not as the prized journalist that it is, but "some playboy and hacker that is right to put in USA prison".

--5.170.47.65 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has different (and higher) sourcing standards than other languages. We also have a much larger community of editors, so are less vulnerable to small cliques of a like POV. Guy (help!) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has a disproportionately high number of Americans among its community of editors, with the inevitable biases of that cohort. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, I am not American. Guy (help!) 08:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand you think yourself as the best in the world (but believe me: the long incipit of this article is a s***, and the whole structure is just a labyrinth), anyway, i don't think is just a fact of language:

Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian-Ecuadorian computer programmer, publisher and '.

--5.170.47.65 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Creationists say the same about our articles on evolutionary biology. Guy (help!) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

really? creationists say that the en.wikipedia article about evolutionary biology is not neutral, instead all the other article in the other languages in the world are neutral? If is it, for what i've see on this article, maybe they are right... --5.170.47.65 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We mention his relationship to the claims of being a journalist several times in the article. Please search the article for "journalist". We document that he is an honorary member of a journalist society and calls himself a journalist. We also document that others dispute his claims as his later work has little relation to journalism. I could be wrong, but I don't know that he has ever been employed as a journalist or been trained as one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You mention his journalism prize, that he calls himself a journalist, but in the same way as you mention he reject USA accuses; your choice has been "to state he is not a journalist", removing this from infobox and incipit.
No doubt he was not a full life/full time journalist, even not a common journalist, but what he done from 2006 to 2010, the reason why for be in prison at now, is *free* journalism. --5.170.46.255 (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We have had a RfC on this issue. The consensus was not to call him a journalist. Please stop arguing the same point over and over.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus? Take a look here above about what is the #Worldwide_consensus : he is also a journalist. --5.170.46.255 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. If you want to change the article, launch another RfC. But please don't, because you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Or please do because it will relieve the cabin fever of many Wikipedians....--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually would argue he is not, [[186]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help!) 09:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@user:JzG/Guy You're not neutral, you're fully against Assange, and the problem is that you lead the editing of this article with your not neutral opinions. --5.170.46.255 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, Guy was quoting Life of Brian by Monty Python. It was a joke. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification of the citation; but the way he do edits about this article, I think anyway is not neutral, not good. (see his recent above talk with Thucydides411) --5.170.46.255 (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that you think that. I think you may be mistaking my animosity towards agenda editors for animosity towards Assange. That's a common error among editors who are deeply committed to a specific POV in an article.

This article is dominated by hyper-partisan Assangites. My view is that things are a lot more nuanced. He did some good things, then he did some bad shit, and now he is as close to being a rogue actor as makes no odds. That also seems to be what RS have said down the years. But, as with any quasi-religious topic, True Believers perceive anything other than True Belief as blasphemy. Unfortunately for them, that's not how Wikipedia works. At least not English Wikipedia. Smaller projects are more vulnerable to cliques of agenda editors. Guy (help!) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven (and @everybody): How can you quote an article that is just an opinion of a single journalist ("Opinion - Julian Assange is no journalist: don't confuse his arrest with press freedom")?
Now I quote you something more relevant, and that show his *opinion* is wrong:

• www.smh.com.au/national/assange-to-become-meaa-member-20101223-195ri.html

(December 22, 2010)

MEAA secretary Louise Connor said "Julian Assange has been a member of the Media Alliance for several years. Clearly, with banking corporations freezing his accounts, his situation is quite extraordinary," she said in a statement. "We've drawn up a new union card for him and offer him the full support of his union and professional association." "WikiLeaks is simply performing the same function as media organisations have for centuries in facilitating the release of information in the public interest. Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists," she said in a statement.

Note: MEAA is the Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which incorporate Australian Journalists Association.

• www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-23/journalists-union-shows-support-for-assange/2383428

(23 Dec 2010)

The Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) will present an honorary member card to Mr Assange's Melbourne-based lawyer, Rob Stary. The union's Louise Connor says Mr Assange has always been a member, but his fees will be waived in a show of solidarity. (...) "We're pointing out that we don't believe that Julian Assange has in any way broken the code of ethics, we believe that he's upholding two of its important principles - not to disclose his source, and secondly, to publish in the public interest."

• www.meaa.org/news/new-assange-charges-pose-a-threat-to-press-freedom/

(June 4th, 2019)

MEAA has renewed calls for the Australian and United Kingdom governments to oppose moves to extradite WikiLeaks founder and publisher to the United States to face trial on 18 espionage charges. The charges “contain a real threat to press freedom for journalists and media outlets around the world,” MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy and Media section federal president Marcus Strom say in a letter to Foreign Minister Marise Payne.

--5.170.46.255 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You criticize a six word post by an editor for pointing to an opinion article, then claim you show this to be wrong by taking a large amount of space to express the opinion of one Australian group. O3000 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Want another [[187]]?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It was really no need to confirm that you can't understand difference beetwen opinions and facts.
Opinions is that for somebody Assange is not a journalist, the facts is that is a journalist, from years before 2010 (this is by 2010 Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance declarations, which incorporate Australian Journalists Association).
So goodbye, i can't add more if you can't understand what you read. --5.170.45.68 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that's a very good article, thanks for sharing. It states my view of Assange far better than I could. Guy (help!) 12:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Now it's really clear why this encyclopedia article on Assange is not very neutral: the administrators who condition his writing hate Assange because according to them he made Hilary Clinton lose and Donald Trump win. The fact that Trump now "repays" him by seeking his extradition obviously does not cause them any perplexity: a question too complex to enter their field of vision.
Personally I wonder if Assange, rather than Trump, is being persecuted by some sort of puritan-feminist lobby (see the fake allegations of rape from Sweden, the grudge of many pro-Hilary Clinton female activists, and a questionably excessive "success" as a lover by Assange), but fortunately I am not an admin in wikipedia, so I do not condition the writing of the articles in this sense.
--5.170.44.234 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's what the sources say happened, and I believe the sources. If you want to pretend that Russia did not hack the US election in 2016, and use Wikileaks as a conduit, via Kremlin cutouts communicating with Assange, then that's your prerogative, but don't expect Wikipedia to endorse that as a valid view given the available evidence. Not liking a fact doesn't make it any less of a fact. And bear in mind that this is absolutely neutral on Assange. He may not have known he was dealing with Kremlin cutouts, he may, for example, simply have been motivated by his obvious animus towards Hillary Clinton due to the proceedings against him in the US. Guy (help!) 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources echoing the somewhat contradictory results of an inquiry which may or may not have been botched? It's immaterial whether any of us actually believe what particular sources say, though I'd say that putting full faith in what the news media write about anything controversial, given their patchy track record, would be rather naive or gullible.     ←   ZScarpia   12:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, you have to be really determined not to see the obvious in order to characterise Mueller's findings like that. That's probably why reliable sources don't. There's no realistic informed dissent from the core facts around Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks, the DNC and Podesta hacks, the Kremlin's involvement, the use of Assange and WikiLeaks as a conduit, Assange's deep personal animosity Hillary Clinton, and the timing of WikiLeaks' releases to cause maximum political damage to Clinton. You can see these facts disputed are in far-right US media and Russian propaganda, but not in reliable sources - even those that consider the prosecution of Assange to be grossly illiberal and dangerous. Guy (help!) 13:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What is going on here? An opinion piece is clearly not an RS, and an admin should understand that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I am surprised it has been included and supported by highly experienced editors, it is very clearly labelled as *an opinion* piece and has absolute zero merit in this discussion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are both revealing your ignorance of policies. Opinions published in RS are allowed as content, and the RS we use for content need not be neutral. Rather, it is editors who must be neutral in their editing. They should faithfully include the biased content from the sources we use without getting in the way. We generally attribute opinions, and we use opinions as content all the time. I've been here since 2003 and that has been our policy all that time. So please stop complaining about opinions and non-neutral sources. We use both all the time, and editors who do not understand that should study policy and learn from those who are far more experienced. Guy is correct. -- Valjean (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting an opinion as an opinion is good; to report opinion as a fact is bad. --5.171.0.197 (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, and reporting facts as opinions is also bad. -- Valjean (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with calling Assange a journalist is that he doesn't fit the ordinary definition the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks of: "a person who writes news stories or articles for a newspaper or magazine or broadcasts them on radio or television." (Cambridge Dictionary)[188] The reason he and his supporters call him a journalist is that that is a class of people the U.S. Supreme Court has determined to be protected under the U.S. First Amendment, which protects freedom of the press. The sources that refuse to consider him a journalist do not believe he is protected. WP:V says, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." So I think we need wording that does that. TFD (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, we are talking about the topic of this thread
If you see below, there are also proposals to combine this article with the one on wikileaks; this would lead to reducing the already small amount of information on Assange's life (outside and before wikileaks), while if this section was enlarged (years ago it was larger), it would be seen that in the past of Assange there are many elements according to whether he is a journalist.
Having removed from the incipit that Assange was / is a journalist is obviously something biased, not at all neutral. --5.171.0.182 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We can just redirect Wikileaks to this article and merge missing content. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

RS for "Assange at new-media-days-09" picture

Assange at the "New Media Days 09" in Copenhagen, November 2009

Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg at the 26C3 in Berlin, December 2009

'cause New Media Days 2009 and also New Media Days event have no article on wiki, and there is no source about this in the article, keeping direct link in the picture description is necessary in order to have the same result of the Chaos 26C3 picture; otherwise is impossible to understand about what it is, what Assange do in that circumstance.

• newmediadays.dk
• pdfslide.net/documents/new-media-days-09program.html

From page 6 of the new-media-days-09program:

The central idea and motivation of New Media Days (...): For the next two days you will be guided through developments in new media, given insights into current trends, hopefully triggering creativity and provoking new lines of thought. You have a ticket to a dynamic, professional and accommodating forum where experience can be shared, ideas exchanged and interdisciplinary networks can be built. Use it and contribute!

From page 46 of the new-media-days-09program:

The Subtle Roar of Online Whistle-blowing

JULIAN ASSANGE
When governments and businesses can not handle the truth, Wikileaks helps you blow the whistle and takes the Heat.
Speaker: JULIAN ASSANGE (AU) Spokesperson & Advisory Board Member / WikiLeaks

An open platform for the anonymous publishing of compromising documents; according to Time Magazine, Wikileaks could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act. Honorable analogy for sure, but one earned at the expense of powerful players like Sarah Palin, Kaupthing Bank and lately, with the controversial book Jaeger, the Danish Ministry of Defense. Praised for its democratic devotion and threatened by the shadier powers that be, each day is a victory for Wikileaks.

JULIAN ASSANGE is a journalist, programmer and activist. He sits on the Advisory Board of Wikileaks and acts as their spokesperson. Famous for his teenage ventures into ethical computer hacking, Assange was later instrumental in introducing the Internet to Australia and co-founded Australia’s first free speech ISP. He has broken stories at most major venues and been a subject of several documentaries.

--5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That does not really explain what this adds to our understanding of the subject (assange).Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe i can't understend your question; what add the urls, or what add the picture? --5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume the pictures are being used to illustrate Assange doing things, what do the URls add?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The picture show not Assange on some road, or drinking a beer in a pub; is about Assange doing his job; this is the section about what Assange do in his first times, so the urls add what is doing in the picture, which is related to this section. --5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The urls point to what looks to me are self-promotional pages for New Media Days (apparently copied from German en). BTW, I suggest you self-rvt as per the note I added to your talk page. O3000 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain me? point to the german copy (?) you're talking about? it's no my will to do self promotion to anybody, but only to give a outlook about the picture full meaning. --5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we write about what he is doing if it is worth inclusion, we do not insert links into pictures instead.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not good enought to work about this; my will was and is only to add a good outlook about the picture, so i've put the url as RS on the picture description. Anyway, i can't understand why this topic as been put under spam box. For what i understand, the 2 url here quoted is not spam. --5.170.44.96 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need "a good outlook" for these pictures (not am I wholly sure what you mean by that)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

IN fact what are these pictures being use for exactly?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For deleting? I removed the link from the article, so maybe this can be closed again. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want, I doubt this is going anywhere.Slatersteven (talk)

Merge with Wikileaks ?

RS tell us Wikileaks is more or less Assange with smoke and mirrors, credible as a distinct entity only to Assange's promoters and the most credulous among us. We could defuse a lot of the denial on this page by merging the two articles? Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This might have merit. All of his activities that are related to WikiLeaks could be moved there, leaving a much shorter biography behind, with a short summary section which links to the WikiLeaks article. There is far too much content here about WikiLeaks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

maybe i'm wrong, but.. appear as Valjean are not noticed that he's claiming the opposite of what Specifico is proposing. (???)
By the way: i think is not good to joint the two article; Assange had life before wikileaks (and in this article what Assange have do before must be expanded). --5.171.0.197 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What has he claimed that is "opposite"? -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

as far as I understand, Specifico is asking to have only one article about Assange and Wikileaks (both together), while you are asking to keep two different articles, as it is now. These are two opposite things for me. --5.170.47.201 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I totally misunderstood you. Forget what I wrote. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are each obviously notable enough to have their own separate pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What else is he known for, then? Guy (help!) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We have an entire article about Julian Assange that you can look through, if you're interested. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

for being a nuisance for Guy and Specifico. --5.170.47.201 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This test is inspired by User:JzG's comment that Enterprisey's replylinks isn't working on this page on enwiki. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A total merge, with the elimination of this article, would of course not be allowed, but moving (likely) most of what's here would be good. We should avoid duplication. -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not appropriate? What was he notable for prior to Wikileaks? Another slacker hacker, a troubled childhood? His notability dates to his crimes. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why I suggested moving "most" of this article. It would leave a very small article here, but I think that would be justified. What is not justified is that so much of this article is related to WikiLeaks. We should just have a short section with a summary and a hatnote "main" link to WikiLeaks.

Assange=WikiLeaks:

"WikiLeaks is usually represented in public by Julian Assange, who has been described as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest".[49][50] Sarah Harrison, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Assange who are currently living."

Assange would still be named a whole lot there because RS do it that way. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

At the moment there are no dates on which he commits crimes, if you mean the events of 2010 and later, there are accusations; perhaps those could be put on the United States page, and removed from here. --5.170.47.201 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, he pleaded guilty but he did not commit crimes. Got it. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

For what i know, are the verdicts that define the criminals and the honests. I really don't know about someone judged criminal that don't go in prison just by saying "i'm innocent". --5.170.47.201 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges ..." -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, i think you mistake in understand what was the topic of this dialogue; Speficico refer to "crimes" the 2006/2010 and following facts, has he say nothing is relevant about Assange before this: "What was he notable for prior to Wikileaks? (...) His notability dates to his crimes. SPECIFICO".
So reply has been that 2010 and later wikileaks actions is not something that is neutral to call crimes, and so is wrong say that Assange do crimes on doing that. Is a question of neutral point of view, that is very missing in most admin that usualy rule the edit of this article. --5.171.0.182 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

His crimes date at least to the early 1990's, and possibly to the 1980's. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The right thing to do is to eliminate duplication. That can be done without any RfC or decision to merge. It's what we should have been doing all along, so everyone, just go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is that better than redirecting Wikileaks here and merging/trimming the content? SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Because a proper merge loses no information, and there is information here that does not belong in the WikiLeaks article. This article should remain, but much smaller, as explained. I shouldn't have to repeat myself to you. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I said we extinguish the Wikilinks article. "Wikilinks" is Assange Enterprises. It is not a distinct institution. The trims are a separate matter, not required for the merge. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• The majority of the content on this article should be merged with wikileaks leaving the biographical info. As the head of an organization wikipedia allows for BLP creation. Same rule applies for CEOs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have RS that describes Wikilinks as an organization? It's basically Assange and a few hangers on, sometimes paid, in most discussions I have seen. What's the basis for calling it an organization. Did it operate from its head office somewhere while Assange was hiding in the Ecuadoran Embassy? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Debating if wikileaks is or is not an organization is not suitable for this talk page. Maybe you could bring that up over at the wikileaks article. Sounds like POV pushing again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Debating?? I merely asked whether you can cite a source for your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLUDGEON apply to your comments in this section and on this talk page. I concur Jack Upland (talk · contribs) suggestion below for you to create a proper merge discussion with relevant template if you want to discuss merge. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No. That page has a different content to this one. No compelling reason for a merge has been given.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why is there so much duplication and use of content about WikiLeaks here? That content should be moved/merged to WikiLeaks. -- Valjean (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There is some overlap. But this page is a biography, and that page isn't. I support making this article more biographical in focus. And it seems premature to get rid of the WikiLeaks article at a time when Assange is largely incapable of taking part in WikiLeaks. If the organisation survives, it will definitely need a separate page. In any case, it would be better to have a proper merge discussion rather than this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks is still functioning. It published the OPCW documents between October and December 2019 and the Fishrot files in November 2019. It continues to tweet and make statements, usually through its editor-in-chief. It is likely to have quite a lot a work to do publishing documents that come out of the current crisis. Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a HUGE overlap. The truly biographic content here is very limited and there is no justification for so much duplication of content about WikiLeaks. I also agree that this is not a proper merge discussion, and it's not a good idea to get rid of either article. -- Valjean (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)