Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Journalist?

I decided to separate this issue out from the above. The Oxford Dictionary (Oxford Living Dictionaries) defines "journalist" as "A person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast".[1] This doesn't really fit Assange at all. His writing and broadcasting has been minimal. Merely because he has received prizes for "journalism" doesn't make him a journalist, as discussed above. There are plenty of people who don't believe he is a journalist.[2][3][4][5][6] They might be wrong, but Wikipedia should not endorse a contentious description of Assange in the opening sentence, nor should we use a description that is potentially misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Assange is still the editor of Wikileaks. Wikileaks'"About" page names Assange as "publisher". It is dated 2015, which isn't very helpful. The WikiLeaks Defence Fund says, "Julian was the editor of WikiLeaks until September 2018: six months of his effective incommunicado detention in the Ecuadorian embassy in London then prompted Julian to appoint Kristin Hrafnsson as WikiLeaks editor-in-chief. Julian remains WikiLeaks’ publisher." This page is also out of date. This article confirms the change. I also don't see any evidence he is currently described as the "director", though I accept this was probably true at some point.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiLeaks prepares newsworthy material for publication. That's the primary function of the organization. It's behind some of the highest-impact news stories of the last decade. There's a case to be made that as a journalistic organization, it's been behind more major stories than most newspapers. There are opinion pieces in which people who are politically opposed to Julian Assange attack him as not being a journalist, but that doesn't change the fact that he founded and served as the editor of what has arguably been one of the most successful journalistic organizations of the past decade, in terms of breaking major stories. I can see the way you're trying to reshape this article, by removing the description "journalist," calling Assange a criminal in the first sentence, and repeating "breaching bail" over and over again throughout the article. It strikes me as a very POV way to frame the article, as if this is being transformed from a biography into an attack article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I must agree with Thucydides' argument here. Love him or loathe him, Assange has delivered sensational journalism, repeatedly, consistently, over 10+ years, and he never had to retract any of the information he exposed. The whole world is mad at him because he dangerously denounced abuses of power, be it military, financial or political. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Absurd comment.[7] The organization that he runs (i.e. the only thing that purportedly makes him worthy of the journalist label) has frequently promoted hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[8] Assange himself played a key role in pushing the Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy (the Mueller report documents how he knowingly did so even though he knew Seth Rich was uninvolved). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"The whole world is mad at him because he dangerously denounced abuses of power, be it military, financial or political." When he's not leaking Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers, and details of suicide attempts, as well as outing teenage rape victims and homosexuals in anti-LGBT countries. Or when he encourages actors to cast doubt on the veracity of democratic elections (before they even take place) and lies about the Panama Papers which coincidentally happened to contain information that reflected poorly on Russian elites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't like his methods, fine. That's still journalism. — JFG ^talk 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

None of what I list there is "journalism". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

He's absolutely not a journalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I suggest you click the link to the WikiLeaks article and give it a read. I know a lot of people politically dislike Julian Assange, and express the same political hostility towards him that you're expressing here, but WikiLeaks does have quite a record of high-impact journalism, love them out hate them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

We've talked a bit about this word "journalist" over at WPO. At its base is "jour" (day). book of days scribe. I don't know how many days he was exiled in the embassy. We probably couldn't call him a churnalist or a troll, because that wouldn't be right: it would make wikileaks look unnecessarily troll-y (with their trolliful of docs). But as for traditional jobs... publisher, maybe? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps whistleblower editor of WikiLeaks would work better. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be against any politically motivated removal of the label "journalist." There is a big push among some American politicians to label Assange as something other than a journalist, despite the obvious journalistic work of WikiLeaks and Assange's journalism awards, but Wikipedia should not follow on this campaign. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:Balance we should describe both points of view and not take sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Just looked at Wikileaks for the first time, and I don’t see how the editor and publisher are any more journalists than the founders of The Pirate Bay are musicians. Am I missing something? Reminds me of the editor here who wrote an article about himself claiming he was a NYT journalist because he wrote a letter to the editor. O3000 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think WikiLeaks contributed to journalism, which is what I think the awards were about. However, no one so far has produced a source saying that Assange was a journalist. As discussed before, some people are making a false dichotomy between journalist and criminal. We shouldn't take part in this. Denying that he is a journalist does not mean asserting that he is guilty of anything. Equally, describing him as a journalist does not establish his innocence.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I don't understand your comment - maybe it was made in jest? Even a cursory glance over the Wikipedia page on WikiLeaks makes their journalistic work obvious. They've published documents relating to corruption in Kenya, American military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, American diplomacy, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Syrian government during the civil war, and much more. Julian Assange has won a number of journalism awards for his work at WikiLeaks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

They're publishing stolen works provided by anons. Kind of like torrent sites. Looks like they don't even remove social security numbers and other private info. RS publish info like this too -- with editorial control. I'm not here to debate their goodness or badness -- just doesn't sound like journalism to me. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your above political criticisms of WikiLeaks are noted, but not relevant here. Their journalistic activities - publishing leaked documents they consider in the public interest - are well known, regardless of various political objections to their activities. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is: publishing documents doesn't make him a journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Another problem is that, if you argue he is an journalist because of WikiLeaks, then it is redundant to say he is a journalist and founder of WikiLeaks. Perhaps we could say he is the "founder of the media organisation WikiLeaks". But "journalist and founder" implies two separate roles, perhaps suggesting that he was a journalist before he founded WikiLeaks.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thirdly, Thucydides has been citing the awards Assange has received as proof he is a journalist. However, as far as I can see, based on the citations given in this article, none of these awards explicitly named Assange as a journalist, except perhaps the Yoko Ono award. Though the award's webpage calls him a "journalist" (as well as the "principle" (sic) of WikiLeaks), the award itself is for artists. The Sydney Peace Medal recognised Assange’s "leadership, courage and tenacity in journalism and publishing, and pays tribute to his enduring conviction that truth matters and justice depends on it". And the Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan recognised "his oustanding efforts in investigative journalism". But that's as good as it gets. I'm also not sure that the awards are all for Assange. The Economist New Media Award cited Chinese dissidents and others. New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films Silver World Medal was for a Russian TV show. It's an impressive list, but I don't see that it proves that Assange is a journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: By listing the text of the awards that praise Assange for his journalistic work, you've actually made a pretty strong argument for calling him a "journalist." There's no point in quibbling about whether they said, "Assange is a journalist," or whether they recognized "his outstanding efforts in investigative journalism" (which is implicitly calling him a "journalist"). The "Russian TV show" that Assange won an award for was a show in which he interviewed political figures, and the award was in the "Politics" category. What do we normally call someone who interviews politicians on TV? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

While it's true that Assange never worked for the press aside from his own WikiLeaks, it's also true that he is notable for feats of investigative journalism within the WikiLeaks philosophy. That includes working closely with several respected newspapers to appropriately handle the disclosures. His interviews of political figures also count as journalism. I understand this was never his formal job, but did he ever have a formal job? Could we perhaps call him an "activist journalist"? — JFG ^talk 00:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I can find no record of him ever being a journalist, some awards noted in the article appear to be somewhat political in nature and a two finger salute to the USA, I could see him being described as a publisher in that he provided both a platform and financial rewards for notorious and sensational leaks to be published in full, with no preparation or input from him directly, indeed what he released was not vetted by him or anyone in his organisation and the impact of such not considered, I.e. The worst kind of publisher, done for his own ends only and damn the consequences. If you compare his case(s) to many of the historical "leaks" e.g. Watergate, the real journalists in that instance heard some rumours asked lots of questions, found some more sources and then published many articles, slowly applying pressure and got to the truth of the matter, JA verbatim essentially coppied and pasted any and all with no oversight or integrity, writing a few opinion pieces (also very poorly written and based on one leaked document I.e. Not balanced or impartial) does not make him a journalist. If anyone can provide any reputable sources, and provide any evidence that he was considered a journalist before any of these trash one paragraph opinion blogs where he summarised one leak here and there please add these to the article and I will accept, otherwise his description needs to be modified to "publisher, notorious blogger, attention seeker, unthinking ex-hacker who hides behind a lack of understanding about press freedom and norms" or similar. Thoughts 2404:4408:205A:4B00:4D43:12DF:80AE:4C08 (talk) — 2404:4408:205A:4B00:4D43:12DF:80AE:4C08 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No comments, all good. I think the consensus above is remove journalist as highly misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:205a:4b00:7d03:41d9:3a4f:b1c3 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC) — 2404:4408:205a:4b00:7d03:41d9:3a4f:b1c3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There's no consensus above for removing the label "journalist." Your above comment is simply a (factually inaccurate) political diatribe attacking Julian Assange, which probably violates WP:BLPTALK. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 while I am not arguing his impact and notability, I am arguing 1. He is not a journalist by any measure and there is not any corroboration of this activity apart from his blogs on Wikileaks itself and 2. There appears to be consensus above and it needs to be formalised. Your views are clear and appears to be in the minority. I also agree the post, now three above, uses some terminology that is potentially contentious however sources can be found that would be reliable and back each of those up, as this is his methodology and consequently he has made some fractious relationships within the industry that also contends he is outside the norms and not doing real journalism any favours and in fact harming and negating some of their traditional protections. "Political diatribe" is a bull shit accusation, I have no affiliations or dog in this fight.2404:4408:205A:4B00:FC69:D710:40AE:802E (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC) — 2404:4408:205A:4B00:FC69:D710:40AE:802E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are journalists who attack Assange, and journalists who support him. He's a divisive figure. He's also someone who has won multiple awards for journalism, whose work with WikiLeaks was obviously journalistic, and who had a show in which he interviewed political figures (again, something that is typically called "journalism"). Most of the objections you made above, in your first post, were of a political nature, attacking him as being opinionated, saying his work lacked integrity, and so on. Those political judgments of Assange's work are irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is a journalist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally believe he lacks integrity and did not use any judgement in what and when he published any and all of the leaks, as most journalists would, however this is beside the point, a consensus needs to be reached, personal views and defending his actions or his career terminology, needs to put aside and a site consensus needs to be reached and adhered too. End of. 121.99.108.78 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As this has been discussed on these talk pages since 2010, I have decided to launch a RfC — see below. Please add your best arguments there and perhaps we can get a decision.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are divided...

I have removed this:

Opinions are divided on the question of the arrest of Assange because the United Kingdom, a member of the Council of Europe, is committed to respecting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides the right to freedom of expression and information. This is why several magistrates, politicians and associations consider that the arrest of the whistleblower constitutes an attack on freedom of expression and international law. In effect, a United Kingdom tribunal recognised WikiLeaks as a media organisation.

Practically none of this is in the source. The source does not mention Article 10 or magistrates. It does not call Assange a whistleblower. It does say: "Assange has long said WikiLeaks is a journalistic endeavor protected by freedom of the press laws. In 2017, a U.K. tribunal recognized WikiLeaks as a 'media organization'." But this is Assange's opinion. This text also perpetuates the confusion between Assange's arrest for breaching bail and the US indictment. (As I said before, I've seen no evidence so far that Assange was arrested for extradition to the US.)--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No evidence, other than the fact that Assange is currently facing extradition proceedings, for an indictment that was revealed immediately after his arrest? -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Assange was arrested for skipping bail and then the US indictment was unsealed. The text I removed is misleading. It would be better to say "extradition" in this context, rather than arrest. The arrest on the face of it was about bail, so it isn't a free speech issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

This is Assange's opinion ? Really ? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/14/wikileaks-called-media-organization-uk-tribunal-po/ --Rebecca Jones

I was referring to the Reuters article which quotes Assange: "Assange has long said WikiLeaks is a journalistic endeavor protected by freedom of the press laws". That is Assange's opinion, quite obviously. I wasn't questioning the fact that a tribunal made a ruling that Wikileaks was a media organisation. But that does not necessarily mean that Wikileaks is "protected" by the right to freedom of speech. That didn't help News of the World. I don't see anything in that Washington Times article that gives additional support to the text I have removed. The only thing that is supported is the tribunal ruling. We don't have a source at the moment that draws a connection between Article 10 etc and the ruling. The text is just a synthesis of mainly unsourced statements. I'm not saying there aren't facts in there, but we need some citations.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is very clear about the right to freedom of expression and information. Julian Assange is in United Kingdom who is committed to respecting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He is not in United States. Therefore, Wikileaks is not "protected" by the right to freedom of speech but by this Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Because Wikileaks was recognised as a media organisation by a UK tribunal. It is not an opinion but a fact. https://www.humanite.fr/la-convention-europeenne-des-droits-de-lhomme-peut-elle-empecher-lextradition-de-julian-assange-vers --Rebecca Jones

It is not fact that his actions are protected. You do not have consensus for the text that you have edit-warred into the article, which now includes a cite from RT, a Russian government propaganda outlet. Please remove and gain consensus for the text. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed. Geogene (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this removal for the reasons stated by Jack and others. The ECHR has nothing to do with hacking or bail-jumping charges, so this is inapt in any case. Neutrality^talk 18:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's also unclear whether this text is about a possible legal defence or a political argument. Assange doesn't seem particularly "protected" at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Rebecca Jones has returned from her edit-warring block and is at it again adding text along the same lines without consensus and with additional text pushing a POV including an WP:NPOV heading and odd edit summaries. Some of this text might be usable with some balance. But, this is going to require consensus. O3000 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Known for revealing war crimes, human rights abuses, and corruption ?

I have just removed from the opening para the sentence "Wikileaks is an international organisation known for revealing war crimes, human rights abuses, and corruption." What follows this sentence is a list of the most notable early leaks, including the Manning ones which now 'opens' the description of what WL is.

The reasons for removing are several, firstly, I think it is clearer to "get to the meat" of the notable leaks, rather than to try to characterise what the leaks reveal. More specifically, I question what terms like 'war crimes' mean. Is this a reference to incidents like the Collateral Murder incident? Whatever any of us feels about that incident (personally I was deeply shocked by the video), it has not been established to have been a war crime. Nor is there anywhere in the article any mention of any war crimes which WL have revealed. Pretty much the same logic applies to corruption, if not to human rights abuses. An ancillary argument can also be made that WL is now equally known for its involvement in the Clinton/Democratic party leaks as the 'War on terror' ones. For all these reasons, and given that this is the Assange page, not the WL page, I think it is better to list and contextualise the notable leaks, not attempt to characterise them.

Given the contentious nature of the subject I am posting my reasons here. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I support the removal. Just another example of the problems with the article. It's a very positive description of WikiLeaks, it doesn't reflect the body of the article, and it's out of date. It's even questionable to call WikiLeaks an "international organisation". We've been told it only had five full-time volunteers. I don't know about now. If I marry a foreigner, can I say I'm the second in command of an international organisation? I recently removed text from the same paragraph about Assange's philosophy, which also seemed promotional and out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would you not emphasize the Manning leaks when they're the ones he's facing his major indictment for? And there is no question that Collateral Murder is an *alleged* war crime. Add that clarification and it's perfectly accurate.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The Manning leaks are currently mentioned in the first paragraph. I don't think we need to editorialise about them. The US indictments should be kept in perspective. We don't know what's going to happen. He may never be extradited to the USA. The other problem here is the idea that the introduction should be chronological (as discussed previously). It is OK for the later paragraphs to be chronological, but the opening paragraph (and especially the opening sentence) should deal with the entirety of what makes Assange notable. The opening sentence of the Trump article says he is President of the US. Then it says: "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality". And this is generally how articles are written. It is wrong to say the opening sentence should be about the early stuff.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The edit I made, 'gets to the meat' of the Manning, and other early leaks more immediately. What it was intended to avoid was "editorialising" about the nature of those leaks, prior to naming them. There is a full account on the 'Collateral Murder' article about who has alleged the incidents to be crimes, which I think is a better place than the opening para of this article. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This will need correcting at some point. As the NYT said in 2011, Wikileaks was prominent by 2008, in part because it had been defended by a consortium of journalistic institutions against a legal challenge by a Swiss bank.[9] If you have rewording suggestions for your modification, I'll check back here before updating.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a full account on the 'Collateral Murder' article about who has alleged the incidents to be crimes, which I think is a better place than the opening para of this article. Yes and there's no reason we can't simply insert the word "alleged" here as well, given that the "who" includes UN officers and renowned international lawyers. It isn't mutually exclusive.GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually there is, and you have been given numerous reasons.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

...you have been given numerous reasons. Yes, and no good ones. Summarizing why things are notable is not the same as "editorializing". If there were no evidence of war crimes, corruption, and abuse, the leaks wouldn't be notable enough for a 10,000+ word article on their publisher. Government secrets are leaked everyday with far less controversy, but are allowed to slide because they're not incriminating. Often they are leaked by top officials themselves when the information advances their agenda. The allegations of government wrongdoing connected to the leaks are central to Assange's notability.GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Text copied to page for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

I have copied the following text from the Julian Assange page to the page for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority.

"In May 2019 Swedish Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Eva-Marie Persson applied to have Assange detained as a prelude to the issue of a European arrest warrant and extradition to Sweden. The Uppsala District Court denied the request stating that the investigation did not require Assange's presence in Sweden. Persson said she intended issuing a European Investigation Order to interview Assange instead." Burrobert (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Please note the copy edit I made to that text in this article. Phrases such as "to the issue of a European arrest warrant" and "to interview Assange instead", as well as the slightly less awkward "she intended issuing" are not, to my mind, good English, with the middle phrase being possibly confusing (interviewing Assange rather than someone else?). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have moved this under "Extradition hearings". We should keep this article roughly chronological.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Walkley Award for Most outstanding contribution to journalism

I recently added the following text to the article. It was removed with a reason that it was about Wikileaks, not Assange.

"In 2011 the Walkley Foundation awarded Wikileaks the Walkley Award for "Most outstanding contribution to journalism".. It commended WikiLeaks and Assange for their "brave, determined and independent stand for freedom of speech and transparency that has empowered people all over the world"".

I explained in my edit that the citation mentioned Assange and that because the award was given to Wikileaks it was relevant in the Wikileaks section.

The Assange page currently contains many other statements that are about Wikileaks, not Assange. Here are a few:

"After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and asked allied nations for assistance".

"During the 2016 U.S. Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted emails sent or received by candidate Hillary Clinton from her private email server when she was Secretary of State. 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".

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

Much of the WikiLeaks section.

"On 22 July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seemingly presenting ways to undercut Bernie Sanders and showing apparent favouritism towards Clinton, leading to the resignation of party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz".

"According to Harvard political scientist Matthew Baum and College of the Canyons political scientist Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks strategically released emails related to the Clinton campaign whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls".

What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I think it is worthy of inclusion here.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Past discussion: Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 15#Walkley Awards - False and misleading information (not very long) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As Burrobert points out, the Walkley Award directly named Julian Assange, and he is the founder and long-time editor of WikiLeaks. If the argument is going to be made that WikiLeaks-related material that does not directly concern Assange should be removed from the article, then there is a lot of material that should go before an award that directly names Assange. For example, why are the GRU intelligence officers discussed in the lede, of all places? The connection of Mueller's indictments to WikiLeaks, let alone Assange, is tenuous, yet they're described in the lede in quite a bit of detail, while an award that directly names Assange is somehow not worthy of inclusion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Embassy surveillance.

The following article about surveillance carried out on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy supplements or is an improvemnet on those previously cited:

El País - José María Irujo - Spanish security company spied on Julian Assange’s meetings with lawyers, 09 July 2019.

A previous talpage conversation about surveillance in the embassy: "Lede: WikiLeaks's claim that Assange was spied on".

    ←   ZScarpia   14:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality in the Introduction

After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and asked allied nations for assistance.[new para] In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, after questioning him months earlier about allegations of sexual assault.

The wording suggests that Sweden allegations were in response to the USA's request for assistance. This might be a theory, but it is a pretty outlandish one.

Assange denied the allegations, and said that they were just a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents.

This reinforces the conspiracy theory.

In August 2012, Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador due to fears of political persecution and possible extradition to the United States.

This implies that he was actually being persecuted. There is nothing in the introduction which says that the granting of asylum was criticised.

On 23 May 2019, the United States government further charged Assange with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Executive editors from top newspapers including The Washington Post and The New York Times criticized the government's decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act.

But what about all the people that supported the decision? If anywhere this belongs in the body, not in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"But what about all the people that supported the decision?" All the people who are the same caliber as the Times and Post editorial pages?? GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that information adverse to Assange is countered by a pro-Assange statement, but not the other way round.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the way that part of the introduction is worded. The order of the statements is determined by chronology. If there are significant events that fit between the events you mentioned then they can be added but otherwise I don't see that we can do anything about that. Ecuador's reason for its grant of asylum is significant and needs to be mentioned. Regarding the Espionage Act, the body is short of detail on the reactions to Assange's charging under the Espionage Act so the reactions mentioned in the lead could be also added to the body as you suggested. Given the reactions we have listed are significant it seems reasonable to leave them in the lead as well. Currently the body does not include any reactions supporting Assange's charging under the Espionage Act. Burrobert (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, we could remove "and asked allied nations for assistance". In a neutral sense, that's not particularly relevant. Generally speaking, the problem in the introduction is replicated in the body. There is voluminous space given to his supporters, from Pamela Anderson to the yellow-vests. Adverse events are undercut. Assange is sentenced to 50 weeks jail. A UN body says it's too harsh. On and on and on. That's not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede is too long. Needs quite a bit to be cut. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the clause about asking allied nations for help as it does not appear in the article (or at least the version of the article that was still online at the Boston Globe). Burrobert (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good point. It's not in the body of the article either. It wasn't in the source originally cited — an AP story published by the Guardian. It was inserted on 14 November 2016 by an editor accused of edit-warring and conflicts of interest. At least we've got rid of it after three years.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If the sequence of events, with the United States government asking for assistance and Sweden issuing an arrest warrant, makes it seem like Sweden was acting at the behest of the US government, Wikipedia can't do anything to change that. That's the sequence of events. You can draw whatever conclusions you'd like from it.

"This reinforces the conspiracy theory." What are you suggesting? We can't remove Assange's statement, simply because you don't think it's true. That was his reaction. It's notable.

"This implies that he was actually being persecuted." Again, what are you suggesting? The lede correctly states Ecuador's reason for granting asylum to Assange. We can't remove that statement, simply because you think the Ecuadorian government's premises were false.

"But what about all the people that supported the decision?" Concretely, which people are you talking about? If you want to mention other viewpoints, please draft some text for consideration. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue with the Swedish conspiracy has been solved. I don't think it is desirable for the introduction — or the rest of the article — to be a series of points and counterpoints. The introduction should stick to the undisputed facts. Even if they are notable, comments by various people do not belong in the introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the "Swedish conspiracy." Assange's statement about Sweden's investigation is notable. I would oppose its removal from the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed this [10] which has excessive focus on wikileaks. This article is about assange, not wikileaks. Certainly they are hard to totally disconnect, but the lede is not the place to explore this connection. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Afghan and Iraq war logs, Diplomatic cables, etc. vs Clinton emails

The body of the article currently has five sections dedicated to the publication of the Clinton emails and their aftermath, but only one (although lengthy) section dedicated early leaks, to the Afghan and Iraq war logs, the Diplomatic cables, to the vault 7 leaks, and so forth.

Similarly, the lead dedicates only two sentences to the majority of Wikileak's work, and then four sentences to the Clinton emails.

I really think we should rectify this problem and will try to make some structural adjustments to start, followed by some content changes if possible. -Darouet (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I've pointed out before that the lede goes into unnecessary detail about the Clinton and DNC emails. For example,

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

The fact that 12 supposed Russian intelligence officers have been indicted is not important enough to make it into the lede. The lede summarizes the most important points about Assange's biography in a few paragraphs. Is knowing that Mueller indicted 12 Russians, as opposed to 11 or 13, really one of those most-important points? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I agree with you there. Reading over the article, it's also clear that the DNC / Clinton publications were just one incident in a long chain of other major publication events, some of them far more portentous. Their importance is indicated recently by the fact that US charges against Assange focus on those earlier and major leaks. I have some ideas about how to address this in the article body (and lead) and will make some suggestions / edits in the coming week or two. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've condensed the description of the Clinton emails in the lede. The description is still long for the lede: three sentences, versus no more than a few words for any of the other leaks, such as the State Department Cables or the Iraq War Logs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. With respect to the U.S. Intelligence Community and Special Counsel findings I disagree with the replacement of the words "concluded" with "stated" and "alleged" as this underplays (per the cited sources) that these were the formal, official conclusions of both bodies. I also disagree with excluding the mention of the indictments of the 12 GRU and other Russian intelligence officers — that is a key portion of the story. If there are ways we can tighten the lead, I'm fine with that, but not at the expense of omitting key facts. It's especially inappropriate to do so when the lead section already accords substantial space to Assange's own views/claims. Neutrality^talk 03:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As a follow-up (and as a suggested compromise), I have condensed some material in the lead (specifically material in the passage Thucydides411 quotes above) in order to reduce verbiage while retaining key content. Neutrality^talk 03:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Stated" is more accurate, since we don't actually have access to anything but the public statements of the intelligence community. It is often the case that public statements by intelligence agencies differ significantly from the conclusions those agencies reach internally: see Iraqi WMD.

The allegations against supposed GRU officers are just that - allegations made by a prosecutor. It would be wrong for Wikipedia to treat a prosecutor's indictment as anything other than an allegation.

The fact that 12 supposed Russian intelligence officers were charged is extremely tangential to Julian Assange's biography. It has no business being in the lede, and probably doesn't even belong in the body. It's relevant in the "Russian interference" article, but it's way too much detail here. Why does it matter that 12, instead of, say, 14 Russians were indicted? You catch my drift: this is an entirely irrelevant detail.

In fact, the entire Clinton/DNC email scandal shouldn't get substantially more coverage in this article than any of WikiLeaks' other major publications, including the diplomatic cables, Iraq War Logs or Afghan War Diary. There's an undue focus on Russiagate in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the text "treats the indictment as anything other than an allegation." To your other point, the theft of the Clinton/DNC emails was by far the most consequential item published by WL. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about assange, not about wikileaks. Wikileaks has its own article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You objected to the word "alleged," which is the appropriate term for what a prosecutor does. "[T]he theft of the Clinton/DNC emails was by far the most consequential item published by WL": that's arguable. The diplomatic cables are arguably the most important publication of WikiLeaks, given the wide-ranging global political consequences they caused, and intense global coverage they received. They've been the basis of reporting on numerous subjects worldwide in the following years. They receive two words in the lede. Is the fact that 12 - as opposed to 11 or 13 - Russians were indicted by Mueller more important than the release of a quarter million US diplomatic cables? The answer is obvious. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The word “indictment” (as used in the original text) already means a formal allegation, so that wording change added nothing but verbiage. In terms of the relative importance of incidents — all should be covered to some degree, but the bottom line is that the Russian hack was very important. Neutrality^talk 15:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede length

The WP:LEDE is excessive and seems to be growing. Some of this needs to get snipped. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is OK at the moment, but would be easy to trim. There is a lot of excessive detail which is unnecessary as it duplicates material in the rest of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

it appears to violate lede length guidelines. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How specifically?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

DNC "Timeline"

While I find some of the information interesting, this topic is already extraordinarily bloated in an article that has a lot of other material to cover (including Assange's life, all the other leaks besides those related to the 2016 election, and the current extradition and espionage cases). I've moved the material here [11] — fitting since that article actually covers how this episode has been treated in a court of law — in case anyone wants to edit. I didn't want to simply delete since User:My very best wishes presumably took some time to compile the information. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• That timeline includes only events which specifically involve Assange (and I only started making this timeline). This is NOT a timeline of Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation. Such timeline could be created, but it would include a lot more than Assange. One could create a separate sub-page with timeline for Assange and link it here, but it wound not stand as a separate page. If you totally disagree with including such timeline and no one else comments or gets involved, I might start an RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Why, on a BLP about Julian Assange, is a Timeline about him and the 2016 election needed, in addition two five extra narrative article subsections: "(1) 2016 US presidential election — (2) Criticism of Clinton and Trump — (3) Seth Rich conspiracy theory — (4) Democratic National Committee leaks — (5) DNC lawsuit" ?

Do you believe the article should also include any of these additional timelines that could, similarly, be created?

• Timeline of Julian Assange publication of the Afghan and Iraq War Logs
• Timeline of Julian Assange publication of CableGate
• Timeline of Julian Assange publication of CIA Files
• Timeline of Julian Assange sexual assault allegations
• Timeline of Julian Assange asylum within the Ecuadorian embassy
• Etc

Using the approach you're advocating, random timelines about any aspect of Assange's life could be added to random parts of this article. For instance, thousands of reliable sources could be found to create at least four of those five hypothetical timelines I mentioned above. -Darouet (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it would be a good idea to create a single "Assange biography timeline" for everything, but we should start from something. If certain items need to be removed, then fine, I also do not mind. Bu why remove everything? I also agree with Jack Upland (see below) that the page became confusing after your last changes. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this was excessively long. However, as a result of recent changes, the article is moving out of chronological order again. Assange's involvement occurred when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The way it's presented could be confusing. Also, we now have a section called "Political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" followed by one called "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI the recently-inserted timeline is a reaction to a proposed re-organization of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections into a threaded timeline at Draft:Threaded timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Draft of threaded timeline. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I simply think some political controversies (such as ones involving Assange) are very complex and difficult to understand for a casual reader without providing such timelines. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, Jack Upland, and JFG: I have now renamed "Asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy" to "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy," since at this point in the text Assange has already been granted Asylum. I also think that the section could be renamed "Conflict with the Moreno administration," since the section documents increasing conflict between Assange and the Moreno administration and embassy staff during this period.

The whole article isn't perfectly chronological, but with the changes I've made, all major leak publications are now placed under the "Wikileaks" heading, and are chronological within that. Previously, the election publications were the only major leaks that fell outside of it.

JFG, I do see that discussion and will think about making some comments over there — I don't know what the best option is for arranging these various timelines — but per my comments above, such a timeline here is totally WP:UNDUE and skews the article down a path that has, already, significantly distorted this biography. MVBW, Assange's whole life is one long and complicated political controversy, and this timeline, here in this article, distorts rather than clarifies. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the information is best presented in prose form in this biography. Looking forward to your comments on the draft threaded timeline in general. — JFG ^talk 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Prose and timeline(s) are not mutually exclusive. And no, the timelines generally clarify things because they list factual events that are more difficult to distort than by writing something in prose. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the full timeline of events related to Russian interference on a single page, and once the threaded version is published, make a link from individual articles to that central timeline. That gives readers access to the fully detailed information without overloading individual articles. And it remains a central place to maintain. — JFG ^talk 18:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This option would preserve the work done to create the timeline somewhere on Wikipedia while not unbalancing the Assange biography. -Darouet (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet. That sound reasonable. @JFG. No one agreed on talk so far to replace the page by your draft. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"No one agreed" to something I haven't asked. The threaded version of the timeline is almost complete, and I asked for feedback. — JFG ^talk 07:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)