Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Indictment in the United States

This section continually refers to his "arrest" as if he was arrested on the basis of the US indictment. In fact, he was ostensibly arrested for breaching bail and sentenced for that crime. It's true that some sources use the term "arrest", but, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be clear about this. The US indictment and the bail violation are separate issues, and the text should make that clear. I will make the changes unless someone objects.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The text as it stands seems clear enough to me. I don’t think we need to spell out the difference any further. Regarding your recent removal of text, which discussion in May were you referring to? Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes the text you removed does use the term “arrest” when it should be using “US indictment”. Are you also aware of other places on the Assange page where a similar mistake is made. If so, there is no problem in correcting the text. Regarding the text you removed, I have looked at the sources and they seem to support something like “Some jurists and the organisations ACLU and EFF consider Assange’s indictment by the US to be an attack on the first amendment and freedom of the press”. The last sentence about a UK tribunal recognising Wikileaks as a media organisation does not seem to fit anywhere on the page but would be relevant if we created a section discussing Assange’s status as a journalist. Burrobert (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed cleanout

I propose to remove a lot of wikileaks content so we can focus on the biographical parts. I did this proposed edit [1] and self reverted. Seeking comments (the edit was crude, it might have also snipped something that should stay). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is hard to separate Assange and Wikileaks. If I was going to trim the article, I would get rid of a lot of the commentary. But I'm not sure if the article is oversized.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversial journalist

@Neutrality: you reverted Rebecca jones edit [2] to put Assange as a journalist in wikivoice. The close of Talk:Julian_Assange#Request_for_Comment_-_Journalist stated that there were multiple sources that refer to Assange as a journalist and that it was controversial. I suppose Assange has won some awards but I didnt see sources that state he is a journalist in the RfC. Are there sources that support this? If yes, the lede should probably state something along the lines that Assange is also controversially referred to as a journalist as well. Certainly if there are sources for this for WP:NPOV we would need to address it. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The article already makes clear that he considers himself a journalist and that some others do as well. So I don’t think we really need to do anything further on that point. Neutrality^talk 03:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have spent more than enough time discussing this.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I went through the article quickly and didn't see that. When I google it, it looks like he has won at least half a dozen journalist awards. Note that whether he considers himself a journalist is not the point and I dont think wikipedia places much weight on what the article subjects think of themselves. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain any statements of the form "X considers Assange to be a journalist". It does contain sentences which may possibly imply that various people or organisations consider Assange a journalist. I counted four as follows:

"The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said that the lawsuit "raises several important press freedom questions" ...".

"The deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Robert Mahoney, said "With this prosecution of Julian Assange, the US government could set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information ...".

"Ben Wizner from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) speculated that if authorities were to prosecute Assange "for violating US secrecy laws [it] would set an especially dangerous precedent for US journalists, ...".

"The French union of journalists, Syndicat national des journalistes (CGT) [fr], said that "the dissemination of documents or information of public interest" could not be considered a legal offense". Burrobert (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In this interview, Assange says, "I started one of the first ISPs in Australia, known as Suburbia, in 1993. Since that time, I've been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist." That's not a ringing endorsement for the proposition that Assange calls himself a journalist. We list the awards that he has won. We include many, many comments by his supporters. I agree with Neutrality's remark that we don't need to do anything further about this. I don't think there's a major controversy about whether he is a journalist (apart from the one at this page). As previously discussed, some people think that journalists get special legal protections. This is wrong, and I don't think we should get involved in a discussion based on a false premise. The only valid question is whether "journalist" is the best term to describe Assange. We have had a RfC, and decided no. The fact that some other people call him a journalist isn't particularly noteworthy. As that interview shows, some people call him a hacker. I don't think we need to bother with this unless there is a major controversy about whether he is a journalist or not, or if it becomes decisive in a court case etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: In the RfC above, I presented over 20 reliable sources that directly call Julian Assange a "journalist" (see the reference list in the RfC). Nobody could find any reliable source saying that he isn't a journalist. In any normal case, that would be much more than sufficient to establish a fact in WikiVoice. But this isn't a normal case. The topic of Julian Assange is highly political, particularly after the 2016 US Presidential Election, in which many hold Assange responsible for Trump's victory. The argument made against calling Julian Assange a "journalist" was that there are reliable sources that do not call him a "journalist" (they also don't say he isn't one), so this lack of any statement one way or another in some reliable sources should overrule the explicit statements in other reliable sources. It's not a normal argument, but Julian Assange isn't a normal article. It's gotten caught up in the broad sweep of Russiagate, like many articles on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this issue has been well and truly aired. I initiated the RfC after realising the issue had been debated for years without conclusion. I didn't have Russia on my mind. Many people took part in the RfC. There is nothing abnormal about the conclusion. All it means is that Wikipedia is one of the many sources that doesn't call him a journalist. In no way does that mean that Wikipedia doesn't document his activities.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, there is no policy to prevent discussion. Thucydides411 are there sources that state that calling Assange a journalist is controversial? Or is it simply controversial on these talk pages? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: There are opinion pieces that say he's not a journalist or which say that the designation is controversial, but no reliable sources. At least, none have been presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: What's abnormal is that 20 reliable sources were not deemed sufficient to document a fact, especially given that zero reliable sources were presented that dispute that fact. That does not normally happen on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Various news sources such as CNN, Spiegel, BBC, The Guardian, etc refer to assange as a journalist although he primarily referred to as a whistelblower."

• "Australian journalist Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, an online nonprofit that publishes news leaks and classified information from anonymous sources" -The Guardian ("profile: Julian Assange")

• "Award-winning Australian journalist Julian Assange, who infamously hacked into US state defence, US Navy and NASA pages, founded news leaks website WikiLeaks in 2006."

• Assange, an Australian journalist depicted in media reports as a former computer hacker, described WikiLeaks in a January interview as run by five or so full-time people supported by hundreds of volunteers.

• He also claimed that the Australian journalist had treated embassy staff in a "very bad" way - and that he even installed cameras to spy on them and broke into his phone..

• The government in Quito has been providing Assange with political asylum since August 2012, but the relationship has recently soured and the Ecuadorian president would now like to see the Australian journalist leave the embassy sooner rather than later.

• The Australian journalist has been holed up in the embassy since 2012 to escape deportation to Sweden for questioning over rape allegations.

Something like that should be fine (of course doing as citations, not as a list of quotes). Thucydides411 could you please add the urls to these citations? This subject seems highly politicized and thus the urls are certainly needed for others to verify. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent mainstream RS discussion of Assange does not call him a journalist. So neither can Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion is becoming pointless. (I think it is also against policy, if that matters.)--Jack Upland (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There are about 20 recent, mainstream reliable sources listed in the above RfC that explicitly call Assange a "journalist." Wikipedia very well can call him a "journalist" - the source basis documenting the fact that he is a "journalist" is excellent. You can make an argument that these recent, mainstream RS should be ignored, but you can't argue that they don't exist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU refers to respecting consensus. The consensus was determined by the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus to exclude this from the article, only that it shouldn't be in the first sentence of the lede if I recall the RfC close correctly. Both Jack and Thucydides are bludgeoning this issue. @Thucydides411: please add the urls to the citations that you have listed so we can check those and look at adding the content. Thanks!

There are two different issues here:

• An attempt to rerun the RfC. That is, as I said, pointless.
• An apparent proposal to include something like the following sentence: "Various news sources such as CNN, Spiegel, BBC, The Guardian, etc refer to Assange as a journalist although he primarily referred to as a whistleblower". Firstly, this is inaccurate. It is clearly not a general rule:[3][4][5][6]. All you can conclude is that some news sources have sometimes called him a journalist. Secondly, we have no source which says he is primarily referred to as a whistleblower. Thirdly, this is inconsequential. He has been called many things. I don't object to sentences such as "Pamela Anderson called him the best journalist in the world" or "Amnesty International says that journalists are allowed to rape women" (if those statements are true). But simply noting that someone somewhere sometime called him a journalist seems pointless. Both Thucydides and I have agree that we have found no major controversy about whether he is a journalist (apart from here). So why address the issue? Fourthly, where would it be inserted into the article? If it was put into the lead, I think that would be subverting the RfC. But I can't think of where else to put it. It's also redundant. If we've decided to call him an "editor, publisher, and activist", why bother saying that some people have called him a journalist? It's not extra information; it's just a different way of describing the same facts.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not an RfC, it is a talk page discussion. Thank you for providing the sources. Indeed if the controversy only exists on this talk page, it should not say the title is controversial. It seems the article's subject is simply referred to this journalist title at times (apparently less than he is referred to as a whistleblower). This sounds similar to an WP:ALTNAME to me, is there such a thing as an ALTDESC? Maybe someone can comment on WP:MOS for this issue? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added this [7]. From my understanding this complies with Bradv's closure of the RfC. Brad, any comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the RfC established consensus not to describe Assange as a journalist in Wikipedia's voice. Strictly speaking, this edit complies with the result of the RfC, but I'm still not sure it belongs in the lead. I think WP:WEASEL would come into play here. – bradv🍁 00:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, as an editor who recognizes that Assange has been described as a journalist by many reliable sources: please undo, or per Bradv, at least move your text out of the lead. There is something to be said for process. -Darouet (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: and @Darouet: I have edited the content to add a section Julian_Assange#Question_of_journalist_title and I have summarized it in the lede. Per Brad's close the consensus was to limit use of the title 'journalist' in the first sentece of the lede to deal with what I suppose of are weight issues. The consensus of the RfC was not to censor all mention of the article's subject as a journalist (there seem to be many sources). My use of words is in no way WP:WEASEL as it doesn't add any vagueness. There is no vagueness that the article's subject is referred to as a journalist. There is a news event that I added in a new subsection news where the US government disputes that he is a journalist, thus creating an independent notability event that is sufficient for this to be covered, regardless the consensuses of what is clearly a controversial topic where a few editors continue to bludgeon the issue to push their POV. There is no basis for an RfC to excluded properly cited content with multiple WP:RS. We have principles at wikipedia that are higher than the daily political banter that goes on some of these articles (such as this) and an RfC is not a weapon in an edit war. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I didn't see anything in the RfC that made me think there would be consensus for a whole section on whether or not Assange is a journalist. I think this requires further input and discussion. – bradv🍁 04:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Clearly we dont need an RfC to get permission to add a section, nor is this RfC a ban on adding one. The subject of this RfC was if the content could be banned from the page, and your close noted that there was not consenus to ban it from the page, only to ban it from the first sentence and also not to refer to Assange as a journalist in wikivoice. Note that I doubt an RfC close could even ban properly cited content from a page, unless it violated some BLP issue, but maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong on this. This close does not preclude an examination of him as a journalist in RS, nor does it preclude a summary of that that provided it is duly weighted and left out of the first sentence of the lede. "Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling." To be clear I am not saying you are stonewalling, I just quoted this as I think it is relevant policy here, that this RfC is not meant to create some sort of rule that would prevent content from being added to the page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: reverted your edit here [8]. You need to find consensus on this page to delete controversial content. The RfC was not related to the new section added after the RfC. Your objection to this content is well noted, ad naseum above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear that you don't have a consensus. Putting that sentence into the lead goes against the spirit of the RfC. It is also pointless. We have given a description of Assange as an editor, publisher, and activist. It is redundant to say that he is also called a journalist. That duplicates the description of him as an editor and publisher. He has also been called a hacker. He has also been called a spy. What we are trying to do is give a neutral description which gives the reader a good idea of what he is famous for. The section is less worse. But it is predicting the issues in the US indictment. It is better to document the issues as they appear. News sources like to speculate about what the key issues will be. But Wikipedia is not news. It is not particularly useful to note what some people think will be the important issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not predict anything at wikipedia, see WP:CRYSTALBALL and your speculation relating to the article subject's legal situation is irrelevant. WP:LEAD covers summation of content in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented on your addition to the lead, apart from you, has been in favour of removal. Therefore I will remove it. The lead does not have to mention everything covered in the body of the article. (For example, you opposed including his hacking convictions in the lead.) We have previously agreed that there has been no major controversy about whether Assange is a journalist (apart from at this talk page), so it is undue to mention in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You again deleted the content in the lede here [9]. This talk page section began with your deletion of cited content. Your WP:TE is pushing a particular POV that you have bludgeoned on these talk pages. You keep referring to an RfC that was held prior to the creation of the section, thus is irrelevant. Hold another RfC based upon the updated page content and the summary in the lede if you feel so strongly about it. Today is the third time in a week you have deleted content from the lede that is being added by multiple editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I only deleted it twice. But does anyone else agree with you on this?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: do you care to comment? In light of the fact that the disputed lede sentence summarizes the section content, there should be no issue for summary to be in the lede. As to wikivoice (NPOV) is the sentence sufficient NPOV given that it states that the journalist title is disputed by the US govt and others? Or do we need to weaken it more, for example stating: It is disputed by the US government and others if Assange should be referred to as Journalist." What do you suggest in this sort of case where the RfC covered content prior to additional content being added and an editor seeks to use an RfC to prevent new content from being summarized in the lede. Note I believe this is one of these POV pushing article that has a 1RR restriction. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I assume we're referring to this text: Assange is also sometimes referred to as a journalist, although the US government and others have disputed that title. I don't see any reason to include that in the lead. It's not an important biographical detail, and it's barely relevant to the rest of the paragraph. I would also get rid of the paragraph later in the article as this is a biography, not an essay on whether "some people" think Assange is a journalist. – bradv🍁 01:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, As you mentioned, this article is a BLP. Most of Assange's notoriety revolves around his dispute with various govt agencies relation to their reaction to the releases (I am assuming that wikileaks organizational notoriety can be separated from Assange, which might be a stretch). Much of the article currently focuses on the wikileaks info, the wikileaks releases, etc. These are all probably outside the scope of this BLP and probably most of it should be moved to the wikileaks article. However, the remaining BLP parts that are core to this article are assange's biography, his court cases, and his what various notable organizations think of him (awards, detractors, disputed classification as journalist, publisher, allegation he is traitor, etc). I believe the same cleanup I did on the Reed Hastings article to move out most of the Netflix info and focus on the person not the company he runs. Pretty routine BLP treatment. I would suggest to ax most of this section Julian_Assange#WikiLeaks to focus on Assange as BLP. The reader can always go over to the wikileaks article. Then also we have much more space in this article to go over the article's subject, and different people's opinions on what is important will have space in the lede, which will improve NPOV. If the US Justice Dept makes the effort to refute Assange's position that he is a journalist, it is clearly notable (while some may or may not agree) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are we going through this again?  We don't need to discuss differing opinions on his status as a journalist other than to say that journalists are concerned that if he is prosecuted for similar things that they do as journalists it may threaten them.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

References

"First person to be prosecuted for publishing classified information"

According to this edit (which was a restoration of something I removed earlier), Assange was the first person to be prosecuted for publishing classified information. This is sourced to an opinion piece by the Washington Post. While I don't deny they're making the claim, I'm having trouble believing that this is true. Can we corroborate this somehow? What about the Pentagon Papers from 1971, where both Daniel Ellsberg and Tony Russo were charged with publishing classified documents? According to our article on the Espionage Act of 1917, a 1984 government report stated that "the unauthorized publication of classified information is a routine daily occurrence in the U.S." This claim by WaPo seems far fetched. Or I'm missing something. – bradv🍁 04:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It too sounds impossible to me as well. There must be journalists rotting in jail in China, Turkey, Russia, etc for just this type of thing. Should we delete it for that reason? Or just leave it and attribute to the Post? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well to be fair, the WaPo article does say "in the U.S.", which isn't included in our article. But even with that qualifier it's far fetched. – bradv🍁 04:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually says "to face prosecution", and plenty of people have faced prosecution, including Philip Agee and those involved in the Plame Affair. I think that claim is just a piece of rhetoric in an opinion piece. If included it should be attributed to the author, not to WaPo. But I think we should remove it. It's just misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

If a source is wrong, I'd rather exclude it unless the fact that it is wrong is somehow relevant to the topic at hand. The same would apply if the information is unverifiable – this line should be removed. – bradv🍁 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I dont know whether the claim is true or false. It isn't obviously wrong though. As far as I can tell Russo and Ellsberg were charged with espionage, theft, and conspiracy. Ellsberg says "I was charged with 12 counts, including one of conspiracy, in 1971, for a possible sentence of 115 years. In this case they brought 17 counts under the Espionage Act, plus the one conspiracy". The charges didn't relate to publication. Regarding Philip Agee, I can't find information about any charges against him. He was deported from a few countries and had his US passport revoked but I can't see that he was charged for publishing classified information. The quote "the unauthorized publication of classified information is a routine daily occurrence in the U.S" is quite believable. Often it is done with the assistance of the administration as a way of pushing the public in certain directions. Anyway we don't need to research this as we can attribute the claim to a reliable source. If it turns out to be wrong then it can remove it. It seems like a significant statement. Burrobert (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Burrobert, I dont see how this WP:OR can get so spun out of shape on this talk page justifying deleting content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the quote is about facing prosecution, not being prosecuted. Assange hasn't been prosecuted yet. It may be in some sense the quote can be defended, but it is misleading. After all, Assange is charged under the Espionage Act too. And the source is an opinion piece. Nothing in this discussion gives a reason for inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Jakc, content in wikipedia does not require a reason for inclusion. WP:NOTFORUM applies on this talk page and your chatter is excessive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

UK tribunal (again)

The information about the UK tribunal recognising Wikileaks as a "media organization" has again been inserted into the article. This link provides more information, including the text of the judgment. Essentially, La Repubblica newspaper was applying for the British prosecutor's file on Assange. The tribunal made a ruling against it. The tribunal did not make a ruling that Wikileaks was a "media organization"; it simply described Wikileaks as "a media organization which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances". This seems unexceptional. By the way, it describes Assange as the "Australian founder and publisher of WikiLeaks". The article also says, "the verdict appears to deal with the risk of Julian Assange being extradited to the US without any concern for his status as an editor of a media organization". In response Assange tweeted "WikiLeaks just recognised as a 'media organisation' by UK tribunal making it harder to extradite me to the US" [10]. This is Assange's assertion, but there doesn't seem to be any legal opinion to back it up. It is elementary law that precedents are only binding on lower courts or tribunals. Even if it was a ruling, which it isn't, the ruling of a tribunal is not binding on the court that will rule on his extradition. It is certainly not binding in the USA! In any case, the tribunal indicated that "his status as an editor of a media organization" was irrelevant. It is therefore misleading to say, in the context, that a UK tribunal recognised Wikileaks as a media organisation. The tribunal's ruling was not a win for Assange; it was a loss for an Italian newspaper. I don't think there's any reason to include this in the article, unless it does become an issue in his extradition case.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I'm very glad you've posted here because it's crucially important to clarify what reliable sources are saying about the Tribunal's description of Wikileaks as "a media organisation." As the directly quoted text in these sources demonstrate, the Tribunal's description of Wikileaks is, in fact, a finding that is relevant to Assange's extradition case and his prosecution for the publication of leaked documents:

• La Repubblica, London Tribunal dismisses la Repubblica's appeal to access the full file of Julian Assange [11] Extraditing a publisher or a criminal? Not all extraditions are alike. Though the First-tier Tribunal's verdict is an outright dismissal of our appeal, it still contains some interesting and important nuggets: the Tribunal does not question the status of WikiLeaks as a media organization "which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances". This could sound of little interest, but it is important considering the vitriolic attacks experienced by WikiLeaks throughout the last year, with characters like Mike Pompeo, the CIA head nominated by Donald Trump, calling WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service"

• The Guardian, WikiLeaks recognised as a 'media organisation' by UK tribunal [12] Definition by the UK information tribunal may assist in Julian Assange’s defence against US extradition on grounds of press freedom. A British tribunal has recognised WikiLeaks as a “media organisation”, a point of contention with the United States, which is seeking to prosecute him and disputes his journalistic credentials. The issue of whether Assange is a journalist and publisher would almost certainly be one of the main battlegrounds in the event of the US seeking his extradition from the UK. The definition of WikiLeaks by the information tribunal, which is roughly equivalent to a court, could help Assange’s defence against extradition on press freedom grounds... the UK’s information tribunal, headed by judge Andrew Bartlett QC, in a summary and ruling published on Thursday on a freedom of information case, says explicitly: “WikiLeaks is a media organisation which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances.” The comment is made under a heading that says simply: “Facts”.

• Huffington Post, A Guide To The Eccentric Cast Of Characters Surrounding Julian Assange [13] Maurizi has also pursued freedom of information cases against British authorities, seeking the release of documents related to Assange’s extradition. Her challenges forced a British tribunal to recognize WikiLeaks as a media organization, as well as exposed that U.K. authorities destroyed key emails with Swedish authorities related to Assange’s case.

• Syndey Morning Herald, Assange hacking charge limits free speech defence: legal experts [14] Assange has long said WikiLeaks is a journalistic endeavour protected by freedom of the press laws. In 2017, a UK tribunal recognised WikiLeaks as a "media organisation."

• International Business Times, Julian Assange welcomes UK ruling that WikiLeaks is a media organisation [15] WikiLeaks has been recognised as a "media organisation" by a UK tribunal in a ruling that flies in the face of claims by US officials who have branded it a "hostile intelligence agency". The anti-secrecy website – helmed by Julian Assange – has faced the ire of CIA director Mike Pompeo, who has compared its work to Hezbollah, Isis and al-Qaeda. Over the years, WikiLeaks has disclosed countless documents pilfered from the US government. The assertion of the first-tier tribunal (information rights) in London was made in a legal filing published on Thursday (14 December) by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Jack, the suggestion that Assange himself and alone has (mis)interpreted either the substance of the Tribunal's description, or its importance to his legal case, is belied by every media description of the Tribunal's finding. In fact, given the weight each of the sources above attaches to Assange's case and media freedoms more generally, our bio of Assange needs to have better coverage of the Maurizi case. -Darouet (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Darouet, thank you for links. Jack, I don't understand how you missed this.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I missed nothing. We have previously noted media reporting of the tribunal's decision, and there was already a citation in the article. As La Repubblica says However, despite these important nuggets, the verdict appears to deal with the risk of Julian Assange being extradited to the US without any concern for his status as an editor of a media organization. The reports are purely uninformed speculation: this decision "may assist" Assange. It is cherry-picking in the extreme. The reports are merely echoing the claims of Assange and his defence team. There is no independent legal opinion to back it up. We don't need crystal ball-gazing. We can report the extradition hearings when they happen, not rely on assertions from years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, your opinion on what these sources really mean is your own WP:OR. If the sources state something, then we cover it as such. There is no room for your personal interpretation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. And I don't see that commenting on secondary sources is OR. Simply because a reliable source reports something doesn't mean we have to cover it - see WP:ONUS. So far, I've seen no explanation why a biographical article on Assange needs to refer to an Italian newspaper's FOI request.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the lawyer who represented the newspaper said, in summing up the case, But it must be remembered that the tribunal was not determining the legal status of WikiLeaks, nor was there substantial argument about that status. [16]. It seems this is a case of cherrypicking, digging for nuggets, and clutching at straws.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There is broad discussion and consensus above that wikileaks is a media organization, thus your ONUS point is invalid. Your comments on this page look like WP:OWNERSHIP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone question that Wikileaks is a media organisation. But so what? The question is why we need to refer to a failed FOI request from 2017 which has little relevance to the US indictment. I don't see a response to that. I don't see how I could be accused of "ownership" of the page. I have come here recently and written very little of the content. I think there are too many personal attacks here and too little dealing with the real issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I think your conduct has been totally fine.

Regarding you comment "I've never seen anyone question that Wikileaks is a media organisation," 4/5 of the sources I quoted above state that US officials have questioned that status.

Regarding your comment that the "failed FOI request from 2017... has little relevance to the US indictment," 5/5 of the sources I quoted above state that it is relevant.

For instance you cited the La Repubblica article in your earlier comments. That article [17] states "the Tribunal does not question the status of WikiLeaks as a media organization "which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances"." The text of the article then addresses your "But so what?" position directly: "This could sound of little interest, but it is important considering the vitriolic attacks experienced by WikiLeaks throughout the last year, with characters like Mike Pompeo, the CIA head nominated by Donald Trump, calling WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service." Do you not see how La Repubblica is paraphrasing your own objection, in order to refute it?

The same can be said of the other sources. For instance the Guardian article [18] explains the relevance of the "failed FOI request" (your words) to Assange in this way: "A British tribunal has recognised WikiLeaks as a “media organisation”, a point of contention with the United States, which is seeking to prosecute him and disputes his journalistic credentials." Contrary to what you write, the article also states that Wikileaks' status as a media organization is contested. The article continues to explain the significance and relevance of the case to Assange: "The issue of whether Assange is a journalist and publisher would almost certainly be one of the main battlegrounds in the event of the US seeking his extradition from the UK. The definition of WikiLeaks by the information tribunal, which is roughly equivalent to a court, could help Assange’s defence against extradition on press freedom grounds."

This couldn't be more crystal-clear. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying that Wikileaks is not a media organisation. Calling it a "hostile intelligence agency" is not necessarily incompatible with calling it a media organisation that publishes leaks. La Repubblica explicitly says it is trying to find "nuggets" in the tribunal's negative finding. I think its comments are more ambivalent than you think, and the lawyer pours cold water on the idea that the tribunal declared Wikileaks' "legal status". Yes, the articles suggest the tribunal's use of the phrase "could help", "may assist" etc Assange's defence. That's speculation. There's nothing crystal-clear about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers what the sources say, not the editors interpretation of the sources (in this case your position that something is crystal clear it will help or hurt assange). You have failed to provide any evidence to exclude cited content other than your OR of why it is not relevant to your POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Burrobert has now created a paragraph about the La Repubblica case under "Life in the Ecuadorian Embassy", which is where it fits chronologically. I moved the sentence about Wikileaks as a media organisation to that paragraph because I didn't think we needed to mention the case twice. Rebecca jones reverted my edit twice saying it was "vandalism". It is clearly not vandalism. We now have two very similar sentences on the topic, one under "Life" and one under "Indictment".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:, did you make this talk page comment above? If yes, please sign it. Second, are you moving things out of the lede, is that what the subject of all these reverts on the article today page are? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now signed it. No, I have [not] been moving things out of the lead. You can follow the changes in the history page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the sentence you moved was made by the same tribunal that heard the la Republica case otherwise I may have merged the two references myself. It does seem a better fit. Perhaps Rebecca didnt notice you had simply moved the passage rather than delete it. Anyway I will leave things as they are now. Burrobert (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Categories

I removed a number of categories as inappropriate:

• His Ecuadorian citizenship has been suspended.
• He's not a fugitive anymore.
• "Internet celebrity" is used for vloggers, influencers etc, not publishers.
• The term "whistle blower" refers to someone who has first hand information. He has published whistle blower's information, but he is not a whistle blower himself.
• He is not a memoirist — where did that come from???

My edit was reverted. Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower seems relevent, the others not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you both — I think by maintaining the largest / most famous whistleblowing platform on earth, "whistleblower" is justified — but the other categories are not. -Darouet (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

His Ecuadorian citizenship was certainly suspended, but that overlooks the fact that he remained an Ecuadorian for some time prior to the suspension. Does that not make him eligible to stay in the Ecuadorian category, along with an additional Category:People who lost Ecuadorian citizenship. As far as I know, nationality-based categories on Wikipedia often include former citizens due to their association with that country at some point. Mar4d (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

He was made an Ecuadorian citizen last year. As far as I know, he never visited Ecuador, so calling him an "Ecuadorian activist" is misleading. I think his time in the embassy is notable. We have a List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission, but no category that covers this. I don't think the granting of Ecuadorian citizenship last year is particularly notable. We don't have to cover every facet of his complicated life in categories.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In terms of notability of Ecuadorian citizenship I suspect Assange is up there at the top, lending weight towards inclusion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about your apparently conflicting opinions. I also don't understand how Assange, being a Ecuadorian citizen for a year, without living in Ecuador, can be a more notable Ecuadorian citizen than the many people have been Ecuadorian citizens all their life, who have lived in Ecuador all their life, and who have been intimately involved in Ecuadorian affairs. In fact, it's kind of insulting to Ecuadorians.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I'm not insinuating that he should be added to all Ecuadorian categories. Only the Category:Ecuadorian people of Australian descent as well as Category:People who lost Ecuadorian citizenship. He qualifies for both in my opinion, given his high-profile association in these contexts (even if it's no longer current). The nature of his previous links to Ecuador merit the inclusion of both these categories at the least, in my humble opinion. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Mar4d: considering that this is an encyclopedia and research aid, I would assume someone wanting to investigate a category called "Ecuadorian people of Australian descent" would be interested in finding Assange in that list. While that would be true as well for "People who lost Ecuadorian citizenship," that category doesn't exist yet. -Darouet (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The category Category:Ecuadorian people of Australian descent is up for speedy deletion as there is now no page in that category. I don't think we should create or keep categories solely for Assange. A list of one person is not useful or interesting to anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

One-page categories are acceptable, provided they meet the criteria for inclusion. For someone looking at a list of Australians who held citizenship of other countries, they would be interested in finding Assange as someone who was an Ecuadorian subject. My 2 cents. Mar4d (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

US juridiction

Sorry to be so thick; but since Mr Assange was not in the US when the alleged offences were committed, neither is he a US citizen, I fail to see how he can be charged with breaking US criminal law. Surely Australians are not legally bound to obey US law, any more than Americans are bound to obey Australian law?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the "Indictment in the United States" section, you will see that Assange has been charged with being in a conspiracy with Manning, who was in the US. When this comes to trial, we will find out whether the charges can be substantiated.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Jurisdiction applies based on some international law.

" FN3. The defendant acknowledges in his further briefing that “the protective principle, though rarely used, had been a part of the jurisprudence of this country both before 1961 and in 1961, when Congress enacted the statutory amendment at issue here.” Under international law, the “protective principle” gives a country the “jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law attaching legal consequences to conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a state or the operation of its governmental functions, provided the conduct is generally recognized as a crime under the law of states that have reasonably developed legal systems.” Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations § 33 (1965). "

this is found in reference 64 of the Espionage Act 1917 article. It basically lays claim to international law saying this - and would also apply to other states too that accept international law. Which law is a not made clear. Is there a treaty - which one? Custom and practice? Or bilateral agreements? The extradition aspect is something else - as this would apply for example to Snowden or possibly to some USA citizens that have engaged in espionage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you: I have never seenany of this mentioned in the news. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

UN statements as absurd, and COATRACK of DNC lawsuit

Snooganssnoogans, your changes to the article and lead [19] grossly overinflate Assange's alleged role in the DNC leaks, especially considering that the DNC lawsuit was thrown out of court. I strongly oppose these changes: what you're doing is turning a biography in a COATRACK for something else entirely. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As to Seth Rich, a sentence in the bio is enough if you really want it: we don't need a whole section on this. -Darouet (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of long-standing RS content

Darouet is removing long-standing content on Assange's role in the 2016 election, which included not only leaking documents stolen by Russian hackers but also actively promoting conspiracy theories about the origins of the documents (Seth Rich conspiracy theories). This is all highly notable and subject of extensive RS coverage (including by academic sources) - it obviously belongs here in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet is brazenly violating WP:BRD by repeatedly forcing new additions to the article (some rubbish about UN working groups into the lede) and removing long-standing content in the absence of consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brazenly my ass: you've just reverted yourself, twice. The Seth Rich material was vastly over-represented in this biography, as were other aspects of the DNC lawsuit. After that lawsuit was thrown out of a US court, I pruned it down — keeping probably too much material in — because it was WP:UNDUE here. Subsequent US indictments against Assange have nothing to do with this, which I think is further confirmation that you are COATRACKing this biography. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the DNC lawsuit can be summarized in one sentence, but the rest of the long-standing content should be restored in full. It's bonkers to claim that only one sentence should be devoted to Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories when academic sources identify Assange as a key driver behind these conspiracy theories, and when the Mueller report indicates that Assange spurred on these conspiracy theories even though he knew they were false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

These issues could be outlined more clearly by including a timeline of Assange's involvement in the 2016 election. I did just that [20], but Daroquet edit war to remove it: [21]. Perhaps it needs to be included back? My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

seems to me too much detail. especialy this seth rich issue, this has a whole article. one sentence on this article would suffice. and why so much discussion of every statement that Assange made on the election. this is wikileaks content, not assange BLP content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How on Earth can one sentence be sufficient for the Seth Rich conspiracy theories when academic studies link Assange as the essential purveyor of the conspiracy theory, and when the Mueller report literally takes Assange to task for the intentional deceit involved in his promotion of the Seth Rich conspiracy? This also relates to Assange's ethics and credibility, as well as whether he should be considered a journalist (note that many of the same editors who desperately want to scrub this from the article maintain that Assange should be considered a journalist) - it's clearly relevant context to cover how he was the main purveyor of a batshit insane conspiracy theory (which led to the harassment of a family) and that he appears to have intentionally and deceptively pushed what he knew was a falsehood. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the DNC lawsuit section as it is. Regarding Seth Rich, as far as I can tell it is conjecture and interpretation so the various statements need to be attributed. I’ll leave it to others to determine how much should be included under that topic. Burrobert (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Seth Rich has its own article. Why do we need to hash it out here as well, other than saying that Assange believes the conspiracy existed or not and maybe his role in it (if he had a role). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of expression and information

Why is Bolivia classed under "UK and Europe" and the French union of journalists and the yellow vests classed as "US"???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes some adjustment is definitely needed there. Is is worth creating a new sub-section just for Bolivia? Burrobert (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "US and other"?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 November 2019

Para 2 in lead written better, clearer and more straightforward and non-biased.

Assange was questioned in May 2010, about allegations of sexual assault in April 2010, and in November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, Assange denied the allegations, and claimed that the charges were just a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents. Assange surrendered to UK police on 7 December 2010 and was released on bail of £340,000 within ten days. Assange and his team then unsuccessfully challenged the extradition proceedings over the next fourteen months. In June 2012 he evaded the UK Police, breaching his and his backers £340,000 bail and sought to seek asylum from the Ecuador embassy in Lomdon. In August 2012, Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador as it shared his fears of political persecution and the possible consequences of an eventual extradition to the United States. He remained in the Embassy of Ecuador in London for almost seven years. The Original Filfi (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – Sorry, I don't see any substantive difference between the current text and your proposal, and the writing style does not look "clearer and more straightforward" either. — JFG ^talk 11:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• JFG firstly the facts are now in order rather than jumping backwards and forwards, it expands the assault facts, it change the method of reasoning for JA, it clarifies who said whht re Ecuadorean embassy granting of asylum. Otherwise change the style and keep the order and the facts. The Original Filfi (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Edit-warring changes into the article

The single-purpose account Rebecca Jones is edit-warring the following changes into the article:

• An Australian politician is being cited as if he's an expert on the law.[22] The Australian politician is not an expert on the issue, so portraying him as one is bonkers. Besides the wording, this individual politician's views are UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• One UN guy's opinion that Assange's "life is at risk" in the lede.[23] This guy's shtick is to say that everything that Assange is undergoing at all times is an outrageous human rights violation (regardless of whether it's by the Swedish, British or US authorities) does not belong in the lede. It's absurd to add this guy's opinion to the lede. The fact that two whole paragraphs are dedicated to this guy's opinion in the body is also UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Rebecca jones has been repeatedly asked not to edit-war or describe other people's edits as "vandalism". Overall, I think there are too many quotations from too many people. Some editors seem to be accumulating quotes as part of a campaign to win Assange's freedom. Also, there are a lot of "fantasy legal arguments". We should concentrate on legal arguments that are actually used in court, particularly those which are successful. If we want legal opinions, we should get them from recognised legal experts. With regard to George Christensen, I think we could note that he was just one of several Australian politicians who support Assange. With regard to Nils Melzer, it it seems valid to include his comment in the lead, but I agree the two paragraphs are excessive. Calling him a "UN guy" is a bit dismissive.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans please explain this [24] removal of cited content. Jack, baring a clear explanation and evidence that WP:PRESERVE was followed, it might indeed be vandalism. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of the casual use of the word "vandalism" around this subject. Stop it. Consider this your warning. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a prohibition against using the word vandalism on this article's talk page or in edit comments? Curious... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an expectation that edit summaries not contain personal attacks on editors that are being disagreed with - calling good-faith editors vandals is a personal attack; : vandalism often involves the word "poop." I see no vandalism, I see disagreement, and too many people in this discussion are casting aspersions. I'm going to start sanctioning editors who embed personal attacks into edit summaries if it doesn't stop. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the policy is WP:CIVIL and it makes it clear that name-calling is prohibited. WP:AGF is a guideline for being civil. The attitude that you must win an argument here by tearing down your opponents is counterproductive. We are not here to win arguments or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but to build consensus and thereby build an encyclopedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What edit of mine are you talking about? Are you referring to my talk page edit above where I said "it might indeed be vandalism" concurring with Rebecca Jone's edit summary? There is a lot of WP:POV pushing on this article and where an editor removes content from the lede of a BLP page that states the article subjects present location, it does look like continued pushing. If you are so touchy about the word vandalism, we can instead use WP:TE/WP:CIRCUS if you prefer. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, who are you accusing of being a circus?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Assange is good/bad POVs both must be given equal weight to deliver WP:NPOV. I would think that if you all dealt more reasonable with Rebecca and reworded poor written content, longquote, etc you could come to a more practical compromise. I dont edit this page much, but i do see the constant reverts in my watchlist. The 'Assange is bad' POV is running a circus on this page from what I can see and reverting rather than fixing properly cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Assange is good/bad POVs both must be given equal weight to deliver WP:NPOV.

No they don't: they have to be given DUE weight. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be in the false-balance business. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, there are few "Assange is bad" statements in the article. It has been an uphill battle to get some level of neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

yes, i stand corrected, due weight. this DUE issue is exemplified by editors efforts to cover assange as a journalist in wikivoice in the lede, which there are dozens of sources that support it. yet i have seen this talk page spin off into a discussion of reference counting (WP:OR) to determine what is due rather than allowing editors to cover cited content that builds NPOV. clearly the issue if assange is a journalist (previous discussion i was involved in) or if he is a human rights victim (current discussion) are both controversial points and if there are sufficient RS ought to be covered in this article. what seems to go on instead is a lot of shouting and threats of admin action, rather than allowing NPOV to develop. this is at the core of my previous circus comment, where there is clearly a circus going on and admins arrive and lob in some threats hoping to tone it down. cute as it may be, it doesnt work towards solving the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Rebecca jones: You've been repeatedly warned (by Acroterion and others not to characterize others' edits as "vandalism" and yet you keep doing that. Please stop. More broadly, the edits you are trying to ram through in this article lack consensus, and for good reason. The comments by the UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer are already in the body of the article, and there is no reason to put it in the lead. As to your insertion about George Christensen, your lengthy insertion was poorly styled (long quote) and grammatically garbled, and it seems to me highly doubtful that Christensen's comments are noteworthy enough to include in this biography. And as Snooganssnoogans noted above, Christensen is not a legal expert in any case. Neutrality^talk 19:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If the statement is poorly worded, why not fix it? At least the part about assange be incarcerated at a particular prison is content fitting for the lede and cited, thus what is the justification to revert it entirely? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to include his current status in the lead, that is, that he is in Belmarsh Prison and in ill health. Of course, the lead should be updated when this changes. This saves readers from burrowing through the article trying to find out where he is now. UK? USA? Sweden???--Jack Upland (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

He is likely to stay in prison for the rest of his life, and the prison he is in it noteworthy enough to be in the lede, whether it is US, Swedish, or UK prison. My objection was that editors rather than just clipping out the nonsense, decided to to repeatedly revert Rebecca's entire addition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am very surprising by comments of Snooganssnoogans about Jtbobwaysf. Why wikipedia refuses to report the conclusion of United Nations Human Rights ! What is the speciality of Snooganssnoogans ? Who is this user to judge the competence of three physicians, a psychiatrist and an UN Special Rapporteur on torture ? . This is a big joke ! I am shocked ! Rebecca jones (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

content

This is the content that was proposed to be added to the lede that is the subject of all this discussion above.

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

What exactly is wrong with it? It seems there are two parts. First is the location of Assange's incarceration, which seems totally uncontroversial. The second part, I dont know much about this UN person to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

The specific prison where he is incarcerated does not seem all that important, but I'm not hotly opposed to a line saying he is incarcerated there. The second part suggests that the British government is somehow torturing, harming or trying to kill him, which is only sourced to this one UN guy whose shtick has been to make inflammatory nonsensical comments about all the horrors that everyone is imposing on Assange - he literally says that the British authorities engaged in "torture" on Assange for many years, including when Assange was in a self-imposed exile in the Ecuadorian embassy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, first you have admitted that you are not opposed to the prison location content. You felt a revert of cited content was more appropriate than to edit out the second UN content you are opposed to? Moving on to the second content, is there any reason to believe that this statement about torture is not reliable? This does appear to be a category expert on this. Do you have any sources to the contrary? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Melzer is a notable person even if his comments are nonsensical. Other people have said Assange's life is at risk [25][26] or that his health is deteriorating [27][28]. I don't think this is a nonsensical comment. Having said that, I don't think Wikipedia should endorse the suggestion that the British government is responsible, let alone that it is torturing him. However, I don't see anything wrong with noting his deteriorating health in the lead, purely from the point of view of letting the reader know his current status. We should also be open to the possibility that he might die soon, rather than simply dismissing it as propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say the British govt is responsible for assanges's deteriorating health and/or has tortured assange? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should plainly be reporting the statements of the United Nations special rapporteur Nils Melzer on Assange's condition, and his rapidly deteriorating health, and allegedly abysmal treatment according to this senior UN official, of course belong in the lead of Assange's biography. The notion that statements by the most distinguished and senior world official whose task it is to monitor torture cannot be included because they suggest that Assange is being mistreated amounts to POV pushing. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That this gentleman calls everything torture in Assange's situation - including ludicrously charging British for 'torturing' Assange when Assange was holed up in the embassy - demonstrates just how nonsensical and fringe this guy's assessment is. In other words, this "expert" maintains, Assange evading the British authorities amounted to the British authorities torturing him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m also concerned about the suggestion in the lead that Assange is being tortured in prison based on one person’s observation of his mental state. I would imagine that being cooped up in the embassy for years would have some effect on his mental state. The president of Ecuador said that he attacked the guards and smeared feces on the walls prior to his arrest. I have no problem with the current text in the body tied with the response of the British gov’t. But, I think adding it to the lead gives it undue weight, particularly without a response. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Vitriol directed against UN rapporteurs and the subject of this biography, by random people on the internet, should not have any bearing on content in this article. -Darouet (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. Did I miss something? O3000 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasoned criticism and evidence of error by the UN rapporteur is not "vitriol". SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Describing the United Nations special rapporteur as "one UN guy whose shtick has been to make inflammatory nonsensical comments" sounds vitriolic to me. I don't see how the lead was implying Assange was being tortured. If he's unwell, he's unwell, I don't understand what the fuss is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. It's amazing that these are comments being made by a senior official of what is presumably the most august international body regulating human affairs, and the entire press corps of the earth takes this issue seriously, but the content can be blocked from Assange's lead by flippant comments from a few editors. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019 #2

In the last paragraph of the "Imprisonment in the United Kingdom" section please change "According this expert" to "According to this expert". Rising5554 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

UK denial

The UK has denied the allegations Mr Assange was subjected to torture. The Requirements of NPOV means we must report that, with as much coverage as we hive the allegation. [[29].Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well this makes it easier to cover as it is now more noteworthy. The 'UN says he is subject to torture and the UK denies it'. Also the other POV here will like increased balance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm astonished that they thought it necessary. The worst form of torture the English use is to give people badly-made tea and then stare disapprovingly at them if they dn't drink it. Guy (help!) 22:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Tea for two? What an inane comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this masks the real issue which is that he is in declining health. I don't think anyone has denied that.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The real issue for who? For the UN? For Assange? Wikipedia? The managers of the prison? SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

For Wikipedia (and many others). Melzer has not said that the British government was waterboarding Assange, but that the conditions that Assange has experienced amount to torture. That is highly debatable. And the debate doesn't really matter. The facts are most important to us. Whether you call it torture or the regular experience of a fugitive or a prisoner, he is in declining health. That should be the first thing we focus on, not the rhetoric. It would be very embarrassing to hold this debate only to find that Assange dies in the middle of it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include the UK government's version of the Sergeant Schultz defence. Burrobert (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

So can an admin add

The UK have denied that Assange is being subjected to torture are unfounded and wholly false.

Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that this specific wording is not only grammatically unsound, but would copy the words of the Ministry of Justice spokesperson {tq|unfounded and wholly false}} verbatim in wikivoice and without quotes. Drawing from the Express article cited above [30] I would instead suggest,

Melzer stated that the doctors who accompanied him all agreed that Assange "showed all the symptoms that are typical for a person that has been exposed to psychological torture over an extended period of time." Former British Ambassador Craig Murray stated that he visited Assange and also believed Assange showed symptoms of torture, including disorientation and difficulty in speaking clearly. A spokesperson for the UK ministry of justice called allegations that Assange was tortured "unfounded and wholly false."

If there are other, additional denials by UK officials those could be included as well. -Darouet (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the British government is denying. It would be good to get further information.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019

Charges under the Espionage Act

On 23 May, Assange was indicted on 17 new charges relating to the Espionage Act of 1917 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[352] The Espionage Act charges carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.[353] The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional

Needs to be culled to match reference to read...

Charges under the Espionage Act

On 23 May, Assange was indicted on 17 new charges relating to the Espionage Act of 1917 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[352] The Espionage Act charges carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.[353] The Obama administration had debated charging Assange but decided against it.

The balance chopped out is either, DOJ officials and not Obama's quote on recent charges or hyperbole by an editor attributing it erroneously to Obama. 121.99.108.78 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 November 2019

Suggest inserting—following but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case—a form of words such as "The prosecutor's office subsequently announced that they had dropped the case on 19 November the same year". ——SN54129 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would also prefer a sop to The New York Times. (Kidding, kidding.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see that more than one source is required. Jontel (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with addition. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the sentence should refer to Eva-Marie Persson, probably saying "she", so that it follows on from the rest of the paragraph. She is the one who has made the announcement. The lead should also reflect this development.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: also a good change. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Also it would be good to say why she dropped the case.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: what about this?

In September 2019, she revealed that she had interviewed seven witnesses, two of whom had not been previously heard, but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case. On 19 November, Persson announced that Swedish prosecutors had discontinued their investigation into Assange, stating that after a comprehensive assessment, "the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment." Persson added that "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed." Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson welcomed the decision, stating that "Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information."

Hrafnsson made further comments but I think those are probably enough. What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Press is covering it as "case dropped." Lot of RS. Is this discussion about why the prosecutor dropped the case? Al Jeezera says "Swedish complainant was credible and evidence reliable, her memory of the night in question had faded and there was limited corroborative evidence available." No particular reason to choose AJ, it was just the first search in my google results. Seems we should not use weasel words and quote what the sources are saying, I didnt see anything in this source saying the prosecutor didnt know how to proceed, it was more a lack of evidence. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I have no objection to removing or changing the first proposed sentence above — only, note that it's what's currently in the article and it's referenced to this [31]: The Swedish prosecutor investigating a rape allegation against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said on Monday she had interviewed seven witnesses, including two not previously heard, but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case. Really, we need to reword to make sure we're not quoting from a Reuters article verbatim. What about,

In September 2019, Persson said that she had interviewed seven witnesses, including two not previously questioned. On 19 November, Persson announced that Swedish prosecutors had discontinued their investigation into Assange, stating that after a comprehensive assessment, "the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment." Persson added that although she was confident in the complainant, "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed." Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson welcomed the decision, stating that "Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information."

This also adds Persson's comments about the complainant that you mentioned. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: I am support your proposed wording. We can also put that

The decision to drop the case can be appealed under Swedish law.

The AJ source also supports the rest of the proposed content as well.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I support that wording.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Criminal: Sentanced to good behaviour"

I believe something managed to go undetected. in the infobox, it says he is sentenced to good behaviour? There seems to be no source nor context given for it. Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It says, "Sentenced to good behaviour bond and reparations in 1996 for 24 hacking offences". This is explained in text under "Hacking". I think the formatting of the infobox could be improved.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be deleted entirely. Assange is subject to current sanctions and incarceration, and this small penalty decades ago seems to conflate the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to note that he has a criminal record, though I'm not sure about infobox etiquette. The penalty was small, but it was not a small offence. By the way, as discussed below, Assange no longer is serving a sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It not DUE to put 'sentenced to good behavior' in the infobox. Its laughable as the above editor points out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont know anything about Australian law, but good behavior bond sounds like deferred prosecution. Do we have any reason to believe it is something else? And if it is something else, why are we covering some obscure legal system in an infobox. The infobox could be tidied by saying "He was fined 2400AUD for hacking in 1996." The reader can read more about his non-notable time period of his life in the article body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added a wiki link for good behaviour bond so that readers not familiar with the concept can read about it. Burrobert (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Burrobert Nice, someone from wikipedia always knows the answer. So does a good behavior bond release later result in charges being dropped, as in deferred prosecution? Or is there still a conviction? In deferred prosecution, the accused admits guilt and agrees to a sentence, that is deferred and later dropped if the the terms of release are met. It says "A good behaviour bond may be established with or without a recorded legal conviction for the offence". Do we know if Assange was convicted? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

According to this, he was convicted. I don't see why saying there were 24 hacking offences is too complicated for the infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The number of hacking offenses is akin to counts in an indictment. This can be the article body. Obviously we are not going to list Assanges full list of offenses he is facing in the indictment. I suggest "Convicted of hacking in Australia" is sufficient. The reader can always go to the article to read more, that is the point of infoboxes in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Convicted of hacking in Australia" or something along those lines.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Assange's health

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.

---

Doctors are concerned about Assange's health. See https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/julian-assange-could-die-in-jail-say-doctors-write-to-uk-home-secretary-2137990?pfrom=home-world

There are a number of sources that say this, and we are doing an RfC above. I support adding this content to the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Then lets not have another thread about it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2019 (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.

What is Assange notable for?

This issue comes up a lot (for example, in relation to the lead), and editors seem to have divergent opinions, perhaps based on their homelands. Is there any way we can say what are the key things that Assange is noted for? Do we need to achieve a global perspective on Assange? The standard Wikipedian droid response is that we go by reliable sources. But I think there are so many reliable sources on Assange we can say almost anything is key.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really without wikileaks her would just be another poser. None of the rest, his sexual assault in Sweden, his arrest in the UK, his possible extradition would likely not even exist.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of people have pivotal events in their lives, but does that mean the lead, or even the whole article, should concentrate on Wikileaks?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it should contain only A summery of major parts of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a monumental amount of material upon which to base Assange's notability. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly why it needs to be limited to an accurate statement that is succinct and not "monumental". SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's sort-of true, but I don't feel we judge notability on "without this, the rest wouldn't have happened", otherwise eg. the lead for United States would be all about the revolution. I think Assange definitely received the most personal coverage for stuff about his arrest, followed by the 2016 election. My perception is that prior to that coverage focused more on Wikileaks, or equally between him and Wikileaks, and less on him personally. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Equally, none of this would have happened without his birth. I think his seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy is highly significant. Long stays in embassies don't happen very often, and I think that's likely to be what he's remembered for long term.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Aquillion: I agree that events in the distance past require less attention than those in the present. However, almost everything of concern here has occurred in the last decade. I don't know if you've already made up your minds on this issue, or to what extent numerical and legal arguments I might advance would shape your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious if you think that the 2016 election has a special relevance compared to other leaks now? While Assange faces no legal battle over the election leaks (a suit was thrown out of court with prejudice), he is being prosecuted according to the Espionage Act of 1917 (also used to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg) based on publication of of the Afghan war logs, Iraq war logs, and Cablegate which alone included some 250,000 documents [32].

Consider that the Iraq war logs included an additional 400,000 classified documents [33], and the Afghan logs 90,000 documents [34]. Those logs are currently afforded a few sentences in this article, and one sentence in the lead. By contrast the 2016 election leaks included 20,000 emails from Podesta [35] and about 35,000 DNC documents. That's not a trivial amount, but given that Assange is now being prosecuted under the Espionage act for c. 740,000 leaked Iraq-Afghanistan-Cablegate files, why do the DNC leaks by contrast have their own paragraph in the lead, and ten paragraphs (compared to a few sentences) in the body? Do you really think that given the difference in sheer number of documents, and Assange's current legal battle, the DNC leaks should outweigh any one of those other leaks (each bigger than the DNC leaks), or all of them together? -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the 2016 election has any special relevance.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's as relevant as his embassy stay (and it does have less coverage in the lead, compared to the embassy stay + charges against him.) But I think it has more relevance to him personally than other things Wikileaks has done, since his opinions and his statements got far more coverage in that case. Just look at the related section in the article body - it's bigger than everything else combined, and while you could argue some of that is comparable bloat or recentism, large parts of it are focused on interviews with Assange, things Assange said, sources directly discussing him in depth, and so on, much of which received a mountain of reasonably sustained secondary coverage. My perception is that previous Wikileaks things didn't get nearly as much Assange-focused coverage. In terms of what could persuade me, though, the obvious thing to do is to survey the sources, both the ones already in the article (which, if we accept that they're representative, do support the idea that the DNC leaks are more important to his bio than the rest of what Wikileaks did) and sources from outside it to make the argument that what's currently in the article is not representative, eg. demonstrate comparable coverage about Assange from previous leaks. --Aquillion (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange interest over time, based on Google Trends Worldwide News Search

Well, that was the point I was trying to get to in this section. How do we do that? There must be thousands of things written about Assange. How will we ever agree that the survey is representative.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we can argue that "Julian Assange" gets mentioned more in 2016 compared to 2010-2011. I'm posting this graphic adapted from Google Trends (you can go search yourself) showing that in global news coverage, he's mentioned more earlier in 2010-2011, and less in 2016. If you restrict your search to "US news" the 2016 amount goes up, but is still lower than the 2010-2011 coverage. I don't want to assume Aquillion that you're coming at this from a biased perspective, but it's possible that what you've paid attention to personally does not reflect global news coverage. -Darouet (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That's simply Original Research and based on no discernible theory. Did you expect to find thousands of articles that say "Assange is in the embassy again today" over and over. It's by far described as the culmination of his life's dedication to his work in RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any data to support that argument? -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. That's my point. WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, and I don't think it applies to the issue of the weight given to different parts of the article. However, is there a way we can agree on what are the most important parts or are we just stating our opinions?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I agree that talk page arguments about article content WP:DUE weight based on a temporal analysis of WP:RS is wholly unrelated to WP:OR.

@Aquillion:, based on the data above would you still argue that 2016 election material deserves a special and heightened place in the article body and lead, or is it possible this issue is being given WP:UNDUE weight in comparison to global news coverage over the past decade? -Darouet (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"Data" cannot prove your point. You may as well post the daily rainfall in Disneyworld. Data alone is meaningless. You really need to give this some thought, for reasons already explained. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: That's a very compelling graph. @SPECIFICO: The "discernable theory" behind the graph is obvious: we're trying to determine what Assange is known for, so determining how interest in him has increased or decreased over time is highly relevant. The graph indicates that interest in Assange peaked in 2010, during the time when the Collateral Murder video, the Afghanistan and Iraq War Logs, and the US diplomatic cables were released. That's an indication that he is best known for publishing those leaks. Other news events also show up in that graph (asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and the 2016 US Presidential election, for example), but they're less prominent than the events in 2010. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• For example, the article devotes a large amount of space to the 2016 US election. Is that due?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: There should be a number of strong and well-sourced paragraphs on that topic, but in my view the topic is currently overrepresented. Every one of Wikileaks' publications generated more than just substantial controversy: for example world news was dominated by the Iraq War logs, and later by CableGate. The US election publications should not be prioritized here over those publications, which are the basis for his current prosecution in the US (whereas a US judge threw litigation against Assange for the 2016 elections out of court). -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The specifics of one lawsuit do nothing to support your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Jack and Darouet that this US election content is overweight. He is primarily known for his association to (and creation of) wikileaks. Many times the press refers to Assange, but we have also RS to show that it is wikileaks taking the action. This article could be reduced in size to focus more on his life, his personal legal issues, etc. We have a whole wikileaks article after all (and there may be wikileaks sub articles as well). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not so sure, in the US election Wikileaks may have had a real impact (that is what RS are saying).Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the above discussion, it seems that we need a set of highly reliable sources from a range of countries which address the topic of "Who is Julian Assange?"--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• For example, The Guardian which doesn't mention the 2016 US election.
• The BBC also doesn't mention the 2016 US election, but it does mention his hacking offences.
• SBS of Australia does mention the 2016 US election.
• The LA Times mentions the 2016 US election and his hacking offences.
• The Sydney Morning Herald doesn't mention the 2016 US election and calls him a "hacker".
• NBC mentions the 2016 US election.
• CNN mentions the 2016 US election.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Jack Upland: this is really helpful. I would note that the NBC news piece is titled "What is Wikileaks?" whereas the other sources are all about Assange. The sources you've linked here confirm your earlier statement, that the 2016 US election doesn't deserve a special place compared to the other leaks Assange helped publish. The sources are also consistent with the google trends results I showed above, demonstrating that Assange received much more coverage in global news in 2010-2011 compared to 2016-2017. These facts, added to Assange's current prosecution in the US based on his 2010-2011 publications, confirm that we are giving too much emphasis to the 2016 election in our article body and in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan war logs

They were originally called Afghanistan War Diaries.

This is old and should be archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Prison term

As there are more eyes on the page, can anyone explain this? We say in a number of places that Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks for breaching bail. However, his prison term ended on 22 September [36]. 1 May to 22 September is not 50 weeks. At his sentencing, the judge said that he could be released after serving half his sentence [37]. I can't find any source for this apart from the judge's sentencing remarks. I can't find any reference to Assange getting parole etc. Is there an explanation? And is there a way we can word this better?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be hard to find a suitable source confirming this. Craig Murray published an article on his website which said Assange "will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continue to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA". The article was reprinted at Antiwar and Russia Insider. The statement about parole is surely correct but it may not be possible to use any of those references. Burrobert (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the British government, "You’re not eligible for parole if your sentence is less than 4 years".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case I am at a loss. Relating to a different issue, you have just moved the oz parliamentary actions to an oz reactions section. Do you think that the responses of Gillard and Roxon mentioned in the article could you brought under the umbrella of that section as well? Burrobert (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that is "Reactions to the US indictment". We need to keep things in chronological order.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Any other responses?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Burrobert: The only further information I can find is provided by Assange's father John Shipton, in a statement to the "Courage Foundation" in the UK, which is run by a number of journalists and ex-CIA analysts [38]:

[Judge Baraitser's] comments did not appear to be part of any formal ruling, as no bail application had yet been made. Speaking to Assange, the judge also alleged, “I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so.” In fact, as Julian Assange’s father John Shipton, who was in the courtroom, explained in an interview, the judge decided on her own to discuss Julian’s bail at what was supposed to be merely a “technical hearing.” Judge Baraitser “decided to hear a bail application case which wasn’t before her,” Shipton said, “which she promptly refused.” When asked who brought the bail application, he said, “She made it herself.” Assange himself was clearly caught off guard as well...

So, according to Assange's father, the judge pre-empted possible future bail requests by raising the issue once half the term was served, and stated that Assange would henceforth be held awaiting extradition. -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I recall reading about the judge’s odd behaviour regarding bail, possibly in a piece by John Pilger. From our point of view it seems we are not going to be able to give a reason for the change in Assange’s status on 22 September. Burrobert (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We could, perhaps, quote from Shipton himself in the paragraph on Baraitser's ruling. -Darouet (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

But that is a different issue. His prison term ended, and bail was not given. That is understandable. After he had breached bail the first time, I would be surprised if a court gave him bail again. My question is why did the prison term end on 22 September instead of running the whole 50 weeks.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: my impression based on the sources we've located is that his prison term was eligible to end at the request of his lawyers, that they didn't make the request, but that Baraitser pre-empted any possibility of request by holding an impromptu hearing on the topic and summarily declaring that Assange would remain in custody until deportation. I agree with Burrobert that, at the moment, we're not going to be able to get a clearer explanation sadly. -Darouet (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: why did the prison term end on 22 September instead of running the whole 50 weeks? I believe there is a less formal process than parole for early release from short prison sentences for good behaviour - which would have applied to JA, however, due to the risk of him absconding while extradition is considered/processed, he remains in custody. He is technically not any longer serving the 50 week bail-jumping sentence.Guardian is clear as to recent situation. Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we are going round in circles. The judge in the sentencing said that he would be eligible to be released in 25 weeks. I see no reference to him being released for good behaviour. I think that seems unlikely in Assange's case as he has shown very little remorse.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just found out that prisoners in Britain are eligible to be "released on licence" after half their sentence is served, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 244. This seems to be an almost automatic process.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like if the judge preempted a bail request that should be noted in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Assange's lawyers were complaining about that. I think we need a neutral account of what happened. The other question is whether his lawyers had another chance to apply for bail.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We dont need neutral coverage, we can simply include Assange's legal team's position on the matter. If the other side doesnt' respond in the press, that doesn't in any way preclude wikipedia from covering the event. NPOV is when there are two views, if there is only one view of the event, then we just cover the one view. We dont use a manufactured other side using WP:OR to generate it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should always be neutral and accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A statement by Assange's lawyers is deemed neutral and accurate by our coverage of it being neutral and accurate. It is not deemed neutral and accurate if we add OR to it to try to spin something else (not to mention that would be against wikipedia policy as well). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

What spinning are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Edits to lead

Rebecca jones, as you know, an RfC decided we shouldn't describe Assange as a journalist in Wikivoice, particularly in the lead. Adding a statement that journalists' unions call him a journalist seems to be an attempt to subvert the consensus. If it's not, it's irrelevant to the lead. The lead is no place to have a discussion about what different people think about him. Also, why do you keep on deleting "activist" from the first sentence? He is clearly an activist.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that Assange should be characterized as an activist when he isn't characterized as a journalist. Why are we seeking extra fringe definitions for a person when we cannot include the controversial journalist definition? Also if some union calls him a journalist it is by definition not wikivoice right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is it an extra fringe definition, when Assange calls himself an activist?[39][40] I don't think there's a dichotomy between activist or journalist. No, the statement that unions call him a journalist isn't in Wikivoice, but why put in the lead, right after the first sentence? We are just trying to explain who Assange is. It is not appropriate to say who some people say that he is. We should be presenting the consensus version.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Normally the BLP subjects description goes high up in the lede. Has Assange never referred to himself as a journalist? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In 2010, he said, "Since that time [1993], I've been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist" [41]. According to him, he's occasionally been a journalist. There's no way that belongs in the lead. Why are we rerunning these arguments again???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So he describes himself as a publisher, journalist, and activist? What about political prisoner? [42] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy which says we include the subject's self-description in the lead. We don't call Donald Trump a "very stable genius", for example.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a degree of (professional) disagreement on whether he is an journalist or just an info dumper (as I think one journalist called it), thus no I do not think it is a given, and thus should not be in the lede. On a wider issue, the lede is way too long (see wp:lede), why?Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I said in the RfC, the sourcing for stating in Wikivoice that Assange is a journalist is impeccable: [43]. I quoted dozens of high-quality reliable sources that directly call him a journalist. That didn't matter in that RfC, because the RfC wasn't really about whether Assange is a journalist, but rather whether Wikipedia editors like or dislike Assange. If it had been about WP:RS, there would have been no question whatsoever of the outcome. The same goes for the ridiculous discussion above about the UN statements about Assange.

That being said, I don't see anywhere in the RfC closing where it says that the numerous statements by prominent organizations about Assange being a journalist, or the fact that he won Australia's most prestigious prize for journalism, can't be mentioned in the lede. It's actually quite strange that none of the issues about Assange and journalism (his winning of the Walkley Award, and the fact that his prosecution has caused significant concern about freedom of the press) are mentioned in the lede. All we get is the vague statement that his indictment has been criticized, but no mention at all of the reason - it's viewed as an attack on journalism. Instead, we get a blow-by-blow account of the Mueller investigation, including the exact number of alleged GRU agents who were indicted. Some editors apparently believe the exact number of GRU agents Mueller indicted in a trial that has no direct connection to Assange is more important to Assange's biography than the fact that Assange won the most prestigious prize in Australian journalism, or the fact that a UN team has declared Assange's life to be in danger. This is the state of partisanship we're in here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I said one reason, the lede is already bloated, and this is just more bloat, if we say "called a journalist" we must also say "but not according to...". As I said the lede needs trimming, so lets discus that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We had a very similar argument back in September: Talk:Julian Assange#Controversial journalist. Let's move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

DS violation by Calton

@Calton: you have reinstated material [44] that was only just added to the article [45], but then contested by reversion [46]. Your addition goes against the sanctions on this page. Please self-revert immediately: another editor here was blocked only yesterday for failing to adhere to this policy. -Darouet (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't put this kind of thing on the article talk page. Go to the user talk page with any such concerns. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I've already put a note on Calton's page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR

I'm pretty sure I have no history on this article, so am uninvolved. I am placing it under WP:1RR due to persistent edit warring by long-standing editors. Guy (help!) 12:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I support this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, is this still in force?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Guy (help!) 20:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I apologize.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nils Melzer's statement on leaving the embassy

The following text was reverted:

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". 

The initial reason for the revert was that it was sourced to a tweet so I added an appropriate source. The more recent revert is that it is "cherry picked", "undue" and the result of "synthesis". The editor who reverted didn't provide details of why those descriptions hold so it is difficult to address them directly. However, I believe that the text is appropriate for the following reasons:

• It is in a section called "International courts and the United Nations". The person making the statement is the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Comments he makes seem appropriate to the section.
• The section includes a comment from Philip Hammond that Assange "can come out any time he chooses". Melzer is providing an alternative view.

What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring any other issue Hammond was the government minister responsible, his views thus are more relevant then someone who has no official ability to affect any judgment about the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't question the relevance of Hammond's views. They seem relevant to me, as are Melzer's especially when you consider the title of the section. I am not sure how one measures levels of relevance so I won't try to rank the two. I hope that Hammond doesn't try to affect the judgement of the case and lets the judiciary make a decision according to the law. I know it must happen on occasions but it doesn't seem right. Burrobert (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire U.N. bit is UNDUE. Look at the sourcing. Grasping at straws. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An occasional quote (especially spicy, relevant, and notable) to make an article more interesting is beneficial to wikipedia. Especially given that Assange is probably notable primarily for his stay the embassy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Context for these words: Assange procured a rubber boat, climbed into it, and paddled it into the shark pool. This quote is cherrypicked nonsense that, if contextualized per RS reporting, would surely fail DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC) You have lost me both here and in the edit summary. Can you put your reasoning in plain Australian English please? What do you mean by "cherrypicked nonsense"? What does the phrase "contextualized per RS reporting" mean? What "DUE WEIGHT" does it "surely fail"? Burrobert (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) G'day mate. Struth! Speco's a septic so he might not be bonzer at ridgy-didge Aussie lingo.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Exactly what I am after cobber. If we all spoke like that there would be no misunderstandings and the world would be a better place. Burrobert (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Bloody oath, cobber! Are you fair dinkum? Aussie blokes and sheilas go hammer and tongs till the cows come home all the bloody time! I think you're on the turps!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

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.[47] 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)

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

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)