Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Australian usage: "court" or "courthouse"; "U.S." or "US".

At the top of the talkpage, it specifies that Australian English is the variant which should be used in the current article. In the "Hearings on extradition to the U.S." section a couple of American English usages appear, "courthouse" instead of "court" and "U.S." instead of "US". Are those normal Australian usages too?     ←   ZScarpia   11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Australian usage is US rather than U.S. In theory, the courthouse is the building, while the court is the institution, but in practice "court" is often used generally.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Would anyone then have any objections if I were to change both?     ←   ZScarpia   09:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change "courthouse".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation of your comment about theory versus practice was that institutions such as the Old Bailey would tend to be described as courts rather than courthouses in Australia. If you think it should be left as it is, that's fine with me.     ←   ZScarpia   20:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment on "court" versus "courthouse" was meant to be general, not referring specifically to Australia. My feeling is that it is better to be precise, rather than colloquial. A court is an institution; a courthouse is a building. If you say people were protesting outside the Old Bailey, that is clear because the Old Bailey is a building. But if you said outside the Crown Court that would be unclear because the Crown Court is an institution. I think we should also be mindful of how the courts and court buildings are described in England. Personally, I would leave this as it is, unless someone has objections to it.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I note that the courthouse article (to which there is a redirect of "court house") says: "The term [courthouse] is common in North America. In most other English-speaking countries, buildings which house courts of law are simply called "courts" or "court buildings"." There was though, a debate on the talkpage on whether the article accurately reflects the Australian situation, which is probably why the word "most" was inserted. The Old Bailey article, written in British English says: "The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, commonly referred to as the Old Bailey after the street on which it stands, is a criminal court building in central London, one of several that house the Crown Court of England and Wales. ... The Old Bailey has been housed in a succession of court houses on the street since the sixteenth century, when it was attached to the mediaeval Newgate gaol." Probably not worth expending any further thought on though.     ←   ZScarpia   14:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Swedish pretext

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

I have taken the second part of this sentence from the lead. I don't see this in the body of the article, and I don't see this in the citations provided. I believe that Assange said this, but if we are going to air extreme claims like this, I don't think it should be in the lead without any support. Since there is now an extradition process from Britain, I don't think this claim makes much sense in retrospect. We don't have to repeat every conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is in the body in a different form: "Assange and his supporters said he was not concerned about any proceedings in Sweden as such, but believed that his deportation to Sweden could lead to politically motivated deportation to the United States, where he could face severe penalties, up to the death sentence, for his activities related to WikiLeaks".

I think you are doing our main character a disservice to call the claim "extreme" and a "conspiracy theory". His analysis of his situation has been quite accurate over the years. If you remove this from his bio, you remove his motivation for entering the Ecuadorian embassy. He has indicated many times that he was not concerned about the Swedish case. He visited the Swedish police prior to leaving the country. He surrendered himself to the British police after the Swedish arrest warrant was issued. And he was proved right about there being a US extradition request waiting in the wings. His argument was that extradition from Sweden would be easier than from the UK. Here are a few references and quotes where he and others have put that view:

... the “sex scandal” in Sweden was a set up and an American hellhole was the ultimate destination. And he was right, and repeatedly right".

"From the outset of Sweden’s preliminary investigation, Julian Assange’s expressed concern has been that waiting in the wings was a United States extradition request that would be unstoppable from Sweden – and result in his spending the rest of his life in a US prison".

"He expressed fears that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US".

Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what makes this claim "extreme," and calling it a "conspiracy theory" is unnecessarily belittling. It's Assange's widely publicized view of the reasons for the allegations in Sweden. This played a major role in the Swedish extradition attempt, as Assange very publicly asked for a guarantee that he would not be extradited by Sweden to the US.

This sort of major deletion should have been discussed before it was carried out. I think it was clear that it would be controversial. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I made deletion because I didn't see the idea of a "pretext" supported by the article. I still don't. The sentence quoted by Burrobert doesn't mention that it was a "pretext".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for the "pretext" claim: [1] [2] [3] [4]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

But they are not in the article. Which is the point I made in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We now have a source (the NYT article cited by Thucydides) which says almost exactly what had been in our article: "Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him and said that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to send him to the United States". One of the functions of a bio is to accurately present the views of its subject. If there are sources which describe his view as "extreme" or a "conspiracy theory" then these can also be included in the bio with attribution. I haven't been able to find a policy on longstanding content. Given there is opposition to the removal, it seems reasonable to leave this text in the article while a discussion occurs on the talk page. Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the main points. It is hard to see that the "pretext" claim is a main point if it is not mentioned in the body of this article (and only mentioned briefly in the Swedish allegations article). The paragraph in question already mentions "fears" of extradition to the US. I think it is reasonable to include this claim in the article (with a citation), but I don't think it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's also a very vague statement. Who fabricated this pretext? Why would it be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than Britain? I don't think it's good to leave the reader wondering. In fact, it seems like the reader is being fobbed off with a superficial explanation: Assange says this is a pretext.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Assange's much publicized view on the allegations in Sweden. This BLP lists the Swedish allegations very prominently (at the top of the second paragraph of the lede), and it must also give the Assange's response to those allegations. Saying that "Assange denied the allegations" is not enough, because it does not capture the main thrust of Assange's response - which is that the allegations were politically motivated. Whether or not you find Assange's response convincing is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that that is how he responded, and that his response has been widely reported. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by Thucydides an editor’s opinion of Assange’s response isn’t relevant. One of the function of a bio is to present the subject’s views. His view of the Swedish enquiry is notable and reported in reliable sources.

There is now a hole in the narrative in the lead. We say: “After failing in his battle against extradition to Sweden, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012. He was granted asylum by Ecuador due to fears of political persecution and extradition to the United States”. So, seemingly, Assange entered the embassy to escape a Swedish extradition and was then granted asylum for a completely different reason. It doesn't hold together and I know you are greatly concerned with reducing the number of fobbing off's that we inflict on readers.

I am also curious to know whether you consider the view that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leak as “extreme” and “a conspiracy theory”?

Burrobert (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the United States began investigating Assange and WikiLeaks in 2010 has also been removed from the lede (in my view, it's important enough that it should be put back in the lede), further removing context for Assange's views on the Swedish allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are avoiding the main issue, that the "pretext" claim is not a main point in this article. Previously, the lead had seven sentences relating to the US case against Assange. I think that's a bit repetitive. There is nothing to stop you adding to the lead, but the lead has to reflect the body.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretext is now in the body. What about the hole and Seth? Burrobert (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an improvement, but I would like something more specific. I have tried to plug the "hole". With regard to Seth Rich, I don't really understand the question. As far as I can see, his death is an unsolved murder. It would probably be reasonable to call the idea that he was killed because of the leak a "conspiracy theory". Regarding the Swedish pretext, if Assange is saying he was "set up" (see quote above), then I think that is a "conspiracy theory" (even if it's true). But there is no reason we can't include "conspiracy theories" in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: If the problem is that it's not in the body, the solution is to add it to the body (as Burrobert has now done), not to remove it from the lede. Removing this from the lede was a BLP issue, in my eyes, since it removed the central response by Assange to quite serious accusations made against him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now that everyone seems to be in agreement about the "pretext" claim being admissible in this article, let's put it back in the lede. It was central to Assange's response to the allegations in Sweden. We can add this Deutsche Welle source as a reference, since it uses the word "pretext" directly: [5]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it belongs in the lead. MOS:LEAD says the lead should summarize the most important points and As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. If a reader reads the lead and thinks, "I would like to know more about the pretext", he or she would search in vain for more information in this article and in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. As I've said before, it's hard to claim that this is one of the most important points based on the articles as they stand.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: This belongs in the lead and should remain there. Assange's view of the political character of the Swedish case is absolutely one of the most important points of this article. The case is the origin of his present legal and physical condition. Assange's view on it is widely reported upon and is shared by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. The exact phrasing that you've removed was in the lead for over 18 months, and text highly similar, expressing his views on the matter, were in the lead for over four years until just now. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've restored this information to the lede, with two new sources that explicitly use the word "pretext." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is UNDUE now as ever. It never should have been there, and there is no consensus to put it there now. Please remove it and seek consensus here or at NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been there a long time, and your opinion if unsupported by arguments or sources is irrelevant. Seek consensus if you want it removed. -Darouet (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. Moreover per @JzG:'s page restriction, it was a violation to reinsert it without consensus. See my comment above. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The text has been here for 18 months narrowly defined, or four years if we accept paraphrase. Are you suggesting that any text in the article can now be removed by any editor, and once removed that text cannot be restored, unless a consensus for restoration is demonstrated?

By the very metric you're advocating, a number of your own edits here are DS violations, namely:

• [6][7] your restoration of a longer description of Russian intelligence officers into the lead, after that longer description was removed.
• [8] Your restoration of a long quote from the Washington Post.

So, are you also guilty of "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus", or how does that work? -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. For valid content, it is an easy test to meet. There is currently no consensus for this bit in the lead. It is WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your argument, insofar as it is described, suggests that material may be added back if it is "valid content". Does valid content trump consensus? Wikipedia's policies aren't actually that complicated. What's complicated is an interpretation of policy that does worse than change with the winds, but wholly reverses itself from one post to the next. So you can add back removed content to the article because it is "valid content", but none of us can add back removed content because it would be "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus"? -Darouet (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That is deflection. Just read ONUS and establish consensus and due weight for the lead. It's not a difficult matter for appropriate content. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to your earlier edits: you didn't have consensus to restore this content, yet did so anyway [9][10][11]. Were you guilty of, in your own words, "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus"? How do your edits conform to WP:ONUS? -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments above imply that the "pretext" claim was Assange's defence against the Swedish allegations. However, as far as I can see, he didn't mention this in extradition hearings. With regard to political motivations behind the extradition, Judge Howard Riddle said, "This has been hinted at, but no evidence has been provided". As far as I can see, the "pretext" claim comes from Assange, not from his high-powered legal team, and is just something he's said to journalists. As far as I can see, no evidence has been presented to court. With regard to Darouet's assertion that this has been in the lead for over four years, the previous sentence did not mention "pretext" or anything like it. As discussed previously, there is a difference between referring to the possibility of extradition from Sweden to the USA, and saying that the Swedish allegations were a "pretext", a "set up" etc, to bring that extradition about. "Pretext" is the key concept here. So the "pretext" claim was not long-standing content (no more than 18 months), and it has never been part of his legal defence, as far as I can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "pretext" has been in the text since at least April 2019, which certainly makes it long-standing. I have to say that I find the claim that this was not a major part of Assange's objections to extradition to Sweden absurd. This reason has been reported over and over again:

But Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him, and he had maintained that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to eventually send him to the United States.

-New York Times

The Wikileaks founder claims the Swedish allegations against him were politically motivated and a pretext for his transfer to the US over the Pentagon leaks.

-Deutsche Welle

He has long claimed the allegations were a pretext for possible extradition to the US, where federal prosecutors investigating WikiLeaks have filed sealed charges against him.

-Al Jazeera

The 47-year-old has claimed the Swedish allegations were a pretext to transfer him to the United States, where he fears prosecution over the release by WikiLeaks of millions of classified documents.

-France 24

Mr. Assange and his team of lawyers say that criminal inquiry is a pretext for prosecution, and that Mr. Assange is essentially a political prisoner, targeted by the United States and its allies because of WikiLeaks’ role in publishing more than 250,000 leaked State Department diplomatic cables — a deep embarrassment for the Obama administration — starting in 2010.

-New York Times

Assange apparently fears that Sweden would send him to the United States. He is said to believe he might face a trial there for espionage, although the US has made no announcement to this effect. Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition from the UK in connection with alleged offences of sexual molestation and rape. If it turned out that this was simply a pretext for handing him over to the Americans, Sweden would risk breaching article 28 of the EU framework decision that forms the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.

-The Guardian

Assange, 46, denies the accusations and argues that the extradition was a pretext for his transfer to the United States to face justice for publishing secret documents on WikiLeaks.

-NBC News

Shall I go on? There's no consensus for removing this material. It's a central reason given by Assange for fighting extradition to Sweden, and removing it would be a serious BLP issue. It's important to include the response by Assange to serious accusations made against him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources where Assange has given this "central reason" to a court?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring. If you have a reason for excluding this material, Jack, then explain it. Thucydides411 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus to include. There has not been consensus for this since Jack first spotted it sitting inexplicably in the lead and did us all the service of removing it. That's why I removed it the first time it was reinstated, and that is why it needs to come out now. Editors who favor including it can pursue the various channels available for that purpose. We do not push every claim made by an accused criminal in the lead of his bio. And at this point, Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Can you elaborate on why you think this material is undue? You haven't yet explained your reasoning - you've just stated again and again that it's undue. I just quoted 7 reliable sources above that discuss Assange's "pretext" claim, and you yourself state that his claim is widely noted. The fact that this is Assange's widely noted response to serious allegations made against him makes it due, in my view. As for onus, you have it wrong: you're trying to change long-standing content, so the onus is on you to make the case for that change. Explaining why you believe this material is undue would be a start. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've explained it repeatedly. I did not say this claim is widely noted. I said his conspiracy theorizing and self-serving statements are widely noted. That is why we mustn't amplify the less noteworthy among them in the lead. Kindly remove per DS. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the sum total of your explanations about why the material is undue:

It is UNDUE now as ever.

-[12]

It is WP:UNDUE.

-[13]

Those are repeated assertions, not explanations. The closest you came to an explanation was this:

We do not push every claim made by an accused criminal in the lead of his bio. And at this point, Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted.

-[14]

You state that his claims are widely noted (which is actually an argument for them being DUE). You call them "self-serving conspiracy theorizing" (your own opinion, which you're entitled to, but which is irrelevant here unless backed up by reliable sources). You also state that not every claim has to be included, but you make no argument as to why this widely reported claim (as shown by the numerous reliable sources I gave above that discuss it) should be removed from the article.

This is why I've asked you to elaborate on your views about why this material in particular should be removed. So far, you've asserted that it's UNDUE, stated generally that not everything merits inclusion (without addressing this material), and called this material "conspiracy theorizing" (your own opinion). As I and others have explained, this material has been in the article for a long time (since April 2019, if I'm not mistaken), so the onus is on you to argue for removal. Assertions and vague generalities are not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeating myself: I did not say that this claim is widely noted. You reinserted w/o consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that this claim is widely noted. Then what were you talking about? If you weren't talking about this claim, then your comment was irrelevant. As I detailed above, you haven't actually given any reasoning for considering this material UNDUE. You've just repeatedly asserted it. You reinserted w/o consensus. Again, assertions are not arguments. If you explain your reasoning, then I'll respond. If you keep making assertions without any reasoning to back them up, then there's no point in responding to you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a claim is widely reported is not a reason for it to be in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: but "widely reported" is not and never has been the only argument for inclusion, is it? From the very beginning, Burrobert wrote,

If you remove this from his bio, you remove his motivation for entering the Ecuadorian embassy. He has indicated many times that he was not concerned about the Swedish case. He visited the Swedish police prior to leaving the country. He surrendered himself to the British police after the Swedish arrest warrant was issued. And he was proved right about there being a US extradition request waiting in the wings.

Burrobert provided helpful news links, one including a quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief [15]:

Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information. Let us now focus on the threat Mr Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the first amendment.

As someone from Assange's legal team noted,

Now that the US does seek Mr Assange’s extradition to stand trial on unprecedented charges for journalistic work, it continues to be a matter of extreme regret that this reality has never been properly acknowledged and that the process in Sweden – with which Mr Assange has always expressed his willingness to engage and indeed did so – became so exceptionally politicised itself.

Burrobert linked an AP news story that further explained [16]:

[Assange] expressed fears that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US."

Burrobert explained one reason why Assange's arguments must be prominently noted alongside a mention of his charges in Sweden:

One of the functions of a bio is to accurately present the views of its subject.

Thucydides411 elaborated on this argument:

It's a central reason given by Assange for fighting extradition to Sweden, and removing it would be a serious BLP issue. It's important to include the response by Assange to serious accusations made against him.

Jack, here's a question for you: Sweden's charges against Assange are widely reported on. But do we need them in the lead? If widespread coverage isn't the metric here, perhaps that shouldn't be. One of the main issues that we have to address is not merely that Assange has been incarcerated in some form since 2010, but why. You want us to write that it's because, initially, Sweden had opened a criminal investigation. But Assange has long maintained that he was incarcerated as a mechanism to extradite him to the US to face espionage charges. Now, Sweden's case has been dropped, but Assange is facing extradition to the US to face espionage charges. Assange's argument, in his own biography, has at least equal merit as others, and should be included. -Darouet (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental reason the Swedish allegations are in the lead is because there is section about them in the body (which was expanded into a whole article). As said before, the lead should reflect the body. With regard to this pretext claim, this is only represented by one sentence in the body (which was added the other day). The Swedish article only has one sentence too. (I support including these sentences in the body of these articles.) This claim has apparently never been raised in court. Is it a main point in the article? No, obviously not. There is also a lack of neutrality. There are currently three expressions of opinion in the lead, and they are all pro-Assange. We include Assange's claim that the allegations were a pretext, but we don't include the opinions of the alleged victims, the prosecutor, or anyone else. We already explain that one of the reasons Assange received asylum was fear of a US indictment. Why do we need to add this pretext claim, a claim we never explain? Having said that, I think this discussion is very long and repetitive. I think we should move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, it should not be surprising that Assange’s views appear in the lead of his own biography. -Darouet (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, leads of Wikipedia biographies don't normally feature claims made by their subjects. This isn't meant to be a fansite.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't trivialize the matter. We're talking about the response of a living person to serious accusations made against them. That response has been reported over and over again by reliable sources. It's the stated reason why Assange fought extradition to Sweden, and the stated reason why he was granted asylum for nearly a decade by Ecuador. This is a major part of Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reset

Getting back to business, my reading of this is that @Jack Upland: and SPECIFICO believe that, at the least, this pretext bit is UNDUE for the lead. Therefore we have no credible claim of WP:CONSENSUS for it, and per WP:ONUS, it falls on others to establish such consensus, which does not now exist. Per the page restriction Discretionary Sanction placed by @JzG:, the pretext bit should not have been reinstated in the lead. It should be removed, and any subsequent reinstatement without consensus would again violate DS. I suggest that, once it's removed, if editors still feel strongly about including it, an RfC or NPOVN posting might help resolve their concerns. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agree. Default is to exclude disputed text anyway, and that particularly applies here. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG I disagree. Default is to go back to the status quo ante...the stable version before the dispute ensued. And from what I understand the disputed text has been stable in the Lead since at least 2019. (See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and WP:Silence and consensus.) The exception would be if the disputed content made contentious negative statements about Assange, but that's obviously not the case here since it's just a statement of Assange's own views. ~Awilley (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, that might apply in another article, but this one has been WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists for a long time. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people have edited and been watching this page over the last few years, while the material in question has been in the lede. Please abide by WP:NPA. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You're not saying anything new here. You're again misrepresenting ONUS (the onus is on you to argue why longstanding material should be removed) and the discretionary sanctions (the removal was challenged and cannot be done again without consensus, not the other way around). It would be more productive if you would finally explain why you believe this material is undue - something you have not yet done. Not explaining your reasoning and continually saying "no consensus" just comes across as stonewalling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What's new is that I'm saying that somebody is going to remove this and you will need to seek consensus through appropriate collaborative channels or face sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of longstanding material requires consensus, which you do not have. Moreover, it requires a reason, which you still have not given. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You violated the Discretionary Sanction Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). JzG confirmed this above. You can still self revert to avoid AE. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have asked Awilley to give input here, as an uninvolved admin. Your interpretation of the "Consensus required" restriction appears to me to be exactly opposite to what the restriction actually says, and how it's been generally understood (particularly at your recent WP:AE case, in which every admin appeared to be working off the understanding that consensus is required to remove long-standing material). But hopefully as an uninvolved admin, Awilley will give some guidance on this policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've commented above. ~Awilley (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Postscript

I have said above that the article gives no explanation who created this pretext. However, I've just realised that's not exactly true. Under "Writings and opinions", we note he said it was a "radical feminist conspiracy". I think this is a rather odd placement for this information.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Page length 2

By my calculation, the "prose size" of this article is 76 kB. This is nothing like the size of Trump's article (see previously), but is still over the 60 kB limit proscribed by WP:SIZE. It is worth noting that there is a separate article Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange and that this article's "Reactions to the US indictment" is currently a duplicate of text in that article. In this article mentions of his writings and awards are duplicated or triplicated. Some sections such as "US criminal investigations" are out of date. There is obviously much more of the story to go, so we need to look at further splitting the article or summarising what we have. We certainly cannot include in this article every letter that is written or every court hearing where nothing happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

that seems to be a weight issue. We haven’t reached that point in the discussion yet. Burrobert (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see a discussion. Secondly, the size of this article is a fact, and we will need to start trimming.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

we are still working on the sub-headings above. Once these are finalised the next step is to assign a weight to each sub-section. We can’t start trimming until we know the weight of each sub-section. Burrobert (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it, but regardless I thought it was important to answer the question that was raised above but never answered.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As there is clearly no ongoing discussion, I have summarised the "Reactions to the US indictment". As stated, the text removed is duplicated at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. There is no reason to complain about loss of information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As a result, the "readable prose size" is now 71 kB. This is still over the recommended limit, and it seems likely that the article will continue to grow for years.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for trimming:

• Removing a lot of quotations — see WP:QUOTEFARM. There are a lot of quotations that are long and unnecessary. They could be summarised. Some of them are from news articles, which is completely inappropriate.
• Removing repetition.
• Removing trivia. We don't need to know everything Assange did.
• Removing information that is out of date. Some information might have been newsworthy when it was published, but it is now unimportant as Assange's situation has dramatically changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to advocating (unless I misunderstand) removing the biographical part of the article. I think we should remove the part about the reactions, all the US focus stuff, and focus on the guy's life. As you pointed out in the start of this thread there is already a US indictment article, so anything duplicate should be deleted here. Then we can look again at article size and go through the other matters. Maybe quotes by assange are useful as part of his biography. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not advocating removing the biographical part of the article (whatever that means). Where did you get that from? I'm merely putting forward suggestions from trimming across the board. The indictment is part of his biography and we have to summarise it here. In any case, the indictment is a relatively small part of this article, much smaller than his time in the embassy. The quotes are by many different people, including journalists. Quotes by Assange are useful if they reveal his opinions etc. I'm only suggesting removing quotes that are unnecessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I think we are all in agreement here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is already too long, can we please not add material better suited to another article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see we are still trying to add more material, why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors who have long argued that the material on the 2016 presidential election is entirely overdue. This seems to be especially obvious now, since the election does not figure into the charges for which Assange may be extradited. Slatersteven, Jack Upland, or Jtbobwaysf, would you mind taking a stab at reducing that section down to a single section, instead of 6?

Slatersteven, in this edit [17] you removed the fact that Assange published the Iraq and Afghan war logs with major papers, prior to releasing the larger document lists. However, how Assange released this information is important if the release itself was important, and the issue is even relevant today, as the nature of the releases is be litigated in court.

Jack Upland, in this edit [18] you remove a quote about Winner, and the removal could arguably be justified, though the longer quote from Assange about Clapper and Petreaus contains political commentary describing Assange's beliefs, surely relevant to his biography. The other content removed — chopping down an already short quote — distorts the summary of the statement made by US officials, indicating that not only the NYT, but also the WP and the Guardian are relevant.

In these edits [19], you remove a lot of information from the article, some of your edits are really helpful, but I think you've removed too many of the reactions, many by prominent figures opposed to Assange's treatment. I think it's possible to preserve some of your edits and removals, while also preserving some of the content you've removed, but cutting / summarizing. It's too bad that you're just cutting from statements by public officials who are speaking about Assange's current condition, but are leaving untouched the bloated section on the 2016 elections that is not a part of Assange's prosecution or extradition. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has different views on what is important. As discussed before, some think the 2016 election is very important. We just have summarise. If we included every tweet by Assange that gives insight into his political beliefs, this article would be gigantic. I have taken the NYT out of the sentence you mention. We don't need to list media organisations here. By the way, that was a quotation from the source, not from officials. We don't need to copy slabs of text. As discussed, the reactions have been moved to the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. There is no need to duplicate them here.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me start by plagiarising some very sound advice from The Guide - DON'T PANIC!. Grab your towels and I’ll let you know what I have discovered.

• We are over the limit. But being over the limit is not by itself reason to panic because Wikipedia has practically unlimited storage space.
• Did you know that content, especially summary, well sourced and non-tangential information, should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length?
• There is no policy that stops us from adding information to articles that are over the limit. Our hero is only 49 years old. With a bit of luck and a lot of public anger, hopefully he can go on for another 40 years and remake the world a few more times. It would be unencyclopaedic to leave this part of his life out of the article. He is currently involved in the most important trial since Dreyfus. We need to be free to document this so that the public is informed. They expect it of us. We are also constantly improving the article, which sometimes requires adding text. This should not be a cause for concern. Today we had an anonymous editor point out that we had been using a biased title and wording in the “Seth Rich” section. This type of continuous improvement is good.
• Our elders have provided a solution. They say that, when an article is over 100 kB, it should be divided. This is a good idea. The most obvious place to start splitting is the section dealing with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The space devoted to the DNC leaks is immense in comparison with the space devoted to other publications such as the Collateral murder video and the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs. Given that an article for the DNC leaks exists, this should be fairly straight forward. The same applies to the Swedish enquiry.
• Regarding another matter that doesn’t seem to be related to article size, there was some concern about including Wikileaks related material in the article. Firstly, it is too late. Secondly, I was trying to provide some information about one of the largest leaks of US military information which currently has half a sentence devoted to it. The space devoted to the DNC leaks indicated that a paragraph devoted to the Afghanistan war logs was not unreasonable.

Burrobert (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have just trimmed DNC leaks section and the readable prose size is 67 kB. Now I await the complaints.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes we were all watching. Sure to be some comments. Anyway we now have 33 kB to play with so let's start adding in more text. There is a lot more that needs to be said and will need to be said over the future course of our protagonist's life. Burrobert (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the trimming I have done could be justified by WP:TOOMUCH. No one is panicking, but we don't have "33 kB to play with". > 60kB probably should be divided. The fundamental issue is readability. See WP:SIZE. We have already effectively split the article by creating the "Indictment" and the "Swedish investigation" articles. I can't see any opportunities for splitting at the moment. Yes, there is likely to be much more for the article to cover, including his trial. That's why we don't want the existing article to be bloated. There are technical limits. The Donald Trump article has reached technical limits, and this is dire.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now looked through your redactions. Unfortunately I can't find much to complain about. I am giving you an A. Here are some points that I noticed:

• You removed a phrase that explained what type of neo-McCarthy hysteria that Assange meant. I have re-added the phrase so that readers don't get confused.
• At one point we refer to "claims" that we say Assange made. However, this refers back to the earlier sentence "Assange implied that Seth Rich, ... was the source behind the DNC emails". Implications and claims are not synonymous so if "implied" is the correct term in the initial sentence then we should replace "claims" with "implications" for accuracy. I know you did not introduce this wording so it doesn't count against your overall mark.
• "According to political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks released damaging emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls". The source discusses why the emails are talked about more when Clinton surges ahead in the polls. They come up with two possibilities. One was that the media like a close race. The other was that Wikileaks may have been releasing the emails when Clinton went ahead in the polls. The wording in the source is "perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands". So we should remove "damaging" as this is not in the source and secondly we should indicate that the source is not definite on the point. Something like ""According to political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks may have been releasing emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls". Again I am not marking you down for this as you didn't introduce that wording.

Burrobert (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have re-edited the sentence about the "neo-McCarthyist hysteria". I think one of the problems with this section was that it kept repeating things. We know what the issues are. They don't have to be spelt out anew in every sentence. Or twice every sentence.
• I have changed "claims" to "comments".
• I can't access the Baum/Gussin article, but based on what you say, I question why we are including this here if it is not definite on the point. Clearly, the emails damaged Clinton. We don't need speculation about the timing...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the only paragraph in the story that mentions Wikileaks. It comes after the article has mentioned that the media may have been timing its mention of Clinton's emails to create a close contest. It is speculation and can be removed.

But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands. For instance, the Oct. 7 release of emails belonging to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta followed a week during which Clinton’s lead in RCP’s polling average expanded from 2.7 to 4.7 points. On the day of the release, stories mentioning “Clinton email” doubled from the previous day. Yet over the next several days, attention to her emails fell off sharply, suggesting that WikiLeaks failed to drive the media narrative, at least beyond a single day.

Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the moment I have changed the wording to reflect the uncertainty in the WaPo article. The sentence can be removed if appropriate. I think we should mention in the lead that the Swedish investigation was dropped in 2019. We don't need to mention that is was closed and reopened multiple times but the closure is an important point. Burrobert (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have returned the dropping of the Swedish investigation to the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article climbed up to 70kB, but with trimming it is now down to 64kB.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

MANDY statements

When Robert S Mueller III says that Wikileaks was a conduit for the emails stolen by the Kremlin, and the em ails were published on Wikileaks, and Roger Stone was convicted for lying about his contacts with Wikileaks regarding this, the denial by Assange should be discussed in the body but not the lead. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't give the subject the last word, and of course Assange denies deliberate collaboration, per [p[WP:MANDY]] - btut he facts don't require culpability and the denial is a non-sequitur. Assange denies everything, and always has. But he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy, and in this case we have court findings of fact and extremely credible sources that contradict his denial. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another instance of the obstinate insistence to promote Assange's self-serving narratives despite all evidence and mainstream thought to the contrary. It's the same as the problem with the Sweden-will-deport-me narrative in the lead and countless other bits that have drained editor resources on this article for years. Of course it's MANDY. There's no credible argument to the contrary. The key word here is "credible". SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: First, WP:MANDY is an essay, not a policy. Second, what you believe to be credible is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say, as well as WP:BLP. When serious accusations are made against a living person, then there should be a strong bias towards including their response. Third, your more personalized statements about Assange are concerning. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. Your personal attacks on Assange are completely unnecessary here.

@SPECIFICO: The "Sweden-will-deport-me narrative" has been reported extremely widely by reliable sources. I cited half a dozen in an above discussion, and Burrobert cited a few more. It was the major stated reason why Assange fought extradition to Sweden, so it's clearly relevant. I'm having a hard time understanding why you and JzG are arguing for removal of extremely widely publicized responses by Assange to accusations made against him. If you're concerned about editors' time being wasted, then I suggest you stop arguing for the removal of highly notable, highly relevant, well sourced material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to understand -- policy, fact, sourcing, whatever -- is not an argument for putting invalid content into the encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Which policy have I misunderstood? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it's an essay describing the application of policy (NPOV) to self-serving statements, referenced to a well-known historical precedent.

But you "forgot" to engage witht he substantive argument. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that WikiLeaks was used as a conduit for information stolen by the Kremlin. Assange says "I did not collude with the Kremlin". Can you see how that is (a) one man's word against many; (b) facile and (c) irrelevant, because the question is not whether he knowingly collaborated, but whether Wikileaks was the conduit, which it absolutely was. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

[EC] The sequence of edits:

• JzG completely removed all mention of Assange's denial that the leaked material had been supplied to Wikileaks by the Russians citing WP:MANDY. WP:MANDY is an essay which was created and largely written by JzG. JzG is therefore citing an essay which was largely his own work as a reason for the deletion.
• I reverted the deletion, citing the "public figures" section of the WP:BLP policy. This says that, in the case of a ,public figure (which I contend applies to Assange): "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." That is policy rather than an essay such as WP:MANDY (which is largely JzG's creation).
• Calton then reverted my revert, writing: "What JzG said: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper with some sort of proforma automatic right-of-reply style." That ignores the "public figure" section of the WP:BLP policy cited by me.
• JZG wrote the justification given above. It does not address that his complete deletion of Assange's denials appears to have violated the WP:BLP policy. It implies that results of the Mueller inquiry, which, I'm guessing, took various intelligence claims as being factual without trying to verify them, must be accepted as authoritative. Those results may be true; on the other hand, the investigation may have been botched. If memory serves correctly, no attempt was made to examine the Wikileaks version of events. In any case, presentation in the article is governed by the Neutrality policy. I would have to read up on the Roger Stone case before commenting on it.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, the denial can be covered in the body. This is equivalent to Roger Stone saying "Roger Stone did nothing wrong". Notable, but nowhere near as prominent as the mountain of evidence that Roger Stone did in fact do something wrong.

Remember, what interests the public and what is in the public interest are two very different things. Assange struggels with this. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is nonsense. Of course, the denials made by the subject are important. And, no, we cannot assume that someone has denied an allegation.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In the lead? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is important to include Assange's denial wherever in the article the accusation is made, whether in the lead or in the body.
• Assange's denial is not equivalent to the statement "Roger Stone did nothing wrong". The equivalent statement would be ""Assange did nothing wrong" which no one has suggested adding to the article.

Burrobert (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, no it's not, because (a) the denial does not address the allegations, (b) it is self-serving and (c) the allegations are credible while the denial is not. We are not a newspaper. We do not give the subject the last word. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you believe his denial is self-serving or not credible. WP:BLP is policy. Your MANDY essay is not policy. A living person has been the subject of serious accusations, and has denied those accusations (and those denials have been widely reported). WP:BLP is very clear: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since we're on the topic, what does Assange actually deny? We say he denies the Swedish allegations, but what precisely? He agrees that he had sex with those two women. Does he accept he had sex with them without a condom, against their wishes? When one of them was asleep? On this page and on Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, we don't say. His claim about the Swedish pretext is not a defence to the allegations, and, as far as I can see, has never been tested in court. As pointed out ad nauseum, it is not explained on either page. So, with regard to Sweden, as recorded here, Assange's response to an allegation is to make a vague allegation against a whole lot of other people.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us to try to determine how Assange would answer the string of questions that you've posed (some of which have been addressed in court, I believe, while others have not). The important thing is to explain what he has said - particularly the statements that have been widely covered by reliable sources. The "pretext" statement has been widely covered, and it's a central reason given by Assange for not going to Sweden, so it should be included in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, well, that's interesting, because you seem to think it's up to us to bend over backwards to excuse every single bad fact about him. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I just think that we should adhere to WP:BLP and not censor Assange's responses to serious accusations from his biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me we don't have Assange's responses in the two articles. I agree we should hear his point of view, but where is it?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Can we agree that the statement "Roger Stone did nothing wrong" is not equivalent to “Assange denied any co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks”?
• "(a) the denial does not address the allegations”. Agreed that the denial is not very informative. That is our fault not Assange’s. In fact Assange has addressed the allegations in more detail. The lead doesn’t summarise the body accurately here. The body states "Assange repeatedly denied that the Russian government was the source of the DNC and Podesta emails". More detail is in the Belfast Telegraph article that we use as a source in the body. Assange is quoted in that article as saying: "We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication". More detail about what Assange has said about the allegations could be added to the article if the current level of detail is inadequate.
• "(b) it is self-serving". Apart from being a denial, there doesn’t seem to be anything else in the statement. Does that make all denials self-serving? The policy is "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".
• "(c) the allegations are credible while the denial is not". This is subjective. Anyway, the policy is: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".
• "We are not a newspaper". Agreed.
• "We do not give the subject the last word". We could put Assange’s denial before the allegation if you like but readers might get confused. Again the policy is "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".

Burrobert (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the discussion, there seems to be a problem with the statement in the lead that "In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with ... working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the documents".

• It is not supported by the three references given in the lead as these are from 2016, two years prior to any charges being laid.
• It is not mentioned in the body. Generally the lead is a summary of the body. The body does say "According to the Mueller report, this group shared these mails using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0 with WikiLeaks and other entities. The investigation also unearthed ... " but does not say that this formed part of the charges against the 12 Russians.

Burrobert (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". So not it is not a policy it is a few users ideas of how policy should be applied. But also we have wp:primary, if his views are self serving they should not be here. If RS have reported them we can have them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not primary - it's currently sourced to a CNN article, which is a secondary source. As for "self-serving," I'm with Burrobert. I don't know what the opposite of "self-serving" denial is. Perhaps we should amend WP:BLP to read, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, provided that those denials are entirely selfless. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Actaully CNN says "CNN attempted to reach WikiLeaks for comment but received no response. WikiLeaks's founder, Julian Assange, has previously denied any connection to or cooperation with Russia.", this is not in relation to the CNN claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's in relation to claims that Wikileaks received the emails from Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To previous claims that lacked as much evidence. Nor does it relate to Muller.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The body of the article ([20]) sources an article from the Belfast Telegraph, which is even more explicit: WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has again denied that emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were hacked and leaked to his organisation by the Russian government. [21]. This article is in response to claims from US intelligence - the claims that underlie Mueller's report. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That source is also not referring to Muller, And Muller was an independent investigation. We cannot word this in a way that implies these denials were in response to the Muller report, they were not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

They're in response to claims made by US intelligence - claims that Mueller included in his report. Before it was shortened, the lede used to read, Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks. If that's clearer, I have no objection to that wording. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there one source for a denial after Muller was released, if not then we do not have one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The accusations were made by US intelligence in 2016, long before the release of the Mueller Report. Reliable sources that have commented on Assange and the Mueller Report have cited Assange's consistent denials that Russia is involved. For example, this CNN article discusses the Mueller Report and then discusses Assange's denials: Assange, a native of Australia, has always denied working for the Kremlin and has insisted that the source of the leaks "is not the Russian government and it is not a state party." -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLP: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".
• The policy does not mention that the subject needs to make a denial every time the allegation is made. If says "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".
• The Belfast Telegraph article that I quoted earlier makes Assange's position on the source of the DNC material quite clear.

Burrobert (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

These are not allegations, they are findings of wrong doing. But the new source is better, as it is after Mullers findings.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to be precise, these are not "findings," but rather charges made by a prosecutor. In any case, they are certainly "allegations" in common parlance. Slatersteven, if you find the old wording of the lede - Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks - to be more precise, then I have no objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Afaik the Mueller report didn't make any findings of "wrongdoing" against Assange or Wikileaks.
• Again afaik, the claims/findings in the Mueller report have not been tested in court yet. In the only case that I know of that reached court, the allegations were withdrawn and the case dropped.

Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only one court has yet found on any matter relating to Assange and the 2016 elections, and it found in Assange's favor: [22]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"“primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtedly the Russian Federation,” a lawsuit against that government is barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act." not quite "there was no hack by Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"[A]lleged criminal enterprise". The court could not look into those allegations, because it has no jurisdiction. It could, however, look into Assange's actions, and it found that he's covered by the First Amendment. In any case, the issue here is that allegations have been made against a living person, and that living person is on the record denying those allegations multiple times. Those denials have been covered by numerous reliable sources. WP:BLP makes it very clear that those denials must be included alongside the allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it courts can only look at charges brought before them, and if a case is dismissed cannot decide to examine others issues. But as I said, I think you have now produced a source that says he still denies them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t doubt thats true, we just currently appear to be lacking a current reliable source. You cant deny something that came out in 2018 in 2016 etc... We can say he’s made blanket denials but if we want to say he’s denied a specific accusation then he needs to have denied that specific accusation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You can if the allegation was also made in 2016. What specific allegation did you have in mind? Burrobert (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Very true, the Mueller report came out in April 2019 so we just need something more recent than that. Obviously if he hasn’t specifically denied the information in the Mueller report we can say he denied similar allegations but we cant specifically say he denied those allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I cited a July 2019 CNN article above, which states, Assange, a native of Australia, has always denied working for the Kremlin and has insisted that the source of the leaks "is not the Russian government and it is not a state party. The allegations are the same, and his response is the same. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then we can say that Assange has always denied working for the Kremlin etc but not that he denied these specific allegations. We cant go rogue and say stuff reliable sources aren’t saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Before the article was shortened, the lede used to say, Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks. I don't think that the Mueller Report represents new accusations against Assange (it contains the same accusation as US intelligence officials made in 2016), but I'm fine with the older wording. That wording is also accurate. If I can add: one of the problems is that Mueller's charges against GRU agents were shoe-horned into the lede, even though they are only tangentially related to Assange. This has been justified with the argument that The Mueller Report is important in general, though why it's important to this article has never been made clear by proponents of inclusion. That's how we got to a situation in which Assange's denials of US intelligence accusations are put next to Mueller's charges against GRU agents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

[EC] A few other sources and the style in which the denials are stated:

- The Guardian - Damian Gayle - CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election, say reports, 10 December 2016: "The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government."

- Belfast Telegraph - Julian Assange: Russian government not source of leaked DNC and Podesta emails - WikiLeaks editor contradicts CIA claims in new interview, 16 December 2016: "WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has again denied that emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were hacked and leaked to his organisation by the Russian government. In an interview with Sean Hannity he was asked: "So in other words, let me be clear...Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?" The Australian founder of the whistleblowing website, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years, responded: "That's correct." Assange said: "We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all. "We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. "And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication," he told Hannity. ... Last week Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, dismissed the CIA's claims that Russia was the source of the emails as "bulls***". The accounts by Murray and Assange directly contradict the story advanced by the CIA. On Friday the Washington Post reported on a 'secret assessment' by the CIA, which concluded that Russian intelligence hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers and that of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta, specifically to help Trump win the presidency. Mr Murray said: "I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.""

- Aljazeera - Assange extradition battle resumes after coronavirus delays, 07 September 2020: "He has also attracted more recent criticism for WikiLeaks’s release of documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee, which damaged nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential campaign. He has denied accusations by US investigators that WikiLeaks obtained those documents from Russian hackers."

- A more detailed denial quoted by Kevin Gosztola on Shadowproof and Aaron Maté on RealClearInvestigations: "For his part, Assange has repeatedly claimed that Russia was not his source and that the U.S. government does not know who was. "The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly," Assange said in January 2017. "WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not state parties. They do not come from the Russian government.""

- "Collusion. Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win" (2017), Luke Harding, Ch.04 "Hack": "Then there was WikiLeaks, a platform that Trump openly praised in the months before the election. “We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks,” the report [co-authored by the CIA, FBI and NSA and published on 06 January] said, adding: “Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity.” Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ editor in chief, disputes this and says the leaks didn’t come from a “state party.” The agencies don’t believe him."

    ←   ZScarpia   20:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC) [augmented: 19:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)]

ZScarpia, the endless problem remains the same: the DNC emails were stolen by the Kremlin and released through Wikileaks, so Assange's denials that he dealt with Russian agents give the appearance of Trump attempting to claim that Mueller's lack of evidence of criminal conspiracy is equivalent to a finding of no collusion, despite half of the Mueller Report being proof of collusion and the other half proof of a cover-up thereof. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, please stop posting views from unreliable sources. Assange was offered a pardon from Trump in exchange for denying Russian involvement, and he complied. He went even further by claiming the hacking was a DNC insider job, even though that explanation makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. In short, he can't be trusted. WikiLeaks is considered a "malicious foreign actor". "Assange has repeatedly disputed claims that the emails came from the Russian government. Yet, in a December interview on Hannity’s radio show, he left open the possibility that Guccifer 2.0’s activities were linked to the Russians. “Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”" -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Assange was offered a pardon from Trump in exchange for denying Russian involvement, and he complied: Assange was reportedly offered a pardon in 2017, after he had already denied that Russia was the source (see The Guardian's recent article). I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that Assange "complied" with Rohrabacher's request. You really shouldn't be writing posts like this on talk pages of living persons. Remember that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages: WP:BLPTALK. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[Reply to JzG's comment of 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)]
We've gone around in circles several times here. Assange's denials are widely reported by reliable sources, though some editors personally believe that those denials are not credible. WP:BLP says, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, and this article is a BLP, so I don't see what the point of this endless debate is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, but the denials repeatedly avoid the substance of the factual statement that the data released by Wikileaks was stolen by the Kremlin. Assange does not, as far as I can tell, actually deny that - only that he himself knowingly spoke to Kremlin agents. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Assange does not comment on Wikileaks' sources. His statement that Russia is not Wikileaks' source is actually quite unusual, but he is probably not going to go into much detail about how he obtained the emails. My understanding is that the Mueller Report could not actually identify how Wikileaks obtained the emails, though it speculated on possible methods. In any case, it's not up to us to judge how credible Assange's denial is. That would veer into WP:OR. The key policies are WP:BLP (which states that denials must be included) and WP:RS (plenty of reliable sources have reported Assange's denial). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• If the allegations are to be given in the lead, Assange's response should be provided as well. The dismissal of the DNC suit against Assange should also be noted in the lead: it is irresponsible to note these allegations without reporting on the legal outcome. -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal life?

I don't think we should have a "Personal life" section at the beginning. This is confusing because it overlaps the period when he was convicted for hacking. He had a child at that time. I think the other two relationships should be dealt with chronologically.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy for the text to be moved to an appropriate place in the page. However, you won't be able to put Julian's relationship with Stella in one place as they first met in 2011, started a relationship in 2015 and had two children at different times between 2015 and 2020. That time period straddles a number of sections. The one sentence we devote to his relationship with Sarah from 2009 to 2012 straddles the 'Early publications', 'Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables', 'US criminal investigation', 'Swedish sexual assault allegations' and 'Swedish sexual assault allegations' sections. The birth of Daniel when Julian was 18 would go into the hacking section which seems to cover that time period. It's hard to say what chronological section should contain the sentence about Julian's hair turning white or the sentence about him being "Daniel's primary caregiver for much of his childhood". If you are going to start sorting things chronologically you will need to reorganise or merge the Hacking and Programming sections as there is some time overlap. Burrobert (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have established an "Early life" section which is really about his early life. We can't have everything exactly in chronological order, but I think someone reading about Assange's activities in the embassy deserves to know that (apparently) Assange fathered two kids in his time there. It would be good to include the "Hacking" section in this section, but I can't see how to do it without being confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to combine "Hacking" and "Programming" into "Early life". It's not exactly chronological but it does show that these events occurred in the same period.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• From 2009 to 2012, Assange was in a relationship with British journalist Sarah Harrison. There are several problems with this. Harrison is hardly a journalist. She is (or was) a Wikileaks staffer. Secondly, as I read the source, the "intimate" relationship started in 2010, and there is no statement about it ending. Thirdly, I question why we mention this. Harrison's work with Wikileaks is noted. Whether she was Assange's girlfriend (or intimate with him in some unspecified way) at some point doesn't seem to matter. They were apparently not publicly known as a couple. They didn't have any children... We don't need to list every one of Assange's girlfriends.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence. Other sources indicate that the relationship was somewhat casual[23] and that the pair have "never commented" on it.[24] Including it seems gossipy, unless there's something more to say about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I noticed this piece in The Australian earlier. I haven't read all of it, but it looks to be based on an interview with Moris. Might contain something usable. [25] - Ryk72 ^talk 07:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox currently says Assange has four children. I haven't seen a source for this. It seems a matter of addition: two children with Stella Moris, one child in France, and Daniel. I don't think we really know how many children he has, but perhaps "at least four" is unencyclopedic. In this source, Sarah Harrison, speaking to Assange in 2011, asks, "Have you been at the births of all your children?" And Assange replies, "All except one". The use of the word "all" implies there was more than two at that point. In this source, dated 2012, Assange says that he has not seen "any of my children" (not either) since being under house arrest and refers to his "eldest son" (as if he has more than one). The description of Assange's "young children" seems to exclude Daniel who was an adult that time and, according to this, he hadn't seen his father since 2007. According to this, Assange had at least four children by 2011. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting we delve into original research about Assange's children. I think a biographical article should note that the subject has children, but in this case we seem to have very limited information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This and the mention of Teresa have now been removed from the infobox by Connor Behan. On reflection, I think it would be good to note his children somehow...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I have gathered together the information we have. There is some information that is probably too vague to use, such as this which says that he had a daughter born around 2006. This says that he had a daughter from a Korean woman in Paris, presumably the same one he told President Hollande about. This says he was given a kitten by his "young children" in 2016. This says in 2012, he was "thought" to have a boy and a younger girl (as well as Daniel). I guess we don't know how many children Assange has, without doing DNA testing. Only three have been publicly identified. However, to say that he might only have three implies that he has been lying repeatedly, including to the French President. I don't think we should imply Assange is lying without evidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed this: Julian was Daniel's primary caregiver for much of his childhood. What Assange said was, "I raised my eldest son as a single father for more than 14 years in Australia". However, the our source says that he reached a custody agreement with Daniel's mother in 1999, that is, when Daniel was around 10. According to this, Julian and Daniel last had contact in 2007, when Daniel was around 18. I don't doubt that Julian looked after Daniel, but not as primary caregiver for much of his childhood.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the text saying Julian was married to Teresa, Daniel's mother. There are at least three sources used in the article which say they were married, so I don't think this is in dispute. From what the New Yorker says they were probably married in a registry or something like that. The infobox gives her name as "Teresa Doe". I don't see this in any source. "Doe" might be a pseudonym, as in John Doe. If so, I think it's inappropriate. Also, I don't see a source saying they divorced in 1999. Finally, I have described her as a "girl", not a woman, because she was 17 when she gave birth to Daniel.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• The passage about Assange's hacker handle when he was a teenager correctly says that his handle was Mendax, but then is followed by a comment that the word means "liar." This lacks the necessary context for understanding his choice of handle and is clearly politically motivated. Assange got his handle from Horace's Odes, in which the phrase "splendide mendax" (nobly untruthful) appears. Assange discusses this in his autobiography. I added this to the page today, but the edit bot kicked it back because it did not like the URL for one of the two sources I provided. Onerevolutionary (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not "clearly politically motivated". It is a statement of fact. I have added your information in an abbreviated form.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Use of 'deny'

I was surprised at the frequency with which we have written that Assange has "denied" various allegations. I counted seven uses that seem to infringe on the policy that we must "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability". (WP:claim) I will go through these cases and provide an alternative wording in line with our policy. Burrobert (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Assange is unusual in that he has faced many allegations.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Let’s keep the allegations. The policy is around how we phrase his response to the allegations. I haven’t finished going through all the examples so jump in and help if you have some free time. Burrobert (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Judges and cats

Burrobert, do you have a source which says it was Judge Michael Snow who presided over the first extradition hearing on 2 May 2019?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do. It appears that I omitted to add it to the text. Sometimes you fascinate me. Why didn't you ask for a source when we had Baraitser as the judge? Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: thanks for adding [26] the reference [27]. It's not unreasonable for Jack Upland to ask for a reference by the way. I also didn't know that Snow had presided over the first hearing. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. Apologies for the slightly aggressive tone Jack. I value your generally fair-minded opinion even if you aren't a paid up member of the Julian Assange fan-club (not my description). Burrobert (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Burrobert. I simply didn't notice the mistake. I think we should all be checking references for old edits and new because obviously there are a lot of mistakes. This means that Arbuthnot was not the first judge in the extradition case (see above).--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Snow found Assange guilty of skipping bail, but it was Deborah Taylor who sentenced him.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Add it into the mix if you think it helps. Any news on the cat? Burrobert (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems strange that the judge that sentenced him was different to the one who found him guilty. But who knows? Certainly a lot of judges have dealt with him. If you're referring to Assange's cat, I think it's legitimate to mention the cat (briefly). This is a biographical article about someone who was stuck in an embassy for seven years. The reference to the cat gives an insight into his life and also into the friction between him and the Ecuadorian government which eventually led to his arrest...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep the cat by all means, for the kiddies if nothing else. What about wording that incident in a way that doesn't imply Assange sued Ecuador because it wanted him to clean up after his cat? Burrobert (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If the cat fits, wear it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't fit. We have squashed it into a shape that is very unnatural for a cat. The slow, steady but safe approach you have used when discussing Arbuthnots has been forgotten when writing about cats and children. Burrobert (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The BBC says, The judge said a requirement to pay for internet use and clean up after his cat did not violate his right to asylum. The article says, An Ecuadorian judge ruled against him, saying that requiring Assange to pay for his Internet use and clean up after his cat did not violate his right to asylum. This seems to reflect the source very closely. Anyway, I have never written anything about the cat, so I don't think I have anything to clean up.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at the BBC source for the second sentence and we have transcribed it correctly. The issue is with the first sentence. By omitting in the first sentence the specific reasons why Assange sued Ecuador (I think there were over thirty conditions placed on him), the second sentence implies that he only sued because of Embassy Cat and having to pay bills. We just need to add his specific reasons for suing to the first sentence. That will of course make the second sentence sound petty and trivial but as you said we need to stick to the source. His specific reasons for suing are in the first BBC source. You may notice that his statement doesn’t mention Embassy Cat at all and that it is the BBC that notes EC is mentioned in the list of conditions. Burrobert (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are trying to use me as a cat's paw.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I’ll do my own dirty work. Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Honours and Awards

Perhaps this could go under the Honours and Awards Section for this article. I've noticed that a sub-species has been named after Assange. See: R.T. Hoser, 2014. "A logical new genus-level taxonomy for the Xenosauride, Anniellidae, Diploglossidae, and Anguidae". Australian Journal of Heptology. 24:20-64, and p.47 for specific reference. The article states that the sub-species was "Named in honour of Wikiweaks founder Julian Assange, in recognition of his globally patriotic work for human rights and freedom from government tyranny in exposing reckless government corruption" (p.47). Now, I know that some are concerned that this article is already too long, so I thought I might seek suggestions as to how the above information might be added to the article. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a a brief mention under "Honours and Awards" should be fine, with a citation. It should only add a few words, after all. And the article size is under control at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of longstanding content: is the Obama Administration view "SYNTH?" or UNDUE?

Hi @SPECIFICO: please note that when I restored [28] the NYT's comment about the Obama Administration's view, I was restoring text that had been in the article for at least a year [29]. Your revert [30] violates the DS "consensus required" restrictions on this page, as Awilley recently explained to you [31]: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit." Please self-revert. You should be well aware of these sanctions since you have frequently warned other users not to violate them, including on this page [32]. I assume you were not aware that this text was long in the article.

Regarding content, your edit summary [33] doesn't provide a clear rationale for your actions: "SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists." Note that we are editing a section titled "Indictment in the United States," and the NYT article [34] I'm using as a citation (and that's long been the citation here) is titled, "Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues." So a priori there's no synthesis going on: the NYT article is discussing exactly the same topic as our section.

Lastly, your comment that my edit creates "an insinuation" is not particularly collegial. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please revise your section header to a neutral header compliant with WP:TPG. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm happy to receive suggestions. What do you think is an ideal talk header here? -Darouet (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Unsure what exactly your objection is, I've made this change [35]. Hope that's to your liking. -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue raised by the NYT and our article — the Obama Administration's view that Assange should not be prosecuted for constitutional reasons — is repeated by plenty of other sources, e.g. [36], [37], [38]. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is longstanding content. It is also a fairly close paraphrase of text from the NYT article which says "The Obama administration had also weighed charging Mr. Assange, but rejected that step out of fears that it would chill investigative journalism and could be struck down as unconstitutional". I think the original text is fine but as a compromise we could use the NYT text in quote marks. Burrobert (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a paraphrase of the NYT. Greenwald is a partisan.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've opened an AE case on this, [39]. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• The deleted text:

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.

appears to be redundant as the body also includes:

Under the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice did not indict Assange because it was unable to find any evidence that his actions differed from those of a journalist.

As the text was deleted in an attempt to trim an overly long article, the deletion seems to make sense. I also think such a quick AE filing is not constructive. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that similar content appears in one other location in the article. However, given the recent substantial deletions from the article, it is now in much better shape, something Jack noted above. Furthermore, multiple media sources have noted (as I point out above) that the Obama Administration's earlier view of a possible indictment remains highly relevant to the present indictment. For that reason, keeping the text here is justified. Regarding the AE case, my view is that knowingly breaching DS is disruptive, and refusing to correct oneself is disruptive. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The Obama administration's decision not to indict Assange on Espionage Act charges was a major point of contention in Assange's recent extradition hearings in London, so I think it's important to mention the Obama administration's decision in connection with the US indictments from 2019. This has been discussed by many reliable sources in their reporting on the Trump administration's decision to charge Assange, including the AP, the Financial Times, The Telegraph (UK), USA Today and the Sydney Morning Herald. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course. But why twice? O3000 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It really has to be mentioned in the section on the US criminal investigation. But it's also highly relevant in the section that describes the Trump administration's indictment of Assange. If the article were reconfigured to put the indictments in the "US criminal investigation" section, then it would be possible to reduce the mentions to one. But the indictment of Assange comes several sections after the "US criminal investigation" section, due to the chronological organization of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the two quoted passages again, they really aren't redundant at all, they give three different reasons for the Obama administration declining to indict. The first quote says (1) fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and (2) could be unconstitutional. The second quote says (3) unable to find any evidence that his actions differed from those of a journalist, which is not the same as #1. The two quotes could be copyedited, but fundamentally I think all three reasons should stay in the article. It's not undue because each reason is given once. Lev!vich 07:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the text to the body per the consensus required restriction and discussion above and at AE. Lev!vich 03:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I object to this being mentioned twice in the article. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: why? A strong case can be made that this issue deserves more attention in our article. Right now the "first amendment" is referenced in the article three times, despite commentaries by most major American and International newspapers, and journalism and human rights organizations, raising the first amendment as a concern, e.g. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. When the Trump administration chose to reverse the Obama administration's course, many media organizations noted the reversal as significant with respect to Press Freedoms. We should take their cue and note the issue as well: isn't this how we normally determine due weight? By contrast, "Russia" is mentioned in our article 22 times. This signifies a major imbalance that we should work to correct. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In a 2019 RfC closed by @Bradv:, there was no consensus to call Assange a journalist. The excessive, UNDUE repetition of the Obama Administration's concerns will lead many readers to the SYNTHy POV conclusion that Assange is a journalist. The Obama Administration's concerns about specific First Amendment protections does not support that inference and it should not be repeated UNDUEly in the text so as to lead readers to conflate the First Amendment as being synonymous with protection of journalists. The Obama Administration concern related to a single unintended consequence, not an equivalency. There's no need to repeat this bit over and over. And there was no prior talk page discussion of the deleted text that would indicate it is grandfathered as implicit consensus. Clearly this current talk page does not evince consensus to include it. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also, there are two sentences saying the same thing, both in the body, about a non-action. Bringing up the fact the word Russia is in the article many times, in many different meanings, is a distraction. Repetition dilutes quality of information. This isn't a song. I also now see that this repetition is a SYNTH issue as the reason for repetition appears to be an attempt to force DUEness. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

On the underlying content dispute, I disagree that telling the reader the Obama administration had concerns about what effect an indictment would have on journalism means that readers will think Assange is a journalist. (a) Give the reader more credit; (b) concern over the effect of an indictment on journalism is not the same as saying the defendant is a journalist: just because an indictment might have an effect on X does not mean that the defendant is an X, it just means that the laws or legal principles involved affect X; it's not uncommon for a criminal case to have implications that reach beyond the particular defendant or particular facts of the case at issue; this is a normal part of the decision whether to prosecute someone; and (c) the Obama administration wasn't the only one who had that exact concern; others also expressed it, such as NYT and EFF. We do our readers a disservice by not explaining that this is one of the reasons the indictments weren't issued earlier. Lev!vich 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not all readers would draw that inference, I agree. But this article is about Assange, not constitutional law or journalism. And we don't want to mislead any readers, which I think is likely, given the repetitive nature of the mooted text. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case, "repetitive" means it's mentioned twice in the body. By comparison, the fact of the 2019 indictment is repeated much more often than twice. There's a lot of repetition in this article (which is way too long and should be significantly cut down and spun out); but I don't see the harm in two mentions instead of one, particularly where one mention is in what is basically an overview (the "US criminal investigation" section, which also mentions the 2019 indictment), and the second time in the section "Indictment in the United States" which details the indictment. This is akin to mentioning something once in the opening of a chapter of a book, and again later in the chapter. It's not too much, in my opinion. Lev!vich 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The RfC result was that we should not call Assange a "journalist" in Wikivoice. The result was not that we should censor reliable sources that report facts that might give readers the impression that Assange is a journalist. Our job here is not to convince readers that Assange is not (or is) a journalist. Our job is to summarize reliable sources.

The content in question is a straightforward paraphrase of the sources (meaning it's not WP:SYNTH). It's discussed by numerous reliable sources, so it's not WP:UNDUE. Keeping this material out because it might lead readers into wrongthink would, however, be a WP:POV problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT. Not all RS content should be emphasized or even included in an article. This is fundamental to WP editing PAGs. Please also note that WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE content is generally well-sourced. Otherwise, it would simply be removed as failing WP:V. Please review these basic policies. I think that if you will carefully review them, you will see that your comment above is invalid. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've carefully re-reviewed these basic policies. I still think a close paraphrase of a reliable source is not WP:SYNTH. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, we are getting a bit closer to resolution. But SYNTH is not about verification and fidelity to the source. It's about juxtaposition and context in the article. As I've said on the AE thread, this is not a simple obvious form of SYNTH so I think UNDUE emphasis more readily covers the problem. The WP:SYNTH link should clearly confirm to you that it's not about fidelity to a source but rather about the impression created by the context of an otherwise faithful paraphrase. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

From WP:SYNTH: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. The same applies if one reliable source says A and B, but not C. But neither is the case here. The material in question is a trivial rewording of what the source says. The source says A, and the edit says A using slightly different words. SYNTH simply does not apply in any way here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, I hastily wrote SYNTH along with an explanation that is better fitting UNDUE. Why do you keep coming back to SYNTH? It is undue emphasis on a constitutional issue relating to journalists' rights -- which is reported to be Obama's concern -- which are legally similar but not identical to the general American First Amendment rights. The undue emphasis forms a synth-like but not strictly SYNTH conflation of free speech with journalism -- two related but distinct concepts. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not "synth-like" either. It's exactly what the source says. But regardless, the fact that numerous reliable sources discuss the Obama administration's decision not to prosecute Assange, and the rationale for that decision, indicates that it's not UNDUE. This material has now been discussed at length, and the objections about WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE have been shown over and over again to be completely empty. It's time to move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What are the two (or more) pieces of verified information, and what is the novel synthesis that is being derived from them? - Ryk72 ^talk 23:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ryk72. As I've said above in several spots, it is better described as UNDUE -- which is contrary to WP:NPOV although the effect on the narrative is similar to a synth sequence or context. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Halò! Ciamar a tha sibh fhèin? If we then move on from the question of synth, and focus on DUE-ness that that would be progress. N'est-ce pas? - Ryk72 ^talk 23:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• What everyone needs to decide is: if there were an RFC and it came back as "no consensus", would the text at issue stay or go? This is another way of asking: does "longstanding" text need consensus to remove, or consensus to retain? (And how long is "longstanding"?) Trying to have this question answered at AE or by admins is a mistake. Instead, editors should just decide on this talk page, one way or the other, how it will work for this page. (For my part, I don't regularly edit this page and I don't care which option is chosen, I just care that an option is chosen.) Lev!vich 20:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  I basically agree with Levivich here, and I also note that his reinstatement could have been done by any editor including Darouet -- if there were anyone who believed the reinstatement was more urgent than the talk page discussion that has now begun. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus required and implicit consensus discussions

Discussions concerning the interpretations of the Consensus required provision and implicit consensus are active at WP:Silence and consensus and WP:Consensus required. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

family

• https://www.dw.com/en/julian-assange-fathered-two-children-with-lawyer-in-embassy-report/a-53099462

Change to discretionary sanctions on this page

In response to SPECIFICO's latest breach of discretionary sanctions on this page [49], and after SPECIFICO refused to revert or discuss, I filed an AE report [50]. I also took some time to document a pattern of disruption here, with most diffs from the last couple months, and a few older that relate to the case [51].

Awilley and Swarm have stated that SPECIFICO's edit is a violation, [52][53], noting that this does not imply SPECIFICO will be sanctioned for their behavior.

Importantly for editors active at Julian Assange, Awilley has now changed the discretionary sanctions active on this page [54]. After Awilley's change, the "consensus required" restriction is no longer in force here. What that means exactly should probably be discussed. It appears that at WP:AE, administrators themselves are divided and/or uncertain of the utility of "consensus required," e.g. [55][56][57][58]. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

In practice there should be little change here without the "Consensus required" discretionary sanction. WP:Consensus still applies, as it always has, and editors will still be expected to use the talk page to work out their differences. And the WP:1RR rule is still in effect for this article. One difference is that the removal of the CR sanction will allow people to use WP:Partial reverts as an additional means of resolving disputes. I highly recommend this tactic as a means of finding compromise. If an edit you make is reverted, take the time to really understand what the objection was to your edit, using the talk page if the edit summary wasn't clear. Then after 24 hours you can try an alternate version of the edit, making changes to resolve the concerns expressed by the other editor. For example, you might adjust the wording to a more neutral point of view, tweak it to better reflect the body of sources, or break a large edit up into multiple edits starting with the least contentious changes first. ~Awilley (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this thread or OP's tone is appropriate for this page, but -- as should be obvious -- the page is not under 0RR and now that the "consensus required" restriction is lifted, any editor (as was the case with me) can revert a bad edit, so long as they have not previously reverted that day. (Subject to all other site policies and guidelines, of course.) SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this article fall under AP2? Seems many of the editors roaming here are AP2's. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)