Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Less is more

Part of the problem above is that it's emblematic of a systemic problem with this article: it devotes an extraordinary amount of text to trivia.

The article is 226,509 bytes. The article on Robert Hooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is 76,111 bytes. Hooke came up with the idea of tabulating expected versus achieved results in experiments, built the gas pump and performed the experiments for Boyle's Law, formulated the eponymous law of springs, lectured on how fossils were the preserved relics of extinct creatures before the term extinct existed, founded the science of microscopy, wrote the first great scientific bestseller, Micrographia, coined the biological term "cell", was a founder member of the Royal Society, for whom he was also curator of experiments and, briefly, secretary, conducted half the surveys after the great fire of London, designed the monument to the fire (built as a telescope to observe transits, but his characteristically accurate measurements when built showed that it moved too much in the wind for that to work - but this is why there is no central column to the spiral stariway), along with the dome of St. Paul's, several "Wren" churches and Bethlehem Hospital, the famous "bedlam", wrote Britain's first building controls, invented the sash window, and codified resolving power. Oh, and told Newton that gravity was an inverse square law and that light is formed of waves. Over 300 years after his death we are still discovering significant work by him. An entire museum was inspired by his work. I doubt the same will be true of Assange, who is mainly known for publishing stolen documents, first for whistleblowers and then for the Russian security services, and for running away and hiding from accusations of rape.

If we make the article roughly a quarter of its present size, it will be much better, and the genuinely significant will be easier to see. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We have been trying to reduce the section on the 2016 US election but have hit a roadblock. Do you suggest we remove the section until a consensus is achieved? Burrobert (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, please listen to the majority of editors commenting on this page recently and make a good faith show that you understand JzG's point and the WP culture of collaboration by self-reverting the trim of Melzer content that I and two Admins have also removed. Note that none of us removed all, or even a majority, of the Melzer content. To be frank, it makes Assange's story look weird and weak to have so much primary-sourced admiring content at the expense of encyclopedic coverage. JzG has very ably summarized the issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, in fact it reads as if it was written by Assange cultists looking to come up with anything they can to arm-wave away his clearly problematic history.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, this article is an example of a widespread failure mode on Wikipedia. Attrition of a diverse set of generalist editors leaving a small number of enthusiasts who for whatever reason sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. As I've said above, Melzer is marginally WP:NOTABLE. His own page has lots of problems and primary sourced content. As a self-selected unpaid volunteer with a limited scope of knowledge, his views might be significant if widely endorsed by third parties. But this is not really the case. The UN affiliation gets lots of initial press coverage but little serious attention has been given his rather insistent views. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agree - but the problem is way bigger, there's an enormous section on health which does little more than echo the "Free Assange" propaganda we get spammed on Facebook and the like. He's in prison, he has the sads, end of. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think these arguments are exaggerated, but there is a valid point. Assange hasn't been treated very differently from any other British prisoner. Being a prisoner isn't very pleasant. In fact, it's bad for your health. It's rough if you don't get bail. You can't live with your family etc. We know people are campaigning for Assange. But why belabour the point? The text is excessive and repetitive. In many cases it has little substance.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland, exactly. Suicide rates are high, depression is rampant. Fact is, you're not supposed to enjoy it. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This entire thread is WP:OR at best, but includes aspersions against editors here (e.g. Assange cultists, a small number of enthusiasts who for whatever reason sometimes do not see the forest for the trees), and aspersions against living persons described in the article (e.g. Melzer is a self-selected unpaid volunteer with a limited scope of knowledge, and Assange a very naughty boy). We've repeatedly used reliable sources to determine how this article should best apportion content according to WP:DUE weight, and those sources show that the 2016 election is often not mentioned at all in summaries of Assange's life. By contrast, Assange was not extradited to the US by reason of his health, and multiple international legal and humanitarian bodies have highlighted what they describe as his mistreatment, receiving prominent coverage in the news. -Darouet (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion on the size issue: merge text about stories published by WikiLeaks to List of material published by WikiLeaks. Keep here only stories that are significant in Assange's life, rather than just being stories that he published.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Melzer's status and area of expertise were set forth in the Health section above. And per the Goldwater rule, we do not promote medical opinions by individuals who have not examined the subject. Melzer is not a physician. SPECIFICO talk 02:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• If this is an issue about article size, rather than Melzer specifically, then we need to consider all sections of the article to work out a balance.
• The comments we attribute to Melzer in the article come within his purview as United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• I made a suggestion earlier about how to summarise comments by Melzer and Doctors for Assange. It didn’t get a rousing ovation but I haven’t seen any other concrete suggestions yet (other than mass deletions). Summarising some of the disparate comments in the Imprisonment in the UK section would improve the article.
• I am undecided about the suggestion to remove some of the material published by Assange and Wikileaks. The same argument could be applied to other sections such as ‘Swedish sexual assault allegations’, ‘2016 U.S. presidential election’ and ‘Indictment in the United States’ which have their own articles. Can we see a concrete proposal for all these sections?

Burrobert (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert and Jack Upland: the Wikileaks publications section of our article is very short, but I've clearly demonstrated on this talk page that this period of Assange's life brought him more international news coverage in reliable sources than any other period of his life. These publications are the cause of his continued confinement and the reason the US seeks to extradite him. The publications are also repeatedly referenced by human rights organizations, journalism organizations, and newspaper editorials from major papers as a major ongoing free speech issue.

For example, Amnesty International writes [1],

The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.

A director of the American Civil Liberties Union has recently commented [2],

For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information.

The European Federation of Journalists' general secretary has stated [3],

US and British politicians are abusing the US Espionage Act to criminalise Assange’s revelations of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Federation's news service writes that Assange

has been indicted in the United States under the Espionage Act for WikiLeaks’ 2010-11 publications of the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Diaries, and State Department cables. If convicted, Assange would face 175 years in prison. He is accused by the Americans of encouraging whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 to break into the government’s computer system to provide information containing clear evidence of war crimes, including the publication of the video Collateral murders. The video showed, via an onboard camera on a US Apache helicopter in Iraq, the deliberate shooting on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad of civilians by the US military. At least 18 people were killed in the incident, including two journalists from the Reuters agency. Both the IFJ and its British and Australian affiliates, the NUJ and the MEAA, have repeatedly highlighted the risks to journalism posed by Assange’s threatened extradition.

An opinion published in the Columbia Journalism Review writes [4],

Remember that little spying case against Julian Assange? The Department of Justice indicted him last year for publishing classified US military and State Department documents leaked in 2010 by Chelsea Manning, who was then a soldier in Iraq... The US’s aggressive efforts to extradite Assange under spying charges for publicly disclosing classified information—in contravention of the political offense exception—could create precedent that affects the US press.

Removing information on what Assange has actually published would negate the very reason for his 1) notability, and 2) his current legal battle, seeking to extradite because of those publications.

As many above have mentioned, we can cut the 2016 election material if we need to shorten the article, but there's no way we can remove the already-too-short description of Assange's publications. -Darouet (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that his publications are an important part of his bio and don't receive excessive coverage on the page. There are more appropriate targets for cuts. Some small savings can be made here:

• The two mentions of the comments of United Nations Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard can be rolled into one item. They stem from the same article which has two separate entries in references.
• British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is quoted twice within three sentences saying almost the same thing.
• We devote a paragraph to something that didn’t happen - Assange agreeing to go to prison in exchange for clemency for Chelsea Manning.
• The sentence "Other witnesses testified that the conditions of imprisonment, which would be likely to worsen upon extradition to the U.S., placed Assange at a high risk of depression and suicide which was exacerbated by his Asperger syndrome" may not be necessary as it is largely covered by Baraitser's ruling.

Burrobert (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know all the background but that sounds like a reasonable place to start. I'd like to think I'm neutral on Assange. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, sure, as long as it is done by reference to third-party reliabel sources that analyse its significance. Passing mentions? Not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to publications, I don't think information like this adds anything to a biographical article: "In December 2016, Wikileaks published emails from the Turkish government in response to Erdoğan's post-coup purges in Turkey. The emails covered the period from 2010 to July 2016. In response, Turkey blocked access to the Wikileaks site." Items like this belong in the "List" article. There's no sense in duplicating the the list here. I am certainly not suggesting removing items which have caused major controversy or criminal charges. That is a straw man. I think the Manning clemency issue is something that did happen and removing it looks like covering up for Assange. But it could be shortened. "Swedish sexual assault allegations" is already a short section. "2016 U.S. presidential election" has been discussed many times. I think we should move on. "Indictment in the United States" was drastically cut down by me, and there have been further battles about it. Maybe we could move the paragraph about Hersh etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Melzer, take a look at the list of sources I posted above, in the "United Nations" discussion thread. Melzer's comments have been covered by the major news outlets in every country I checked (US, UK, France, Spain, Germany, China, Canada, Australia). These articles span the period 2019 to the present, showing that this coverage was not just a flash in the pan, but rather that it has continued for two years. Statements such as, The UN affiliation gets lots of initial press coverage but little serious attention has been given his rather insistent views simply do not line up with what we actually see from the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That does not address the point under discussion. You and others reverted a modest trim of UNDUE, poorly sourced article text. Why do you believe that text should remain in the article? You already know that most editors reject the view you have again repeated immediately above. SPECIFICO talk 10:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It directly refutes your claim that there has been little serious attention to Melzer's views (there has been a huge amount of press attention) and your assertion that there was only initial press coverage (the coverage spans the last two years). Looking above, I don't see any indication that most editors reject what I am saying about Melzer. You've asserted that the Melzer material is undue, while I've shown that there's a massive amount of ongoing press coverage of Melzer's views. If you keep asserting that to the contrary, little attention has been paid to Melzer, and if you don't engage with the sources, I don't see how we can make any progress. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with parts of this. Comparing these subjects whilst one is living whilst another is not means there are less avaliable summative sources (like in-depth books that can look back on Assange in hindsight in context). Also using bytes to compared to readable prose also makes less sense since references with URLs + archive URLs take up more space naturally than book sources. Moreover using terms like "Assange cultists" really does not help in discussions here, especially ones that are controversial.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with  Spy-cicle💥 : this page has a little over 11,000 words of prose text, while pages for Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning each have nearly 14,000 words.

There have been repeated calls to cut 2016 election material from this bio. A few summary articles about Assange do mention it (e.g. LA Times "Who is Julian Assange" and NBC News what is Wikileaks?), but many don't:

• BBC [5] "Who is Julian Assange and what is Wikileaks?" (2019) doesn't mention the election once.
• BBC [6] "Julian Assange: Why is the Wikileaks co-founder a wanted man?" (2019) again, doesn't mention the election once.
• The Guardian [7] "Everything you need to know about Julian Assange" (2019) doesn't mention the election.
• The Sydney Morning Herald [8] "Julian Assange: what happens next?" (2019) doesn't mention the elections. It does include a section, "Who is Julian Assange?," which is mostly about the diplomatic cables.
• Though they're not overviews of Assange personally, two recent Columbia Journalism Review pieces on Assange's case don't mention the election [9][10]. CJR is a great source, and one of those articles includes a summary of responses by other media organizations to Assange's case. Their views provide a good framework for how we should be approaching this topic. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's been established that the 2016 election issue is important for citizens of the Home of the Brave, but not very important for anyone else. As the servers of Wikipedia are largely located in the US of A, we must pandar to these barbarians and allow them to have a section about how naughty Mr Assange allowed naughty Mr Donald to wipe his posterior on the Stars and Stripes. Thankfully, Yemenis and Saudi Arabians and the Vatican have not insisted on having a section devoted to the rambunctious combustifications that ensued when WikiLeaks dumped a bucket over their picnic. And they don't have many servers. Consensus has been achieved; let's move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Admire your feisty language Jack. Most, if not all, of Assange’s publications about the US relate to regimes prior to Trump’s. For example, the Iraq War Logs concern the period from 2004 to 2009. The Afghan War documents leak covers the period from January 2004 and December 2009. The United States diplomatic cables leak covers the period from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. There are many embarrassing revelations in these and other publications such as the killing of civilians by the US, US war crimes etc. While the Republican party may be the most dangerous organisation on the planet, the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak embarrassed Trump not at all. The US election section is partly about how the US establishment geared up to exact revenge on Assange for embarrassing its favourite "liberal war hawk" Hilary Clinton. You make an interesting point about the “Yemenis and Saudi Arabians and the Vatican”. Wikileaks has published internal documents from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others yet none of these countries have attempted to have Assange extradited from the UK. I was unclear about what you were referring to in the last sentence. Are you saying we no longer need to discuss Melzer, Doctors for Assange etc and can move on to trimming other parts of the page? Burrobert (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

T stuffe up, righteous hipsterista-sista-gal (TA Arnie)! The feist leaked from the Uranus of the corgis while Prince Phil raked the compost while the lady wife pontificated about Heaven. I "sparked" quote unquote this flame war when I lit the spark in the eucalyptus or as I like to call it, carparks for funny gents. I can put my fake hand on my right breast and adequately proclaim that ich bin ein Bernliner [Asterix up to Uranus, minus 2, Portuguese mandrake outside the Welsh asteroid belt] & no sentient female who drank the Green ganga has ever coherently condemn German "Fucking" Drear who left Swowdon West before she had a Bar Mitzvah in the unregistered synagogue in North Uist, California. We need to stop hitting each other with recently dead salmans and try to "smoke" the peace pipe, meandering off the war path, AND STICK TO THE FAX. The Abbott of Misrule showed US the way, but Brutus is curious and bloody hell whey.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not Lestrade, nor do I wannabe, but if I spin the globe, my wife may be made free. I'm not so concerned, a cab in the service, but my name's up for knighthood & that macks me Nervous.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here: the level of nastiness here doesn't encourage me to get involved. There seem to be a lot of closed minds here. I think I will wander back off to where I can get stuff done without discussion of other editors' cult status. Personally I would advocate freezing the page for a few months until you people get lives. Elinruby (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Staying in the embassy

"Assange breached bail conditions by staying in the embassy and faced arrest if he left."

Isn't this wording rather derogatory? It goes with the 'spoiled brat' trope, kinda. I suggest replacing "staying in the embassy" with "requesting asylum", which is functionally identical but does not make his actions look arbitrary. Elinruby (talk)

While I do not see the 'spoiled brat' trope really, but rewording it to "Assange breached bail conditions by taking asylum in the embassy and faced arrest if he left." would be more precise. Requesting asylum did not create the situation, actually taking it did. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Staying in the embassy is different from taking asylum. He entered the embassy in June, but wasn't granted asylum until August. The sentencing remarks make clear he was sentenced to jail for failing to surrender, not because he took asylum (which has been pointed out before is not a crime).--Jack Upland (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, good point. Well, he would have been in breach of bail wherever he went. I guess it is a fine point, but he breached bail conditions by not surrendering regardless of where he went or stayed. What about just deleting the sentence? Is it adding anything to the article that is not already obvious? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would totally oppose deleting the sentence. We need to make it clear on what grounds he was going to be arrested. Previous discussions have shown that this is not at all obvious to many people.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that "he was sentenced to jail for failing to surrender, not because he" stayed in the embassy, what about "Assange breached bail conditions by failing to surrender and faced arrest if he left the embassy"? Burrobert (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"Conditions" is redundant. Strike. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This sentence is a reproduction of "The 41-year-old breached bail conditions by staying in the building and faces arrest if he leaves" which is used in the BBC source cited in the paragraph. I don't really see why this particular sentence is problematic. The objection was that it makes Assange sound like a spoiled brat, but that seems to be only one editor's opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And — just being pedantic — did Assange ever actually get asylum? He was granted asylum in Ecuador, but he never got to Ecuador. The embassy in London is not part of Ecuador. The idea that embassies are foreign soil is a legal myth.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That makes for an interesting thought experiment but are there any sources which comment on it? Burrobert (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The answer apparently is that he received "diplomatic asylum" (not "territorial asylum") which is controversial, unpredicatable, and not generally recognised by international law.[11][12] I don't think there is any reason to pursue this issue any further.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

4.1 Entering the embassy -> Political asylum

I tried changing the title of this section to [13] "political asylum." Jack has objected [14], writing, "Asylum is only one issue here. We have to acknowledge breaching bail." However, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated [15] that a bail violation in the UK [is] objectively, a minor offense, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that.

I therefore propose that we acknowledge the more important aspect of Assange's biography — that he was granted political asylum — and change the name of this section to the shorter and more informative Political asylum. -Darouet (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange. The section is about entering the embassy — and political asylum is only part of that. There's not a great difference in length.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he was granted asylum is a much more significant aspect of this episode than the breaching of bail, which is a relatively minor offense. The text should describe the breaching of bail, but putting it in the section title is gratuitous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: minimizing a major event in someone's biography - being granted political asylum - in order to give greater weight to an objectively minor offense is totally inappropriate, full stop. A reader should be able to scan the table of contents and quickly find this episode in his life. -Darouet (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources calling so-called political asylum significant? Very few. Sources noting the crime of bail-jumping: Numerous. Let's skip the OR. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Entering the embassy" is a neutral heading which reflects the contents of the section. "Political asylum" is not a neutral heading and does not reflect the contents of the section.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to do this in a modified way [16], transforming "Entering the embassy" into "Entering the Ecuadorian embassy" to keep that section largely as it was before. However, I've changed the broader section title so that it is no longer redundant with the one below, and allows readers to quickly locate the asylum period of Assange's life. -Darouet (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the entitling the whole section as "Political asylum" is not neutral and potentially confusing to uninitiated readers. His claim of asylum was recognised by the government of Ecuador, but not by the British government. According to the British courts, he was a fugitive from justice. The use of the heading "Political asylum" tends to legitimise what he did and imply that he was fleeing political persecution, which is highly questionable. It is better to have a factual description rather than opting either to describe his action as a case of asylum or a breach of bail conditions. "Political asylum" is also an opaque term. It doesn't state where he took asylum. It also doesn't reflect the content on the section, which only mentions his claim for asylum relatively briefly. Describing it as the "Ecuadorian embassy period" is a factual and comprehensive heading for this section. It means that the subsequent headings can refer to the "embassy" rather than "Ecuadorian embassy".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Medical opinions

I see several in this article: a cluster of statements regarding Assange's current mental health, that he is/was a narcissist, and that he is a "spoiled brat". For a start. I also see a lot of ink being spilled on whether a UN rapporteur on torture is a reliable source, or even notable. The argument appears to be that Assange has not been tortured, therefore, Metzger isn't qualified to make statements about him, even to say that he appears to have been tortured.

Meanwhile the opinions of politicians are ok, though? The statements that Assange is "a spoiled brat" and a "narcissist" do meet a minimum standard of being sourced, but if Wikipedia supposedly cannot say he is a suicide or health risk even when a British court has ruled that he is, this does seem POV.

Since this is a story that primarily takes place in English courts, perhaps we should apply a legal standard? In any event, the standard for health opinions should be evenly applied. Elinruby (talk)

My next question would be about this rapporteur and whether his report constitutes a finding. But. For what it is worth, where I have encountered mentions of UN rapporteurs in articles about civil wars and genocides in Rwanda and Eastern Congo, they were treated as authoritative. Elinruby (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Melzer should be included, but not to this extent. Overall, there are too many comments included in this article. This point has been made many times. The "narcissist" comment was made by a judge. It shouldn't be removed simply because it is unfavourable to Assange. I do not see any reference to Assange being a "spoilt brat" in the article. As I stated previously, having 16 sentences about Assange's health is excessive. As far as I recall, no one has said his health shouldn't be mentioned at all. No, Wikipedia does not apply a legal standard of evidence. Wikipedia's standards are quite clear.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a spoiled brat comment, but that's not a health diagnosis anyway. The judge's comment on his personality is not a health diagnosis, as the term is also used in ordinary language, and is clearly due in relation to the legal case. I think some coverage of Melzer is clearly due, but I don't think WP has a uniform approach to UN rapporteur's comments (there are dozens of UN rapporteurs, and they express themselves in a variety of ways, and I don't think their comments are automatically authoritative or due) but not at this scale. For example, an interview in The Canary, a generally unreliable source, shouldn't be here. The coverage of letters from Doctors for Assange is also excessive and could be combined; if the only secondary source for one of their letters is Consortium News, for example, then it isn't due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree: the judge's comment was not supposed to be a medical diagnosis.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

nonetheless it is one, and he isn't qualified to make it. Whether it is favorable to Assange or not is irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault

While the term is technically accurate, what he was accused of was initiating a second round of sex with a woman who voluntarily slept with him then fell asleep. The allegation is that he did not properly ensure he had consent the second time, after waking her up. That *is* technically sexual assault but to my mind there is a pretty high presumption that consent exists in those circumstances. I am quite certain that this would never have made it to the criminal justice system if there had not been pressure from the US. This is too nuanced for the lede, so I am not sure how this should be addressed, but I think it is a BLP issue. Also, the change of government in Ecuador had something to do with his change of status at the embassy. I have not read the entire article yet, but am noting these as inaccuracies that I see so far. I will provide sourcing for any changes I propose. Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

the section further down doesn't quite say the above, but does convey some of the nuances. Still reading Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You are brave. Good luck!! Do you think it would be better to use Swedish sources to detail the specifics of the investigation, rather than filtering them through a (possibly distorted) Anglo-American lens? An important point, which has been mentioned in the page, is that the Swedish investigation was used as a way of limiting Assange's ability to inflict more damage on the Anglo-American empire. Regarding the Ecuadorian situation, would Ecuadorian sources provide a better view of the effect of the change in government on Assange's status in the embassy? Moreno seems to have been in the American's pocket and was rewarded with an IMF loan around the time Ecuador abandoned Assange. Within months of winning the elections, Moreno began to move away from his leftist election platform, making neoliberal changes to both domestic and foreign policy. Correa maintained his support for Assange throughout his post-presidential life. In response to Moreno's abandonment of Assange, Correa called Moreno a traitor and said "Moreno is a corrupt man, but what he has done is a crime that humanity will never forget". Moreno became so unpopular in Ecuador that he did not run for re-election in 2021. His approval rating reached an all-time low of 5% by early 2021. Burrobert (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby - If you want to propose some specific changes with relevant sources, feel free. I haven't looked at that section recently and it's been some time since I've read about it, though the UN Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, does have an in-depth commentary on the topic here [17]. One thing that needs correction in our article is the lead treatment of the case being dropped for the third time. We cite the prosecutor's stated reason for dropping the case, but the defense said it was dropped for very different reasons. If we're going to include the prosecution's stated reason, we should include the defense statement as well. -Darouet (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: I agree with that suggestion. After I wrote this, I went down the page, and also read through the spin-off article. There is a fairly extensive exploration of this point there. I am even more convinced that the word "rape" is a misnomer. What he did is certainly not irreproachable behaviour, but when unqualified the word implies a complete lack of consent, and possibly violence, which was not the case here. I do not think it should be used in his BLP, certainly not in its lede. I do not yet have a proposal for this, however. Elinruby (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: I have not really researched this recently; was musing on my recollection of events. Based on that I think what you are saying is largely true, except that the coup d'état in Ecuador probably had as much to do with lithium as Assange. Possibly not however, as Trump was nothing if not personal and petty in his politics, but I do not have a firm opinion on this yet. However, lede does make it sound as though Assange was just a very difficult guest. I have seen news stories that suggest he was, but am pretty sure there is more to the story. Again, this is the tone of the lede I am objecting to; I haven't gone through the section on this in this article yet. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

by the same token, the discussion of the Access Hollywood tapes says something about Trump having a habit of sexual assault. I have not made any changes here as it is a closer call than when it was applied to Assange, but the connotation here is of violent penetration. I am aware that Trump has been accused of this, but in the Access Hollywood tapes, as I recall, he talks about kissing and grabbing women, and it may be fairer to spell this out. Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

correction re Ecuador: it seems I conflated it with Bolivia. Still reading. Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes lithium may have played a part in the coup in Bolivia. Elon Musk made a memorable tweet about the US being able to overthrown whomever it wanted. He may have been joking of course but it was only funny because what he said was largely true - like when Kramer told George's girlfriend she needed a nose job. Thankfully the Bolivians have fought back. Regarding Assange being a difficult guest, here is a list of smears used against Assange to manufacture our consent to his torture (being a bad house-guest is on the list). It was put together by his countrywoman Caitlin Johnstone who also discusses how to deal with them when they come up in conversation. We have managed to squeeze some of them into our article:

• “He’s not a journalist.”
• “He’s a rapist.”
• “He was hiding from rape charges in the embassy.”
• “He’s a Russian agent.”
• “He’s being prosecuted for hacking/espionage crimes, not journalism.”
• “He should just go to America and face the music. If he’s innocent he’s got nothing to fear.”
• “Well he jumped bail! Of course the UK had to arrest him.”
• “He’s a narcissist/megalomaniac/jerk.”
• “He’s a horrible awful monster for reasons X, Y and Z… but I don’t think he should be extradited.”
• “Trump is going to rescue him and they’ll work together to end the Deep State. Relax and wait and see.”
• “He put poop on the walls. Poop poop poopie.”
• “He’s stinky.”
• “He was a bad houseguest.”
• “He conspired with Don Jr.”
• “He only publishes leaks about America.”
• “He’s an antisemite.”
• “He’s a fascist.”
• “He was a Trump supporter.”
• “I used to like him until he ruined the 2016 election” / “I used to hate him until he saved the 2016 election.”
• “He’s got blood on his hands.”
• “He published the details of millions of Turkish women voters.”
• “He supported right-wing political parties in Australia.”
• “He endangered the lives of gay Saudis.”
• “He’s a CIA agent/limited hangout.”
• “He mistreated his cat.”
• “He’s a pedophile.”
• “He lied about Seth Rich.”
• “He’s never leaked anything on Trump.”
• “He conspired with Nigel Farage.”
• “He recklessly published unredacted documents.”
• “He conspired with Roger Stone.”

Burrobert (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As I have previously said, we need a succinct description of what the Swedish allegations were. This is something not found here or on the page devoted to that case. We do not need editors' opinions of how likely the case was to succeed against Assange. Nor should editors try to soften the wording to make Assange look better.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

the Swedish allegations are well-covered in the spin-off article and mentioned above. He initiated a second round of sex with a woman who was asleep in his bed. There is also an allegation that he did not use a condom while having sex with a different woman. I am not the only one who doesn't think this is rape. Sexual misconduct perhaps. That is where this "minor rape" translation comes from, which I object to on the grounds that rape is not minor, and this is not rape. Elinruby (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

following much the same logic I edited "habit of sexually assaulting women", to something like "groping", I believe. Somebody has changed it back. I do believe the several women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, as in rape, but the Access Hollywood tape specifically discusses grabbing and kissing. This is of course also a form of sexual assault, so this is a closer call than it is with Assange, but we are in BLP territory and "sexual assault" is very often a euphemism for "forcible rape". Elinruby (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The Swedish allegations are not "well-covered in the spin-off article". That article does not mention condom use, for example. The incident is touched on briefly, followed by a long series of information about Assange's losing legal manoeuvres. You seem to be editing the article based on your opinion, rather than sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not, or I wouldn't be clutching my pearls over whether we are being fair to Trump. But. It is BLP material and he is litigious and isn't the rule usually that we don't assert criminal behaviour in wikivoice unless there has been a conviction? The rule applies to them both. I sometimes comment on talk pages based on memory, but I am very very careful about not exceeding the facts when I edit, and I have dealt with plenty of disputed facts, starting with Panama Papers and Operation Car Wash, si chill with the remarks about editors, hmm? Which spin off article did you look at? I am absolutely confident of the thing with the condom. That is what happened, and if we don't cover it we probably should. Just possibly it was in one of the sources, not the article. Doing something else just now, but I suppose I can Google it for you later. Part of the issue initially was that Swedish sexual assault law is more stringent than EU law, which applied at the time in Britain. But then the Swedish prosecutor issued a European arrest warrant, which Britain was required to honour. Now please. Let's stick to facts and not what you think my opinion is -- nothing annoys me more. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right that there was an issue with the condom. My point is the allegations are not "well-covered" here. I'm really not sure why the allegations against Trump are important here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

sigh. It isn't well-covered "here", and this is my point. Here we say "rape". Donald Trump's sexual proclivities however *are*, and in my opinion should not be, in the section about the Access Hollywood tape, where we say "he was in the habit of sexually assaulting women." Try to keep up. So. In my *opinion* this is a true statement, but since there have not been any convictions of sexual assault, we should refrain from saying so, especially based on a video tape where he talks about grabbing and kissing. Take it to the BLP notice board if you WP:DONTLIKEIT. Elinruby (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That is an incomprehensible comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

welp. I will try one more time to assume good faith. This article says that both Assange and Trump committed sexual assault. This is generally a euphemism for forcible rape, which doesn't fit the facts in either case, and more to the point, neither has been convicted of anything. Therefore this is a BLP issue. Elinruby (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Embassy headings

I don't see the point of having so many headings in this portion of the article. Many of the headings are followed by a single short paragraph. It is also illogical to have a section headed "Ecuadorian embassy period" which doesn't actually cover the entire period.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about "Ecuadorian embassy period", though this was my change. I thought that what was there before was a little awkward and overly long for a header. As far as I am concerned, feel free to change it to something else. I am doing something else right now, but as I recall I also thought there might be too many headers. Elinruby (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ah, are you talking about the "Early years" section? I kind of agree, but this is something I wanted to run by you guys. I felt the section was basically a timeline and sort of a salad of procreation and policy positions and immigration bureaucracy. It's the simplest basis of organization but not necessarily the best one for this topic. What do you guys think of grouping by theme rather than chronology? Those headers were really there to help me sort the paragraphs out, and I don't insist on this particular architecture, but wanted to post here before making major structural changes to an article that seems rather contentious. LMK Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

for example, the early years header could go away right now, for a start Elinruby (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Early years" heading was put there by me to parallel the "Later years" heading, which you seem to be ignoring. The reason to divide it into early years and later years (however entitled) is because of the 2016 US election section. We therefore have material before the election and then material after the election. Chronological order is recommended by the Manual of Style for Biographies (MOS:BIO), is basically the way the article has been constructed over time, and is easy to follow. The problem with "theme" is that it is largely arbitrary. You seem to have lumped various things together in order to make categories. Any other editor would probably come up with a different arrangement. I think abandoning chronological order will get confusing. If we are just listing "WikiLeaks publishing", I think that belongs on the page List of material published by WikiLeaks.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually that might work. One question I have is to what extent Assange=Wikilinks. My impression is not always. I'd be ok with summarizing here and taking the detail there. I would have to look the MOS section up, but I've copy-edited a boatload of bios and I have yet to see one that intersperses affairs and personal status issues throughout a list of works. Thinking here of Marc Chagall and all the other painters who had to flee Paris when the Nazis arrived. For people with a well-defined career path chronology is probably the way to go, I agree, but putting procreation in the same section as an impact on a war or helping a whistleblower to flee kinda trivializes them both, no? It seems to me it turns narrative into a laundry list. Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Leave it for a day or two? I will come back to this Elinruby (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, in relation to procreation, there is a section on "Children" at the end of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

So maybe move that bit there? I am thinking I should draftify a copy of this and work on it to the side for a minute, the better to demonstrate what I am suggesting. I am not ignoring the later years section; I stopped to discuss. Currently distracted by something but will get to this soon. I personally am fine with you putting all of the children together, if you want to do that. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what your editing is design to do and what problems you are trying to solve?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Easier to just demo it elsewhere. I have found it a waste of time to argue with those determined to misunderstand. As far as I can tell you have been trying really hard to have an argument, here and on my talk page. But. Preoccupied right now with something else Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you to move the non-bio info and reorg a bit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am past the couple days I asked for, so update on this: when I tried to edit a copy of the page in my sandbox, I got very very lagged and had to quit. It is tough to cut and paste in those circumstances. I had identified a couple of non-critical things in the lede, but I should probably start afresh in some other editor when I come back to this. Or, deleting old stuff from the sandbox might possibly work. However, in any case, I have gotten sucked into a breaking news story with a lot of upset new editors, and as an experienced editor who has already somewhat researched the topic (but not the article) I should probably prioritize that over this. I will also be tied up in real life for a couple of days. I will try to further what I started here with the sub-headings around all that, but welcome any other help or discussion meanwhile.

I think we may have consensus for moving the birth of the child from the early embassy section to the section on children, see @Jack Upland: comment above. In broad strokes, what I was wanting to suggest was a structure more along the lines of bio, WikiLeaks, importance (1st Amendment vs national security, etc), then a summary of the legal situation, then further down a more chronological account of events, possibly as a separate timeline. That's also over-simplified, but since I won't we working on this for several more days at least, that's the heart of it.

The most important MoS quibble about the lede is that the link to Collateral Damage on YouTube should be in External links, and replaced in the lede with a secondary reference. Also, someone should research the version -- it seems that there are several, some with more editorial comment than others. YouTube is of course usually discouraged, but imho this is a good case for including it; in External Links however. Later Elinruby (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think any discussion of the embassy period has to mention he had children at that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it is one of the most major events in the period.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin

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

---

An interesting article has just been published on Forbes. It covers a topic that is not mentioned in the current version of Assange's bio. Here are some quotes:

Assange once commenting that “bitcoin is the real Occupy Wall Street”.

Assange sits in Balmarsh Prison for the third year without an official sentence. This is the harshest prison in the United Kingdom, usually reserved for violent repeat offenders, many of whom have committed rape or murder — it is hard to justify why a non-violent activist would be here aside from sadistic extension of state power.

The threat model for Wikileaks was simple and yet devastatingly powerful: the most powerful state collective in the world was likely to go after them eventually, if not now, then sometime in the future. ... One of the first things he commented on was Assange’s continued belief in bitcoin, his love for a tool that made it possible to do his work. The way he thought about cryptography fighting the inevitable centralization of repression made his thought process a natural complement and extension of bitcoin’s fight to remake classical economic and financial systems.

People who support bitcoin should be concerned about Assange’s imprisonment not only because it reflects the betrayal of bitcoin’s ideals in the specific case of Assange — states tying themselves into pretzel knots in order to undermine a non-violent disseminator of information — it also makes vulnerable the principles of true transaction neutrality that underpin bitcoin, creating the most pressing version of the “wrench attack”. If you cannot go after the system, you must go after the person.

As the Internet’s gatekeepers get more and more actively involved in the Internet itself, often forced by nation-states (such as the United States leaning on payment processors to cut off payments to Wikileaks), the Internet itself becomes a shadow of itself.

The hope remains, as Assange himself noted, that new technologies will be able to mediate the unblunted power of many states — rather than consolidating their ability to control the discussion and their citizenry at scale.

Gabriel Shipton and his father John (who is Julian Assange’s father) are now engaged in a tour of the United States to help unite many different groups dedicated to the freedom of Julian Assange — and as a way to counter the consolidation of analog power online. As a concrete way to support the cause, people are asked to donate money in bitcoin ...

Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not an article, that's a blog posting (see WP:FORBES) pimping cryptocurrency by latching onto Assange's name. Completely useless and irrelevant here. --Calton | Talk 13:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

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

Ad hominem and bad faith arguments?

Wrong venue for user conduct complaints; they should be brought to WP:AN/I. ––FormalDude talk 05:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems to me remarks like the following should be avoided on this page: “The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange” “Nor should editors try to soften the wording to make Assange look better” “You seem to be editing the article based on your opinion, rather than sources” “It shouldn't be removed simply because it is unfavourable to Assange.” Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there are editors who take sides re. Julian Assange pointing the fact out during debates merely makes matters personal. Let’s, wherever possible, stick to the issues not the personalities. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC) It would depend on context.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Hopefully my qualifying “wherever possible” allows for that. The context for the quotes I provided can be seen on this page and IMO would have been better unsaid ie sticking to the issues Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Those sound like valid issues to me. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC) SPECIFICO That’s a little ambiguous – are you saying that you think my points are valid or that you believe the remarks I quoted are valid? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC) The latter. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC) SPECIFICO The matter of bias in the article is very much a matter of opinion – some will consider the article to be very hard on Assange – and one could just as easily reword those quotes thus: “The problem is that it's part of a pattern of maximising information unfavourable to Assange” “Nor should editors try to harden the wording to make Assange look worse” “It shouldn't be removed simply because it is favourable to Assange.” A significant number of contributors would say “Those sound like valid issues to me”. That would still though be less helpful than sticking to the issue in hand. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC) If you have issues with users conduct report then at wp:ani or ask them to defend themselves on their talk page. We comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) My point is about the way we “comment on issues” on this page, but if other editors have no problem with what I’m seeing as Ad hominem insinuations, or don’t think this is the correct forum, then I guess I’ll have to drop the issue. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC) I am saying if you see issues ANI is where you take it, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC) I don’t enjoy Wiki’s complaints and appeals processes - so won’t be going there unless forced at gunpoint. I’ve said my piece – seems that editors think it ok to cry bias in order to push their arguments - so at least I know one of the ground-rules now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Well, the account of the hearings into extradition to the US covers the defence arguments, but very little of the prosecution arguments. The substance of the Swedish allegations is glossed over here, and in the main article. And we have 16 sentences dealing with Assange's health since he was arresting in the embassy. So, yes, the article does seem biased to Assange. Of course, you could make it more biased...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC) You are of course entitled to your opinion – it happens to be my sincere opinion that the article, overall, is strongly biased against Assange - however this may not be the time and place to deal with that Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC) If you're done with this, please hat the thread before any more time is devoted to it. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC) What does hat the thread mean? And how do I do it? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC) I would actually like to see some examples of where this article is strongly biased against Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Hat generally means in Wikipedia parlance that you pull your woolly beanie over your encrusted eyelashes, make like the boyos in the hood, pull down the white cone of silence, and shelter in your anorak in the nearest mud igloo. Or you could be Black Hat the Spy and hoodwink the Ravenmaster. I prefer to follow the Cross.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Or to put it another way, hide off-topic posts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC) I don't think the issue of WP:BIAS is not "off-topic".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Actually they are policy is clear, you comment on the content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Russian intelligence officers working with WikiLeaks?

The intro section includes the following sentence:

“In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the material”

The citations provided do not support what is being said here regarding Russian intelligence officers working WITH WikiLeaks. A later CNN article notes:

“Mueller reasoned that Stone and Assange could have been liable for the hacking conspiracy because they had helped to disseminate and maximize the impact of the stolen documents. But ultimately, Mueller wrote, the Justice Department "did not have admissible evidence," such as proof of an agreement and knowledge that the hack was ongoing, to secure conspiracy convictions.”

I consequently changed the intro text from “...and working with WikiLeaks...” to “...using WikiLeaks...” (in line with the evidence/citations). And added the CNN supporting citation. My edit was reverted to the unsound version with the edit summery: “This is not an indictment” (I cannot work out what that has to do with the issue). Seems to me this needs addressing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Where we stand

This talk page section was created on 5 August 2021, and has attracted considerable discussion. I believe the time is ripe for a tally of where we stand.

INCLUDE

1. Burrobert
2. Cambial foliage❧
3. Jtbobwaysf
4. Prunesqualor billets_doux
5. Jack Upland
6. 86.20.127.101
7. Rks13
8. Marcywinograd [original addition]
9. Cambial Yellowing [restored removal]

EXCLUDE

1. Slatersteven
2. SPECIFICO

Given this headcount, and considering that editors have had 11 days in which to comment, I propose that we acknowledge consensus to include the report that a key witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, admitted in an interview with the Icelandic newspaper Stundin to giving false testimony in the superseding U.S. indictment against Assange. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the two editors who have previously deleted this content in its entirety—Slatersteven (once) and SPECIFICO (twice)—refrain from doing so again. Naturally they and other editors are welcome to continue editing the text. But I hope we can move past wholesale removals. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable approach. Burrobert (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it's quite that clear cut? Some of the INCLUDE's include people saying it needs a rewrite (which means it should not be included until it is rewritten).I think everyone who has commented here should be asked to just give a direct response for clarity.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I support including, you re-write argument is something we can do after you stop reverting the addition. It should be obvious there is a range of editors for inclusion and your exclude argument will fail at WP:RFC (if it needs to come to that.) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect, if users say it needs a re-write such a new version can be suggested here (and it means by inference they object to the text as written), it does not have to be done in article space.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Jtb, that's not how it works. And we know that once a random version is installed on the page, any such improvements, let alone reductions, will be opposed as contrary to "longstanding consensus". Standard procedure.🙄 SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I dispute your insinuation that we are dealing here with a "random version." As it stands, the content under consideration is the result of thoughtful revision and extensive discussion by numerous editors. There is nothing random about it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We operate by consensus on Wikipedia. I suggest you invest additional effort in understanding our policies and guidelines before disputing established practice here. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm here to learn! Please explain how you determined consensus that we are dealing here with a "random version" of the content in question? Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It may be time for an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Include text as written

• For pragmatic reasons am going with “include text as written”. No wording/edit is ever perfect – this like all others can later be honed and worked on in the normal way. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Since there's general support for inclusion of this issue, which is obviously important to Assange's life and his prosecution by the US government under the Espionage Act, this text should be reinstated. It can be tweaked while in the article. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Please let stand the paragraph beginning: On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported.... My only caveat is that its final sentence cannot be verified online because the source is a print-only publication, meaning we must rely on the paraphrase of the single editor who added it. (No disrespect intended.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 I’ve now taken that “Private Eye” sentence out, but left that P.I. citation. I have only seen an online photograph of the Private Eye article, but it seemed authentic and is at least as easy to verify as any other print version citation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Include text with rewrite

• I think it should be one sentence which doesn't call "Teenager" a "key witness" or a "star witness.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to document the disagreement since sources do say the testimony is key and the Washington Post say it isn't. That doesn't balance out to a low level of keyness, it is a straight and relevant disagreement. And by the way I think it would be best to include the commentry by media critique sources on nthe lack of coverage in mainstream sources. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'm definitely not saying that just because I think the text could be a bit better that there should be wholescale removal till it is perfect by my reckoning! 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please edit that comment, which appears to have incorporated some kind of typological or computer error and is currently incoherent. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, too many words for the internet. I was saying I'd like some changes, but don't use that as a reason to blank everything. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Rewrite to brief statement reflecting appropriate DUE WEIGHT and VERIFIED substance of the matter. Like virtually all the stalemates on this talk page, this horrific bloated text is a result of failure to apply NPOV, V, and RS. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the actual problems you see. What has weight wrong and what would be the correct weight? What is not verified? Whatis not neutral? What sources are not reliable? Try providing some text of your own. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is this: You should not insert material that has been reverted and is under active discussion on the talk page until the outcome of such discussion has been agreed. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Who gets to decide that the outcome of discussion on this section of the Talk page has been agreed? Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

First, I presume you realize that question is orthogonal to the principle of leaving the article alone until closure. The answer to your question is that we seek an "uninvolved" editor or Admin to evaluate consensus on such threads. I understand that your list above was a good-faith effort, but because you have been involved in recent edits here, you would not be the one to make such a determination. Second, we do not count heads. We try to evaluate the merits of the various arguments presented, with reference to WP policies and guidelines. Such principles have been raised here and not fully addressed by the advocates of that text. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I did not mean to suggest that I should be the one to decide that the outcome has been agreed. But thank you for the explanation. Please, how and when do we seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus on this thread? Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I had a look atWP:CONSENSUS and it says in the lead "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." So just because there is some disagreement doesn't mean that something should be excluded. But the count of editors above is also not the end of the matter. It would be better I think if the disagreement was more specific on details, we could then discuss it properly. But that policy does list a number of things someone who disagrees with the majority can do to get a check from a wider range of editors. If you don't have a problem with the inclusion I don't see that you need do anything, and it doesn't sound like you know more about the process and can provide help. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

86.20.127.101: In this context, the term majority confuses me. At the moment, 3 editors favor the option Include as written and 3 favor Include with rewrite. However, Slatersteven maintains that if users say it needs a rewrite, that means by inference they object to the text as written, so it should be excluded from the article space. In other words, a vote for Include with rewrite is in effect the same as Exclude text. In that case, the 4 editors who favor either Include with rewrite or Exclude text are the majority here. (SPECIFICO has associated with both those options.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

86.20.127.101: Although I note you state explicitly in an edit summary that your opting to Include with rewrite is definitely not a vote for removal! So I'm unsure whether to count you in Slatersteven's exclusionary majority by inference or not. It's all rather bewildering. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Denying that “Teenager” (Thordarson) is a “key witness” is simply untenable. As stated earlier, the current U.S. indictment against Assange mentions “Teenager” 33 times (more than any other witness other than Manning, who won’t be testifying) and places him as central to the allegations being made.

I can see a case for trimming the Stundin/ Thordarson paragraph down a bit , and some polishing of the language, and would like to propose starting with the deletion of the final sentence in the paragraph beginning “Private eye...”. It seems to me, this repeats information already in the paragraph, and adds nothing of great importance. If we can get some agreement on this, and some other trimming (hopefully with wide agreement on this page first) maybe we’ll be a little closer to a tolerable consensus. Anyone out there happy with the “Private eye...” sentence removal (as a starting point and in the spirit of compromise)? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I support removal of the sentence beginning Private Eye states. Thank you for the suggestion. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I could live with that okay. I think the commentry by FAIR and Media Lens is definitely notable and should be included though. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'm not saying I want everything deleted unless FAIR and Media Lens are included! Why on earth should it be necessary for me to say that, it's just ridiculous that assumption. It should be people have to say if they want it all deleted unless what they want is done. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Exclude text

• Until such a time as it becomes clear it has actually had an impact on the case and is not just an example of press hyperbole.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would be fine with this alternative as well. There's solid reasoning behind WP:NOTNEWS. Just look at the preposterous amount of space this article devotes to the so-called Rapporteur from the UN. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you be specific please about the bit of WP:NOTNEWS that is appliable here, thanks. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well lets see, its a fairly recent event, only covered in a few news sources, that seems to have had no impact so far.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the lack of coverage is notable in itself and we should include a bit about what Media Lens and others have said about that. But why exactly do you think then we should include things like the paragraph directly before about Julian Assange's half-brother touring the states as reported in the Star Tribune? Has the Star Tribune source been specificlly commented on by other reliable sources? Or exactly what criteria are you using? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not say we should, in fact, I have argued on more than one occasion that the article is too long because it contains way too much trivia that really tells us nothing about the man.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So exactly why is this more trivial that Assange's brother going around America to drum support? You never tried to remove that. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it occur to you I never knew it was there, as I said this is a very large article, and this was a new addition, not old content. Nor is wp:otherstuff a strong case for retention. Nopw if you want a debate about what we can remove, I am up for it, but two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't up to me to debate its inclusion if I see no problem with it being in, it is you who is complaing about stuff being included. Do you agree with the bit above saying that the stuff by "the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" should be removed too? Is that trivial? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop this, we are discussing the inclusion of the Sigurdur Thordarson nothing else. Any other issues have nothing to do with this. I also suggest you go back over the archive to see what I may have said about the inclusion of various passages, not that it is relevant. As there is an RFC this will be my last word here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Famous supporters and detractors

I recently added a short subsection to the article which listed some high profile supporters of Julian Assange. Here’s the content (which went under the title “Famous supporters”):

Notable individuals who have publicly supported Julian Assange include: Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei, Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, MIA, Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, Tulsi Gabbard, Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood, John Pilger, Peter Tatchell, Michael Moore and Ken Loach.

My addition was deleted with the following edit summary “:

“Remove unencyclopedic, UNDUE, and unspecified text. Without statement as to what in Assange's long saga they support, it is also a BLP violation with respect to those listed.”

I accept the need to address those concerns. However, it seems to me desirable to mention these names in the article. After all, the people listed are high profile public personalities who have gone out of their way to make public statements in support of Assange (some might say risking their own reputations by doing so) - surely nobody would dispute that their public support is noteworthy. However, I now accept a need for balance demands that: we also list the names of some high profile detractors. I also accept that the blanket term “supporters” was too vague in this context.

So I would like to offer the following rewording, which I hope addresses the problems:

Re-titled to “Famous supporters and detractors”

Over the years many notable people have made public their views on Assange, his actions and his treatment. Those who have in some way spoken out in his defence or against his continued imprisonment include: Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei, Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, MIA, Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, Tulsi Gabbard, [[Bianca Jagger Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood, John Pilger, Peter Tatchell, Michael Moore and Ken Loach.

Notable public detractors and critics have included Lenin Moreno, Mitch McConnell, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton

I am of course open to suggestions here (including more examples of detractors) but strongly feel something of this sort is warranted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the supporters have already been mentioned, together with specifics of their support, on the current version of the page. Those who have not yet been mentioned are Alice Walker, Roger Waters, Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood and Peter Tatchell, all of whom are notable. For obvious reasons it is harder to find critics of Assange. Criticism of Assange by the ones you mention is not on the current page. Burrobert (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this is relevant, so what if Pammy thinks he is great?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert Yes, fair point. One way forward could be to work some of my proposed material into the existing section “Assessments” - where a list of past supporters and detractors, and their statements/opinions are already included - instead of creating a new section. However a problem there is the position of the “Assessments” section in the article narrative/timeline – the section begins “Opinions of Assange at this time were divided” - the opinions quoted/discussed all derive from the 2010/2011 pre-asylum, pre U.S. indictment, pre imprisonment period. The Notables I listed are people who are, at this time, campaigning/speaking out about Assange’s predicament (imprisonment and potential extradition). Seems to me, that may warrant the separate section near the end of the article and repeating some of the names in that context. Slatersteven We can certainly drop Pamela Anderson from the list if you feel strongly on the point. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

She was just an example, why are any of these peoples views significant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven These are bright, well informed, and talented people who have put a lot of time and energy into fighting for causes – seems to me their opinions are at least as important and noteworthy as those of many other commentators quoted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Government officials and layers have expert or informed knowledge that is of value. As to any of the others, I think it has long been argued we already have to many talking heads.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Even though many of these figures may well be bright, well informed, and talented people, few articles are improved by the addition of a list of unrelated or non expert supporters and detractors. Its like if we included Assange in a list of names who supported or criticised MIA's, Roger Waters', Pamela Anderson's, Bianca Jagger's, Brian Eno's, Chrissie Hynde's, Vivienne Westwood's careers; Assange is bright, well informed, and talented, but his opinion about their careers is not very useful and adds nothing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

We have discussed this before. We need to discuss his supporters and detractors when and if it is important to the narrative. This article is already excessively long. Some people like Jemima Goldsmith and Donald Trump were supporters at one point and detractors at another. We cannot predict the future and say someone is going to be his supporter forever.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is so far from NPOV that it's no surprise to see a section on his "supporters" without any consideration that the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory. When I have time, I'm going to go to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN and ask for some fresh eyes on this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

“the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory” – I would love to see your evidence for that claim – unless you are only counting the opinions of tired, bought and sold, hacks working for the plutocrat owned press corps (who have plenty of reasons of their own to dislike Assange). I think the article is biased against Assange - however we have drifted from the issue – The Article has information about people who want Assange extradited and imprisoned but not much about the wider protest movement that wants to see him released - some of those are celebrities, the mention of whom might make the article a little more interesting for casual readers and students of modern culture etc . Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

In my edit summary removing this text, and then a few days later in my talk page message to you, I cited the applicable WP policies and guidelines that you are ignoring. It's WP:IDHT for you to repeat your unsupported and erroneous POVs and suggested approach while failing to read and understand those policies. If you continue in this mode at some point it will need to stop. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You said: “In my edit summary removing this text ...”. Your statement is misleading – If you read the above you will see I am proposing new text here and actually acknowledged your removal and edit summary, quoting it and saying “I accept the need to address those concerns”. I did read at least some of the material you referred to, and when composing my new text, took into account points made on those pages. So it seems to me I am trying to work collectively, to find a way forward – maybe invite some positive suggestions or compromise –it seems to me that your, yet again, making threats (even if more veiled than usual) is out of order here. Please try to be a little more constructive, and deal with specific issues regarding the text in hand Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven As you say; “Government officials and la[w]yers have expert or informed knowledge that is of value.” However they are not the only people who’s opinions are noteworthy or worth taking into account. They do of course, sometimes have agendas - or work for people who do - which may bias there pronouncements. – I think that particularly pertinent in the Assange case where he has stepped on a lot of toes and undermined some very powerful vested interests. I think it healthy and worthwhile to draw into the debate some people from outside the usual establishment bubble. I would also say that a short list of notables who have weighed in on the issue won’t add much to the length of the article and will add interest on the level of social/cultural impact of the Assange case Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Bodney You said “few articles are improved by the addition of a list of unrelated or non expert supporters and detractors”. I think there may be a case for saying the Assange issue is one of the exceptions: For a notable person to come out in support of someone usually considered to be highly controversial, is noteworthy in itself. Also note these are nearly all seasoned campaigners for human rights issues; Informed people know this and are interested in their opinions. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Again why? Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think? What does it tell us about Assange, that some people like him? In addition this is just a list, its not informative. (and we already do have (for example Pammy) views mentioned here). The article already sufferers form this kind of bloat, adding a list adds nothing other than words.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You said “Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think” - I don’t buy your dismissal of these people – “Pammy” as you refer to Pamela Anderson, may well be a lightweight (I don’t really know a lot about her, but I early on in this debate conceded we could happily drop that name) the others though should not be dismissed so easily. As I’ve said most are seasoned campaigners for human rights issues and informed people know this and are interested in their opinions.Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is the list. We have many of these opinions already, lots of them (arguably too many). What we do not need is a puffery list. We need to reduce the number of words here, not increase them especially when it does not in fact tell us anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but how can you say “it does not in fact tell us anything” – It tells us that, some bright, well informed people – who have a very high public profile and a track record of fighting on human rights issues - have troubled to stick their necks for this cause, The fact is that literally millions of people around the world will be interested in what these people have to say, even if you personally are not – If you want to be consistent you might want to get the name Jane Fonda removed from pages concerning the Vietnam war or Joanna Lumley off the Gurkhas page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Or it tells us some celebrities think they will get a bit of kudos or free publicity. By the way, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As I said, we already have many of these views (the views, not just a list of names) here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Re. WP|OTHERSTUFF, I’m always a little disappointed when people share whole long wiki articles at me, when they could outline the specific statements/clauses which are relevant to the issue at hand. I do accept your “just a list of names” argument up to a point – I did give a little context with the “list of names “ grouping them as “notable people have made public their views on Assange, his actions and his treatment” and saying “[they] have in some way spoken out in his defence or against his continued imprisonment” – but yes this is rather vague language and I’m sure can be improved upon. I was rather hoping for some positive suggestions? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made my views clear, I do not see a need for a list of names, either supported or detractors. We need to reduce the amount of fluff in this article, not increase it. So I will now bow out for now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven it would add very little of substance so there is no need for it. It will simply not improve the article. If we listed relevant political or human rights organisations or real experts that would maybe be different. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree too. This has been discussed before and rejected. I don't think we need a list. If we mention supporters and detractors in should be in the context of Assange's life. For example, Jemima Goldsmith was a supporter, but she didn't support his failure to surrender to the court. Lenin Moreno was a supporter until he turned against him. Trump was a supporter, but then his government indicted him. Etc. We can't just classify people as supporters for all time. There is also a long list at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. We don't need to reproduce it here, especially given that this article is overly long.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack, since you are here: You'll recall I tried to implement what I understood to be your suggestion that we trim the UNDUE emphasis given to the volunteer attorney called the "UN rapporteur", who seems to be an ardent supporter of Mr. Assange. A tag-team edit war quickly ensued to quash that edit, even after the extensive talk page discussion that supported it. At any rate, perhaps you might feel like turning your attention back to that and attempting something along the lines of what you were saying about that content. With the passage of time, it's even more clear that such content was out of all proportion to its significance. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the position of the requesting and extraditing states as parties to the UN treaty which affords Melzer his position, and the extensive RS coverage, the emphasis is not undue. Any talk page discussion that supported it exists only in your imagination. There was no consensus to remove part of said material. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you review the talk page thread on this matter. Nobody suggested removal of Melzer, just giving it DUE WEIGHT commensurate with the sparse secondary endorsement of his views and lack of ongoing coverage of his advocacy. See the talk page discussion here SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to waste my own time looking for for something we both know isn't there. Cambial foliage❧ 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For starters, in that thread you said Melzer's views, and the content of his reports to the General Assembly, are attributed: you needn't concern yourself with whether they are "verified" - an inacceptable editorial approach on WP. Further, the trim was supported by multiple editors including multiple Admins who reinstated it in the face of an edit war to reinstate the UNDUE text. Next step, I suppose, will be an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"Inacceptable" to you, fine. But that's of no consequence to the rest of us who understand content policy. A wide spectrum of RS establish his view on this subject as noteworthy. The UN (a reliable source frequently used as such on WP) establishes his view as noteworthy. The state parties establish his view as noteworthy (that’s why UK bothered to respond). These sources consider it noteworthy for reasons already given in the previous discussion. It's the attributed view of an individual whose view on this subject is considered important by reliable sources. If he said Assange was tortured, if he said Assange was a banana, it doesn’t matter. It's not presented as fact; it doesn’t need to be "verified". You are free to continue imagining a consensus for a change you continually bring up but for which there is little interest. In the mean time, life goes on. Cambial foliage❧ 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As I’m posting in this section I’ll give my tuppence (cents). A list of "famous" people who are supporters of a political prisoner is pointless and silly and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. We only give an individual's views where the individual is notable specifically for their views on that particular issue. It’s not pertinent whether TV stars or rock musicians support a cause. Cambial foliage❧ 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok - Not sure that I’d accept that the suggestion was “silly”, after all this is an encyclopaedia and not a court hearing: so that matters of social interest as well as legal and political technicalities seem to me acceptable (within reason) – However, I can see there are issues, and have pretty well accepted this is not going to fly – with no support, this one’s not worth pushing for. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I disagree on information about support (of a person or a cause) being generally "pointless": it is part of the "assessment" or "reception" and, actually, part of what make one person noteworthy and another maybe not. That being said, I think a "list of supporters and distractors" is not the encyclopedic way to handle that. In my opinion, it is done here fairly well [Julian Assange#Assessments|in the early part of the article], where noteworthy assessments of Wikileaks are summarized. (Similar paragraphs exist at the end of sections on "arrest", "espionage indictment", and "imprisonment" . If important voices of support or critique are missing, they should be added there (or in a similar manner regarding other aspects of his biography) rather than in a isolated list, which obscures when and regarding what the support or critique was expressed. --Qcomp (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Qcomp Those are all fair points - Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that is valid. Also, if it is worth mentioning a person, it should be worth mentioning what they say, and if it's not worth mentioning what they say, it isn't worth mentioning the person. For example, in discussion extradition, we mention Noam Chomsky, but don't mention what he said. That is pretty pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)