Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Is "narcissist" a legal finding under English jurisprudence?

On September 6, 2021, I deleted the following sentence:

• Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" and he had "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse".

My edit summary stated: remove judge's gratuitous insult and "no reasonable excuse" scolding, neither of which add value to his finding of guilt in an uncomplicated proceeding.

This was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, who stated "edit goes too far."

I concede that the second half of that sentence helps to explain the ruling. However, I see no purpose to the judge calling Assange a narcissist other than to shame the prisoner at the dock.

I request consensus to remove "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" per WP:NPOV. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the NPOV argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL advises: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. According to The Guardian, when District Judge Michael Snow called Assange a "narcissist" whose claim of not having had a fair hearing was "laughable," he also rebuked Assange's barrister for asserting in front of a "packed press gallery" that the chief magistrate who conducted the previous hearing was biased because her husband had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks. "This is grossly unfair and improper," said the judge in open court, "to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press." To me, Judge Snow sounds like a participant engaged in a heated dispute, indignantly defending his colleague. Accordingly, we should not quote him directly. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of people, including, I suspect, some judges, have described Donald Trump as a narcissist, but despite the fact that I can't stand the guy, I would never argue that such a description should appear in the Wikipedia article on him. Same applies to Assange. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think WP:IMPARTIAL applies. If it did we would have to remove most of the quotes from Assange and his supporters from the article. It is not about whether you like or don't like Assange. This is a quote from the judge. It reveals the attitude that the judge had to Assange. I think the "no reasonable excuse" comment is the most important part of this. If we are going to have paragraph after paragraph about Assange's reasons for entering the embassy, we should include a brief response from the judge about this.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

While it is fine to quote the judge, the link is wholly inappropriate. Per "General points on linking style", "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." It's obvious that the judge was using the word in its normal meaning, a person who is self-centered. The link though was to Narcissistic personality disorder, which is a psychological condition for which AFAIK no evidence was provided and therefore the judge could not make as a finding of fact. TFD (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD, the link is not used in the article, and I don't think has ever been used in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I was going by the excerpt at the top of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD: I apologize for adding the internal link, which as Jack Upland points out, is not used in the BLP. I had no intention to mislead, and have removed it from my opening comment here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it breaks WP:Neutral point of view badly to quote the judge throwing out an insult like that without giving any context. Either it should be removed as not all that interesting or more about the context should be given. NadVolum (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

They are a judge summing up, it is as relevant as half the other stuff we have here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me there are some good points being made on both sides here – I would add that the term narcissist has a quite precise meaning in psychology and I’m prepared to bet that the judge in this case was not qualified to publicly, in his official capacity, make such diagnosis or allegations about a man in a venerable position (essentially under the Judges power) It should also be noted that Assange barely said a word in the hearing so the judge does not even have the excuse of being momentarily provoked into the insult – several commentators have described the judges behaviour as rather dicgraceful (though less in the mainstream media). I think, if the Judges controversial statement is to be included, then quotes from someone like John Pilger criticising the Judges behaviour/words should also be included. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Much as I dislike adding more stuff, I agree we need both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Here’s a possible addition to balance the "Narcissist" remark:

“Ex- embassador Craig Murray remarked after the hearing that: “It is clear the judge was extremely prejudiced. It was very short hearing today and he cannot possibly have formed during that time his judgement that Julian Assange is a ‘narcissistic personality’. 

Sourced from the World Socialist Web Site [ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/12/murr-a12.html | here] - I'm sure there are better quotes out there - just can't seem to find them. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Given multiple people said much the same I think we can despense with attribtation and just have "but was critised as extremely prejudiced".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can’t help thinking future editors will come across the observation and say “where’s the citation to support that?” (understandably). I'll have another look when I have more time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had a number already, pilger, Murray?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This might be better:

Ex- ambassador Craig Murray later  commented: “There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion” and described the judgement as “a total disgrace”.

References

Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I prefer saying it was predjuduced, its a legal concept that mugtht have relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Both Craig Murray and John Pilger are diehard Assange supporters. I don't think they're the best people to quote if we need to quote anyone (which I doubt). They were never going to be happy about Assange's conviction. Murray's piece about the verdict is a colourful rant, and I don't think it's notable. Murray himself is currently serving a prison sentence for contempt of court on another matter.[1] He is by no means an impartial observer of the British judicial system.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the point here is that the Judge himself was “by no means an impartial”. I would say: If you want to allow a vicious rant by a Judge included in the article you should also allow an angry response from a past member of the UK establishment to answer it. We certainly don’t have consensus for the Judge's remarks to remain in the article – If the counter remarks above are included I’m ok with the Judges remarks staying – I think others here will agree and we then do have a chance of consensus for the Judge remarks to remain. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we also going to counter every comment made by Assange and his supporters?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If the quotes are outrageous attacks on venerable people under the power of Assange when he made the remarks then I would say yes. PS – Jack - I wish I had a pound for every die hard POV worrier quoted or used as source material in the article – Be they Clinton supporters, right wing patriots/nationalists, feminists, rich people whose tax dodging was exposed on Wikileaks (or hacks working for them) military folk who are incensed that war crimes got exposed etc - why suddenly make a fuss here. If you wish to be consistent we can go through the entire article purging all source material that comes from someone with a point of view on Wikileaks or Assange. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: Please stick to the subject of this talk page section. Prunesqualer aside, no one has proposed that we counter every comment made by Assange and his supporters, and it does not logically follow that we must do so if we remove Judge Snow's singular insult. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My comment was entirely relevant. I don't think you understood it.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 Would you say at present: even if the Craig Murray comments where included to give balance and context you would still be against including the Judges remarks/insults? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity - my position is that: the judge’s remarks with Murray’s to give balance and context is acceptable –equally acceptable is taking out the judge’s comments/insults –not acceptable is having only the judges insults. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with it but I thought something more from the Guardian would be better instead. It shows the judge dismissing a defence point that the previous judge Emma Arbuthnot was biased saying "“This is grossly unfair and improper to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press." I see it as the judge being annoyed about judges being attacked and not treating the point properly, othwers will see itas more bad things Assange has done, but at least it gives context for the later insult. Having someone else say it was unfair is kind of meh well they would say that wouldn't they. NadVolum (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wp:blp applies to talk pages and judges.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And presumably Wp:blp applies to Assange Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The sections WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE might be applicable I guess. The first would I guess remove the judges remark altogether and the other would imply we shoud have a bit of context. Or is there another part of that long policy you think is applicable thanks? NadVolum (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course, so I could not call Assange a Narcisist, I can say that "X has called him a narcacist". So (for example) no one here should call a judge unbalanced, that is a violation of BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well if we're including the judge's remark I'd pefer we put in the bit about Judge Emma Arbuthnot in that trial to provide context instead of someone outside responding. The Guardian did that and they're not exactly pro Assange so I don't think you need worry about BLP for the judge. NadVolum (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say he was criticised by a lot of people for this, and have two or three sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's okay by me too. And I don't see my idea getting support. NadVolum (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the Judges “narcissist” insult to be included in the article why has it been re-instated? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

While it has been just three days, we have in this talk page section discussed at length whether or not to retain Judge Snow calling Assange "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest." We have clearly not reached consensus. WP:NOCONSENSUS advises that for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. Given that policy, I believe Judge Snow's insult of Assange should be removed until consensus is reached to restore it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 Agreed Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The "policy" just says "often". In this case, the text has been in the article since 2019. There is no dispute that Snow actually said that. Snow's remarks were made in the context of Assange being convicted for skipping bail. There is no dispute that the trial should be in the article. There has been no consistent objection to including Snow's words. Sometimes we have been told it's an inappropriate medical diagnosis; sometimes were told it's an insult. In this case, I think lack of consensus should result in the status quo. In any case, it has only been three days.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two views that seem to have support - to remove it as violating WP:BLPBALANCE or to add a bit about the remark being widely condemned. I don't think that balances out to putting it in and not having some comment about it. NadVolum (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There are clearly still unresolved issues surrounding the inclusion of insulting statements by Judge Michael Snow. In an attempt to find a compromise/way forward I recently added the following text (after the sentence containing the judge’s remarks):

“However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.” 

Using | this as the citation.

This was essentially text suggested above by Slatersteven above (in this thread) - I personally thought the criticism of the judges words overly mild but hoped that using material from someone usually on the other side of debates may be appreciated as conciliatory. My edit was shortly afterward reverted by SPECIFICO who gave the following explanation:

“No, you have a single opinion piece by a fringe writer, not widespread criticism that is implied by this weasel passive voice "however..." sentence. Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.”

There are several points meshed together here but I’ll try to unpick: On the “you have a single opinion piece...” I would say: a single opinion piece in which someone strongly criticised the Judges remarks as extremely prejudiced (using some harsher words in fact), seems perfectly apt for supporting the statement “the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.” (not trying to be funny or snide here just frank BTW). Next was “...not widespread criticism that is implied by this...” – This I think is a stronger point (though to be pedantic “the Judges comments have been criticised” is ambiguous in that respect) I can try to dig out more criticisms of the Judge’s comments and include the citations in the article if we really think that necessary (I was trying to keep the thing concise but whatever). Next SPECIFICO refers to the reverted sentence as: “...this weasel passive voice... sentence...” – Not sure I get that: What’s weasel about openly saying the Judge was criticised when he clearly was? SPECIFICO finished with: “ ...Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.” First I would like to know in what context Murray is fringe – he has his own reasonable sized Wikipedia page and is a fairly high profile figure as a political commentator and human rights campaigned (among other things) – maybe SPECIFICO just meant his views are not mainstream – I’m not sure that Wikipedia is, as of yet, unable to include the views of commentators who deviate from mainstream. I’m also confused about the “...Nor can it be attributed to Murray” statement. Anyway, I would appreciate other views on the inclusion of the “However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced” sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're on a loser trying to put in quotes from people saying what the judge did was despicable. The people who do that may be very eminent - but corporate media won't publish them in this matter and you'll be arguing till Christmas oer points of Wikipedia policy. I think you should have a go at doing what I said and giving context in the form of the comments about Arbutnoth at the trial as mentioned in the Guardian. A bit more aboutthat judge not recusing and overseeing ater judgements is also well documented in reliable sources and as this shows is very relevant. NadVolum (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nad - You’re right about the media of course – but every now and then a piece slips through the net that can be used. Re the Arbutnoth material, better leaving that to you - I have a very poor success rate with making edits stick (though every now and then an editor seems to note something I’ve said here and act on it) – always happy to read your draft suggestions and citations, then give opinions (for what they’re worth). Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Why did Assange go to the Ecuadorian embassy?

As a matter of interest - has anyone really explained why he didn't just go back to Sweden to face the rape charge but went to the Ecudorian embassy? The business about being more likely to be sent to the US from Sweden just doesn't make sense to me. He was just as discredited or more by having the charges outstanding, and even if convicted the sentence would have had to to be pretty small. NadVolum (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I know what I think, but I am not an RS [[2]] is clear it was because he was about the be extradited to Sweeden to face the rape allegations. Assange said he thought Sweden would extradite him to the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The strange thing though is that Sweden still has this restriction on extraditing on a political charge whereas the UK had removed that in the case of the US. NadVolum (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this article would be much improved if we'd pretend it's an article about an archaelogical site or geological formation. Just research what the bulk of mainstream reliable sources present and forget all this endless, tiresome, pointless speculation and hero worship that has driven scores of good editors to avoid the article. With due respect, this is not a matter of interest. It's a distraction we should not endulge. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly what SPECIFICO says. Speculation like this is pointless, and ranges into not a forum territory anyway. Certainly speculate all you like in your own mind, but for purposes of writing the article, the question isn't what we as editors think or speculate, it is "Well, what do the best available sources say about that?". The answer to that question, and that alone, determines what we ought to put into the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I made no speculations nor did I ask for any. I was asking a question about what I see as a strange matter. You can think of it as directed enquiry. If at SPECIFICO's archaelogical site one uncovers a wall going east west not mny people would ignore it as senseless to wonder what it might be of and just continue digging north south. NadVolum (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed this general topic several times in the past few years. His decision to enter the embassy was complex. As we note in the article, he said that the Swedish allegations were a radical feminist conspiracy and a pretext to extradite him to the USA. However, at that point there was no US indictment. He clearly expected to be able to go to Ecuador and not to be confined to the embassy for seven years and then face prison after that. There is a tendency to assume that Assange's comments and actions were highly rational, based on sound legal advice, and prescient. This is a false assumption.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I guess assuming rationality isn't always sensible. NadVolum (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Further to that, NadVolum, Some of Mr Assange's closest associates first learnt of his decision to seek political asylum when journalists rang them seeking comment overnight[3]. I think perhaps this should be in the article. We have a series of explanations for his decision, which as you say, don't make much sense, but we don't say that this decision was made with minimal if any consultation. After all, this is a pivotal decision in his life and probably deserves better explanation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that there never were any rape charges. Assange went to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to seek political asylum, which he was granted, on the basis that Ecuador viewed his fears of political persecution by the United States as justified. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I will try to answer the question about why Assange chose to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy by listing what he knew at that time:

• There was a US grand jury investigation into Assange. This was known at the time as evidenced by numerous stories in the media. E.g. "In November 2010, US Attorney-General Eric Holder said there was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation" into WikiLeaks. It emerged from legal documents leaked over the ensuing months that Assange and others were being investigated by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia".(From Assange’s wiki page). "The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial".
• Wikileaks publications had embarrassed Sweden. Wikileaks disclosures had presented evidence of secret agreements between Swedish government officials and the CIA and FBI regarding the channelling to USA of political and private information of Swedish subjects. This was done without the legal-necessary clearance of the Swedish Parliament, to keep the public unaware and avoid risking the pro-USA collaboration of the Swedish authorities. Sweden has an on-going strategic, military and political-police intelligence operation with the USA (the Pentagon, CIA and FBI). Among other things, this compromises sensitive data of the Swedish population, as disclosed by Wikileaks.
• Since the year 2000, the U.S. has requested the extradition of seven citizens from Sweden. Five of the requests were approved, and two were rejected because the suspects were no longer believed to be in Sweden.
• Sweden had participated in the US extraordinary rendition process. (see also Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery).
• The Stratfor leaks revealed a plan to tie Assange up for years in a legal quagmire: "Julian Assange was a frequent topic of discussion in emails from Stratfor staff in the period 2010–2012. Emails from Fred Burton (Stratfor's Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, and former Deputy Chief of the Department of State) indicated that he knew in January 2011 about a United States Government secret indictment against Assange. Stratfor emails gave a suggested strategy for dealing with Assange: "move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years" and "[bankrupt] the asshole first ... ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy" ". (From 2012–13 Stratfor email leak).

Burrobert (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the extent of planning that went into Assange's decision, we have this:

"The drama being played out before us may be sticking to a well-rehearsed script, with asylum perhaps offered months ago during an interview between Assange and the Ecuadorean president ... On Assange's newly-launched television talk show which interviewed Correa via videolink earlier this year the pair swapped jokes and messages of encouragement. It was during the interview that Assange received an offer of asylum, according to a woman who was present during the shows and familiar with the offer".

Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "radical feminist conspiracy", there is a story behind this remark which we have not explored. We have given no context or explained who Assange was talking about. Burrobert (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. So fearing extradition from Sweden after being tied up there for a while was not just paranoia, it had a sensible basis. NadVolum (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It was a rational decision based on what he would have known at the time. The events that followed have vindicated his decision:

• A secret indictment was unsealed.
• The US has requested his extradition.
• He will be stuck in a legal quagmire for the foreseeable future.

The situation is worse than he may have known. If he is extradited to the US, his case will be heard in the infamous espionage court in the Eastern District of Virginia. There will be limits on the type of defences that Assange can use and any jury will be chosen from a community that has a high proportion of intelligence services personnel, which is why the US chooses that district for its espionage cases. John Kiriakou, who was in the same court, said "No national security defendant has ever won a case in the EDVA. In my case, I asked Judge Brinkema to declassify 70 documents that I needed to defend myself. She denied all 70 documents. And so I had literally no defense for myself and was forced to take a plea".

Burrobert (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You have made a quagmire of words.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• The issue of planning seems to be a valid area for improvement of this article. We don't really explain what Assange hoped to achieve from entering the embassy. The likelihood that he would be stuck there was raised by journalists immediately. Did he not realise this or did he actually plan to stay there indefinitely?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

It appears that Assange intended to get "safe passage" out of the embassy,[4][5][6] but I can't find a source which explicitly says that. The Correa interview mentioned above occurred in April 2012. Assange said he was prompted to enter the embassy by a letter from the Australian government which was apparently issued in May. As stated in the article, the Supreme Court of the UK rejected his appeal on 30 May. Assange entered the embassy on 19 June. Ecuador granted him asylum on 16 August. It is quite possible that Assange and Correa talked about asylum in April, but it doesn't sound like a firm decision had been made. It seems clear from the sources that Assange did not discuss the move with many of his close supporters or his legal team. No one seems to have said they knew about it beforehand. As I said, I think this is a valid question, but I can't find a comprehensive answer.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

According to CNN in July 2019, diplomats initially "hoped to take Assange swiftly to Ecuador" in the summer of 2012. "But that plan stalled amid British refusals to allow Assange safe passage outside the embassy. So he settled in for a protracted stay." CNN does not report that Assange expected safe passage onward before entering the embassy. But CNN does indicate that Ecuadoran diplomats thought it was at least possible from within the embassy once he was there. This of course proved false; yet it shows the wishful thinking prevalent in Assange's newfound environment, and suggests that if Julian considered safe passage a realistic option, he was not alone in that mistaken belief. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears that Ecuadorians thought it was possible. The British media seems to have immediately concluded it was highly unlikely. On 16 August, British foreign secretary William Hague said, We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so... The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum.[7] Ecuador and Britain have different asylum laws.[8] Assange may have been misled by the fact that he didn't discuss his plan widely. He may have received assurances from the Ecuadorian government that he could get safe passage to Ecuador. But we really don't have enough information to say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Problems with the “On 11 August in the High Court...“ Paragraph

The 11 August High Court hearing was not intended to reach definitive conclusions on the rights and wrongs of Baraitser’s January ruling – it merely ruled on whether the prosecution could later (October 27 th) question Baraitser’s judgements. The Current wording does not make’s that as clear to the reader as it should. Neither does the paragraph give any of the defence’s side of story. It does not give context in that three grounds for appeal had already been granted to the U.S. in July – in other words, the grounds for appeal mentioned in the paragraph are only two among five. Seems to me we should cover the whole U.S. campaign to appeal Baraitser, complete with the defence arguments, or make do with a short summary which touches on the whole picture. If the Latter I would offer up the following as a starting point.

Following Baraitser’s January 2021 ruling, the U.S. asked to appeal the decision on five counts. On the 7th of July the UK high court agreed that three of the counts could be appealed. Further appeals and a High Court hearing resulted in the two remaining counts also being deemed permissible for appeal. The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.

References

Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure we need over much detail, about every court proceeding, this page is about Assange, not his court cases. If anything we need to reduce the coverage not increase it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree – before posting this I tried re-composing and building on the existing text so that what is said is explained properly, is put in context, and is balanced (the current version fails those tests). I reached the conclusion that to do so would mean putting quite a bit more material into the article - hence offering the short replacement above which at least is none biased and refers to the 5 grounds for appeal instead of mentioning only two. Basically we need to explain the whole US appeal drive properly – with both sides of the arguments – or just make a neutral reference to them without any details Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said I think we need to remove stuff before adding new detal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I may not have explained myself clearly – I propose replacing the existing paragraph with the one above. As a result the article will be about the same length, maybe a tad shorter (I haven’t toted up the words). Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies the article will be 4 words longer as a result of the substitution. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I am opposed to any and all additions that add nothing new to our understanding of Assagne the man. Youy add 4 words, he adds 4 words tom add 2 words dick adds, until we have 100 more words, none of which are about Assagne, and may not even mention him as such.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A biographical article always deals with events that befall a person – you cannot set yourself up as expert on which of those events are significant, and omit those you deem to “add nothing new to our understanding of the [person]” without giving good reason. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

OK what does this tell us about him?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The proposed replacement begins "Following Baraitser's January 2021 ruling…" However, the only previous mention of this ruling is in the preceding paragraph, which does not mention the date. For the replacement paragraph to make sense, the date would have to be added to the preceding paragraph. It could then be omitted from the replacement paragraph.

The proposed replacement also refers to "five counts" on which the U.S. appealed. Again, these five counts are not previously mentioned. The paragraph preceding the proposed replacement says merely that Baraitser denied extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States." This suggests only one count, not five. If the replacement paragraph refers to five counts, we need to explain what those are. We should likewise explain what differentiates the three counts accepted on July 7 for appeal from the two remaining counts that were at some unspecified later date(s) deemed permissible.

This extradition appeal process is vital to Assange's BLP. Its description should not be muddled by being truncated solely to keep down the word count. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Basketcase2022 I accept all of those points – as you suggest, most of those issues can be addressed with smallish tweaks. I just feel the current paragraph version (for reasons explained at the top of this section) is unacceptable – it completely brush’s over a chunk of the appeal process, cherry picks, in a rather arbitrary way, which counts to mention and give detail on – if we are to give detail we need to be balanced and explain the prosecution and the defence claims (not currently the case). In short it’s currently misleading incomplete and biased. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can make out the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTPAPER is that Wikipedia not a paper encyclopaedia. If something should be in an article it should be put in irrespective of the total amount of content. If the amount of space taken up by an article is too big then it should be split and subarticles created as described in WP:SPLIT. Then one can reasonably argue against undue expansion of a summary of the subarticle - the summary should not be longer than he intro of the subarticle. NadVolum (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to deal with the grounds of appeal, there should be a succinct list of what they are. The current paragraph is selective and a bit garbled.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the length, let's not forget that the whole Swedish extradition case, including appeals, is dealt with in 4 sentences. This article is at the stage where it is too big according to WP:SPLIT (readable prose size 68kB). We do not need to include every news story. I feel this appeal will be able to be summarised as it goes on, whatever we choose to do here.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum I agree than article length should not be our overarching concern – as long as material is accurate, clearly and succinctly written, reasonably relevant, and significant then it belongs regardless of article length.

@JackUpland Yes I’m happy with a succinct list of the U.S.’s (prosecution) grounds for appeal as long as mention of the defences’ counter arguments are also included – after all we can’t just shop window the prosecutions’ points when those points have merely been ruled fit for hearing, not accepted as correct. Re. the Swedish extradition case – in fairness matters linked to the Swedish extradition crop up a fair bit in the article and as events have moved on, unless some new revelations surrounding things Swedish comes up or someone spots a significant gap in our coverage then the current length seems ok – comparing that with the article space given to the current appeal process might not be a good guide, but anyways, as you say: “this appeal will be able to be summarised as it goes on”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think if we are going to include the defence's counter-arguments we need to wait till October.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I can’t agree with that Jack it is just not reasonable to list prosecution talking points without their counter arguments – before or after October. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

But how will you know the arguments and counter-arguments ahead of time?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Rereading the “Appeal and other developments” section it strikes me that we are trying too rigidly to place information/paragraphs in chronological order at the expense of clarity of the narrative. As discussed above I’d like the whole appeal process explained a bit more clearly and think for starters we should try to keep paragraphs directly concerned with the extradition process together. I will do a little reshuffle – hopefully not ruffling feathers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to have a section on the appeal which is completely about the appeal. But that then raises the question of what to call everything else. I think you should bear in mind that the appeal is going to go on to October and beyond. I don't think anyone is going to understand the shuffle you've done in November.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal to have a separate section for the appeal process makes sense. I’ve been working on the subject and offer the following - replacing current paragraphs1, 2 and 3 in “Appeal and other developments” (I just copied over paragraph 1) - needs citations and maybe some polishing though:

Title maybe just “Appeal Process”

On 6 January, Assange was denied bail on the grounds that he was a flight risk, pending an appeal by the United States. The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January. A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.
On July 7 2021 The UK Crown Prosecution Service released an email which listed the five grounds, (labelled “a” to “e”) on which the U.S. were appealing against Baraitser’s January ruling, and stating that two of those ground where refused. The two grounds refused where later ruled permissible in the high court, so that all five grounds for appeal were to be heard in the High Court in October 2021.
The first three bases for appeal centre on Section 91 of the 2003 Extradition Act, which states that extradition should be barred in circumstances where “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”
Basis for appeal “a”, contends that Baraitser had made errors of law in her application of Section 91 and that “Had she applied the test correctly she would not have discharged Mr Assange.”
Basis for appeal “b” contends that the judge should have notified the U.S. of her concerns around Section 91 giving them the opportunity of offering assurances to the Court.
Basis for appeal “c” concerned the admissibility of evidence given by expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman. The U.S. appeal asserted that Kopelman had mislead the judge and that therefore his evidence should have been deemed inadmissible or failing that the judge should have given less weight to the professor’s opinions.
In basis for appeal “d” the U.S. contends that Baraitser “erred in her overall assessment of the evidence going to the risk of suicide.”
Basis of appeal “e” again addresses the Baraitser ruling that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Assange pointing out that the United States had by now provided the United Kingdom with assurances that "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States also provided an assurance that it "will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him." However, an Amnesty International expert on national security and human rights in Europe said "Those are not assurances at all. It’s not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise."

References

Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

On reflection I would add some information to the appeal “c” “Kopelman” paragraph explaining a little about how and why Kopelman “mislead the court”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Prunesqualer fleshing this out for us. As editors consider what to include, we must understand the background. However, now that I've seen it explained, I believe this is too much information. We should stop immediately after paragraph 2 in the preceding replacement text, adding for interested readers a reference to a WP:RS that describes the five grounds for appeal. Jack Upland has been advising us all along to wait until events shake out, and I agree with him. The hearing in October will, I presume, not result in an instant decision. It'll probably be 2022 before we know what the High Court rules; and the losing side will undoubtedly pursue additional avenues of appeal. Meanwhile, in trying to incorporate details of each step in a long, drawn-out process, we're getting lost in the thicket. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Basketcase2022 When composing the above I fully expected the section to be rewritten once the appeal proper kicks in – this was just to be a holding text explaining the most up to date legal position. However I can see it’s rather long and detailed (though quite a lot of it is already in the article in one form or another). Maybe see if others have an opinion (maybe a sudden rush of harmony will appear) Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

So why not wait?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The suggested wording deals with the appeal process up to now not what will happen in October, but if others are happy to leave in place a rather patchy, and unbalanced account of the appeal process thus far – I won’t argue further. I may tweak the Kopelman paragraph to include the defence assertions though. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the existing paragraph should say that the Kopelman report could now be part of the appeal. This is what it originally said, but that has been lost.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Please, which existing paragraph do you mean? I found this just now:

On 11 August 2021 in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by an expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman, and that the contested risk of suicide could now form part of the appeal.[453] The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.[454]

What changes do you recommend here? Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have said what I said. For some reason this paragraph has been the source of much discussion, argumentation, and confusion. I don't want to add to it even further.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinions and activism

We have a section "Writings and opinions", but the only thing it says about Assange's opinions is that In 2010, Assange said he was a libertarian and that "WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical". In the first sentence we describe him as an activist, but we don't explain what he is an activist for. I would question whether we need the section "Writings and opinions". The writings could be covered by the "Bibliography" section, I think. He did not actually write Cypherpunks or Underground, and they are mentioned in the text earlier anyway. When Google Met WikiLeaks seems to be essentially the transcript of a discussion. Alternatively, if this section is important, it needs more information about his notable opinions. Also, if Assange is just a publisher of leaks - if as he said in relation to the 2016 US election We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.[9] — then I don't think he should be called an activist.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The section “Writings and opinions” contains a few quotes from Assange where he gives opinions on Wikileaks: the internet: Ian Hislop and Private Eye’s treatment of Israel Shamir. The section also lists several of his opinion pieces that have been published and goes into the circumstances surrounding the publishing of his book. Those all seem to fit nicely under the heading “Writings and opinions”. Also, I think there’s enough to warrant a section though I’m sure there are some other notable things to quote which can be added. For instance the following are some quotes I’d like to see in the section:

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” 
“What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.”
“Secrecy breeds incompetence because where there is failure, failure is kept secret.”
“Society develops a type of self-censorship, with the knowledge that surveillance exists - a self-censorship that is even expressed when people communicate with each other privately.”
“It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.”
“If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth.”

Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I've put in a more direct link to Wikiquote for the main things he's said or have been said about him. The section in the article should just have the most interesting stuff giving an overall view. It should be more of a overall summary. I think the bit about someone saying he is antisemitic and him denying it should be removed, anything like that gets heated and blown up and there's no real indication he is actually another Jeremy Corbin that way. NadVolum (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikileaks says of Israel Shamir that he "never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so" so I think I'll just remove that bit. NadVolum (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggest then you do not remove cited content with SPS as the source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a bit of common sense is called for. Even Shamir himself has only described himself as a freelancer. The Guardian describes how a request from Shamir for some info from Wikileaks was refused. The strongest link is that he has a son who is actually associated with Wikileaks - so basically this is damming Wikileaks because the father of an associate is a virulent antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

both the guardian and HAeatrz saying "Private Eye published a report saying that one of Assanges associates in Russia, Israel Shamir, was a Holocaust denier." both say "n that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed a Jewish conspiracy was attempting to discredit the organization" both the Guardian and Private Eye are hardly anti-Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes they said the same thing. But the evidence is strong that he wasn't an associate of Wikileaks, just someone who admired it. Yes Assange said it looked like a plot to discredit him with the Jewish community but we know he can say things that sound paranoid - whether it was true od false in this case we don't know, my guess is false. The interesting bit is the allegation of antisemitism by emplotying a rabid antisemitic and that looks pretty definitely false unless they're saying Israel Shamir's son is also volubly antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the Guardian has leaned towards being anti Assange ever since one of them published a book with a Wikileaks secret key in it. NadVolum (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No the evidence is not, as the only evidence you refer to is SPS denying it. To counter an RS you need an RS, not a wp:MANDY denial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source saying that what is said is wrong rather thanan official denial from the organization itself. I guess that'll be hard. It is also striking as far as the Guardian goes in the article there is no mention of David Leigh and his book giving the key to the unredacted cables to the world. I'll have to figure out under what peculiar reasonng that wasn't put in. NadVolum (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Israel Shamir's relationship is described in the Guardian's denier in charge of handling Moscow cables where he used the name Adam instead, presumably Adam Emash which he'd changed his name to a few years previously while continuing to use Israel Shamir for his rantings. There is no indication there that Assange or even Wkileaks knew who he actually was or that he was particularly close to Wikileaks. It is not a basis on which to hang an antisemitism sign on Wikileaks. NadVolum (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe they did and did not care, this is why we go with RS and nit wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly did you see as OR in a reliable source showing no particular strong link? Particularly an article where the title of the article implies there was a strong link? And I certainly think the disconnect between the title and the contents shows antipathy on the part of the author. NadVolum (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not see any OR in the linked article I also saw nothing to imply "Assange or even Wkileaks knew who he actually was". That is the OR to which I referred.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The article now has "...that a WikiLeaks associate[470] in Russia, Israel Shamir, ..." What exactly is an associate? The citation is headed "Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson confirms Israel Shamir's involvement with Wikileaks.". But the only quote for that I can find is 'A spokesman for WikiLeaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson, confirmed this when I called to ask if Shamir was directly connected to the organization. “No, he is not,” said Hrafnsson. “He only worked on the Cable Gate release, like hundreds of other journalists.”' Which I take as referring to that occassion I referenced above where he used his Adam Emash name instead. NadVolum (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:NadVolum: Here is the definition of "associate" at our sister project Wiktionary. The sources cited here and here support this description of Holocaust denier Israel Shamir as a WikiLeaks associate in Russia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Which of those definitions would you say Israel Shamir satisfied going by the actual quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson? NadVolum (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:NadVolum: The cited source states (see quote in citation template): "Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson confirms Israel Shamir's involvement with Wikileaks." Holocaust denier Israel Shamir thus qualifies as an associate under the Wiktionary definitions to which I linked:

• A person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner.
• Somebody with whom one works, coworker, colleague.
• A companion; a comrade.
• A member of an institution or society who is granted only partial status or privileges.

Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

How about actually using the wording in the source then 'involvement' or 'involved' rather than associate? No need to say associate when the source doesn't say so and there's good evidence he was not an associate by the dictionary definition. NadVolum (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There's good evidence that Wikipedia editors have accepted by consensus the description of Holocaust denier Israel Shamir as an associate of WikiLeaks in Russia. For corroboration, please see the entire section of Wikipedia's BLP devoted to Shamir's association with WikiLeaks. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Please also note I have now added a quote to the citation template for The New York Times, which states: He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. (Emphasis added for this talk page only.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ian Hislop didn't say Assange denied Israel Shamir is a holocaust denier. The New York Times is operating at third hand. But I do agree that another quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson in a cite in the Israel Shamir article says Israel Shamir is associate with Wikileaks. And then immediately follows with saying "There are a lot of controversial people around the world that are associated with us" which is rather worrying. So I'll have to agree with associate. NadVolum (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should bear in mind that WikiLeaks reportedly had only four or five full-time staff in 2010, and they were only being paid some of the time.[10][[11] It's unclear to me whether they were actually employees. WikiLeaks is a shadowy organisation. It provides very little information about its structure. Saying Shamir didn't "work" for WikiLeaks seems to me to be weasel words.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrespective of whatever content we settle upon, the placement of "Writings and opinions" as a section is less than elegant. It's jarring to see it separated from "Works" by two sections—"Children" and "Honours and awards"—that are unrelated to Assange's literary oeuvre. I like Jack Upland's idea of making "Writings" a subsection of "Works". We could then use NadVolum's {wikiquote-inline} template to direct the reader to the richer compilation of Assange quotations at our sister site, and bypass the need to offer only a few quotations in this BLP, sadly limited by space restrictions. (And really, does any mere selection do justice to the Quotations of Chairman Julian?) Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the children could be moved to a person life section after early life at the beginning and have his marriage moved into it. The Honours could be moved after the bibliography. Then you'd have the two together. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 “the Quotations of Chairman Julian” – Really? I think your slip is showing a little there. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that quotations actually deal with the issue. Assange is big on promotional rhetoric, but that doesn't actually clarify what his opinions actually are. He intones against secrecy, but WikiLeaks is a highly secretive organisation.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding anti-Semitism, there is more to the accusation: [12].--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That's quite interesting - but which bit did you see as antisemitic? Was it He’s always ben a rat,” Assange posted in the Twitter group in response. “But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.” 'And' would imply antisemitism,but it says 'But' which is the opposite - it is saying the person has some good qualities. Unless I've got my English very mixed up. And later he says it is bizarre that a lot of his critics are Jewish. He does come across as crass but I don't see any paricular antisemitic bits quoted there though it does say other people think that of him. NadVolum (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To me, the most damning things are: WikiLeaks has faced charges of anti-Semitism before. In 2013, former WikiLeaks volunteer James Ball explained that he left the group over what he said was Assange’s close relationship with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir... Former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg raised similar concerns about Shamir. and would-be ghostwriter of Assange’s autobiography, Andrew O’Hagan, said that, amid preparations for the book in 2011, Assange had "uttered, late at night … many sexist or anti-Semitic remarks" When people close to him are raising the issue, it can't lightly be dismissed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It'd be better if there was some quote to back that up. It seems awfully easy for people to turn things like criticizing Israels firing rockets at flats in Palestine into antisemitism. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has mentioned Palestine. In any case, your opinion about whether something is antisemitic is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You were saying you found something "most damning". I pointed out that the bit you talked about didn't have quoted corroboration like the rest of the article and it is easy to be accused of antisemitism when people have a bent to do it. I wasn't actually putting forward any opinion on the matter, it was you who were. You should not do that and then say other peoples opinions on the matter are irrelevant. NadVolum (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldn't have answered your question. The point is the source says that Assange has a history of being accused of antisemitism, including by people close to him, and was using neo-Nazi symbols in his private emails. The opinions of you or me are irrelevant. These people know the context of remarks, and in some cases know what his tone of voice was, and in some cases know how WikiLeaks operated from the inside. We don't. Convoluted speculation that he might have been talking about Palestine or whatever amounts to very little.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed this quote from Andrew O'Hagan that is relevant to my original point: I think it’s one of the weaknesses of the libertarian tradition: that they will go to bed with anyone, metaphorically. Julian has always claimed the relationship of WikiLeaks to its sources as being an invisible one, including to me. Look at his recent comments on the character of the sources. “It’s not Russia, I can say categorically!” he says. How can he say that if he doesn’t know? In other words, he is freely aware of the sources in both cases. And freely employing his skills as a selector and editor of materials; he’s shaping the material and shaping its public perception. I feel absolutely bamboozled that anyone would be as naive to imagine that promoting Donald Trump, seemingly in league with Russian forces, would be a freedom-fighting act. … This is the kind of person Julian decides to campaign for. And it is baffling and ruinous to the cause, his cause.[13] Is "libertarian" the only thing we can say about his "cause"? What is he shaping the material in order to do?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

the obvious conclusion is tht he thought he did know where it casme from and that it wasn't Russia. I think he was almost certainly wrong but the Russians would have had no compunctions about making up some believable cover story and contact to fool him. It's quite possible a link would be kept up if one person involved died. As to Trump he made it quite clear he despised Trump just as much as Clinton and did not collaborate with Stone. The GOP used not be Trump and he did say he favoured the GOP to Clinton because basically he though it would mean less people dying in America's wars. Retrospection is so much clearer but we can't go saying people are stupid for not having it in advance. NadVolum (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If he isn't working with or for Trump and Russia, what is he working for? That's the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does he have to be working for anybody like that? What reason have we to disbelieve what he said and think he had some other motive? As to the effect of Trump being elected - well I guess he did disengage America from foreign wars so that was in line with what Assange said he wanted even if he did compare the choice of Clinton or Trump to cholera or gonorrhea. NadVolum (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the question is: what are his opinions? Saying that he is not working for Trump and Russia doesn't answer the question.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, not what we think is true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess we should have Andrew O'Hagan's Secret Life in somewhere. And so should WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. The bibliography with The Unauthorized Autobiography sounds wrong - where should they go? NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was clear. O'Hagan's biograpy was quoted just above but not listed in the article. There is an unauthorized autobiography in the bibliography setion. I would have thought they should be in a biography section and Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy could go in there too. What section should they be in or should there be no section or should no biography be mentioned for some odd Wikipedia policy reason? 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

What has this got to do with what we are discussing? Please can you keep focused, we can't discuss 15 issues at once.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway as to what's in there at the moment, WikiLeaks vs. Private Eye on anti-Semitic rant quotes what Ian Hislop wrote about the call. Ian Hislop talks about a Wikileaks associate not Assange's. In the article it says 'Assange, who was especially angry about Private Eye′s report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier.' Ian Hislop does not say that. He says Assange was angry at what he said was a smear campaign against Wikileaks. There is nothing about being angry about it saying or denying that Israel Shamir is a holocause denier, only with the linkage with Wikileaks being given prominence in Private Eye. Going by the RS is one thing, but choosing a biased way of writing it into the article is something else. NadVolum (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

So we change Assange to Wikileaks, other that how does this contradict what we say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

As shown in the quote parameter of the citation template referencing the sentence in question, The New York Times described Israel Shamir as "an Assange associate in Russia," not as a WikiLeaks associate. We shouldn't alter that without consensus.

<ref name="Jewish Conspiracy">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html |title=Report Says Assange Cited Jewish Conspiracy |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=1 March 2011 |accessdate=12 September 2021 |author=Somaiya, Ravi |quote=He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.}}</ref>

Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why should it say Assange associate? The evidence is for Wikileaks associate if anything. Are we really in the business of biasing it more than the evidence warrants or do we think the New York Times has special knowledge not available to Ian Hislop when reporting about what Ian Hislop says? Hislop is an intelligent person with a good command of English and his facts. And yes I think that is about enough to counter the bias in the sentence. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You would need to ask the RS. We are in the business of reporting what RS say. Moreover, the NYT does not say Hislop said it, they say it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum: Purely as a matter of curiosity, please let me ask you: in the context of March 2011, how many associates of WikiLeaks would not also have been associates of Julian Assange? It's my impression that WikiLeaks was in those days a fairly small operation, and that its editor-in-chief ran a tight ship. It hardly seems like a grand leap of logic to conclude that Shamir, as a known WikiLeaks associate in Russia, could be considered ipso facto an Assange associate. BTW, editors may find it amusing to view this photo of Holocaust denier Shamir looming over Assange's shoulder, with both men dressed for a quick getaway in winter, as published in November 2011 by The Guardian under the headline "Israel Shamir and Julian Assange's cult of machismo." If anyone knows how to upload that photo to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, it would make a valuable addition to this BLP's Writings and opinions section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022, that photo is copyright — unless the owner of the photo tells us it isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How big is "a lot of journalists that are working with us all around the world"? If I rooted around I'm pretty sure I could find pictures of various members of the family with members of the royal family. Doesn't mean they'd know them from Adam. And we already know Israel Shamir was associated with Wikileaks. NadVolum (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Just so I understand: you are likening Julian Assange with the British royal family? Whoa! I'm off to do a Google Image search for photos of Elizabeth II and/or her illustrious kin with Holocaust denier Israel Shamir. This could be a real scoop for Wikipedia. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

He was a fan of Assange. What'sstrange about him getting a picture of himself with Assange? NadVolum (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And if an RS said they were associates it would be a good clue they were.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

He was associated with Wikileaks yes. Even in a small company hoe many people would you say are an associate of the general manager by name rather than of the company? NadVolum (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The real problem is that putting Assange in there implies that Assange was annoyed Israel Shamir was called a holocaust denier. That just distorts what Ian Hislop said. He said he was annoyed that Wikileaks was being smeared. NadVolum (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that the article implies the Hislop incident was the only time that Shamir's friendship with Assange was raised and the only time that Assange was accused of anti-Jewish attitudes. I would prefer to see a general comment about Assange's association with Shamir and his history of being accused of antisemitism.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That's as may be, but that is no rationale for biasing this particular incident away from what the source Ian Hislop actually said happened. He has no problems about articulating what he means. When he said wikileaks associate it is because he meant to associate him with wikileaks and he never said anything about Assange being annoyed about Shamir being called a holocaust denier, only about Wikileaks being smeared. The New York times has rewritten and biased what Hislop said - the sort of thing Assange was accusing Hislop of doing in fact so on his terms it would be two levels of biasing. We don't need to and should not add a third. NadVolum (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

And in the opinion of the RS he was an associate of Assange, that is what the RS is staying, it is not saying Hislop said it.,Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Then how about an RS that reported the incident more accurately Julian Assange 'Jewish conspiracy' comments spark row. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Odd, as that was rejected a whole back as being by a biased source, its why we now use the NYT. But it still doe not contradict the NYT said he was an associate of Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why choose NYT over the Guardian when the Guardian agrees with Hislop? NadVolum (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian story reports, among other things, that Assange claimed that Private Eye was part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian [emphasis added] which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'. As the alleged leader of this Jewish conspiracy, The Guardian is not an impartial source. We should cite it only if The Guardian directly denies or refutes Assange's accusation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article said "He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks". The article here splits off the first sentence as if it was complete in itself to give the impression Assange was personally annoyed about Shamit being called a holocaust denier. The report is titled 'Report Says Assange Cited Jewish Conspiracy'. It was not trying to say anything like what is here. I believe what is here counts as a form of WP:SYNTH NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

O'Hagan's biograpy

It has been suggested we include this., how?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering where biogrphies should be in the article. There unauthorize autobiography is in but that does not really look like an work by Assange to me. And there is another one where a Guardian editor caused trouble by publishing a secret key, I'd have though that should be in too. NadVolum (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

THis is part of the problem, what do you want to use it for. As a source, as "Further reading", something else, you need to say what you want to do with it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why should having a place to put biographies into a biography article be a problem? It just seems to me to be a sensible thing to do. NadVolum (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We do have a place, its called the "Further reading" section. This is why I am asking what you want to do with it, as it seems you want to do more with it than just list it, otherwise, why ask when the answer is obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No that's fine. I'll set up a section in Further reading. I'm sorry I only saw the subsection headings and didn't see the main title there. It's probably obvious I guess to someone who's been WIkipedia for a while. I'm not up to anything strange, just reluctant to start new sections without checking. NadVolum (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need a section, why not just put the book in there?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I seem to have mixed up the Works section and the Further reading section. There's all those citations in between and they have similar headings. Okay I can just put things into the Books in Further reading section. NadVolum (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Well as long as they do not fail things like undue yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I asked you to be carefully David Leigh and Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Guardian Books (1 February 2011), ISBN 978-0-85265-239-8 is already used as a source, we do not need it in the Further reading section.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FURTHER says "This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content". But it was not used as a general reference for the article. It is used to cite some particular things and could easily be missed out as a general source. If it was a general source one would expect it to be used at least one in the introduction. NadVolum (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section".Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There's currently over 500 citations in the article. We're not talking about duplicating anything like that. The biography is not mentioned in the lead anywhere. I'm just saying as a commonsense thing we should include an important biography that is used a number of times in the article rather than expecting people to trawl the 500+ references trying to find general references for the topic. As if they'd even think of doing that. If it was used in the lead I could see your point but it isn't. NadVolum (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelvant, it is used in the article and MOS is clear, we do not include in the further reading section books already cited. And read wp:lede it is a summary of important parts of the article, not a newspaper-style leader.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

'Should not normally' is not the same as must not in every single case even when it seems sensible to. WP:POLICY says "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense". Don't know where you got the bit about newspapers from. NadVolum (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph of wp:lede "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.", you really do need to actually start reading policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what you're up to now. You think because I used the word lead that I thought the starting section of an article is like a newspaper lede? The guideline you point at calls it the lead section. I did not say lede. But I still don't see what I wrote that you thought was based on such an assumption or what difference it made to you. NadVolum (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And? how I spelled it is irrelevant, we do not put books in the "Further reading" section that we cite, and your reference to the lead was and is a distraction. It does not matter if it is not in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unauthorised Autobiography

I have added a tag following the Bibliography item Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography.

{{Disputed inline|Talk:Julian_Assange#Unauthorised_Autobiography|for=Assange has renounced this book|date=September 2021}}

I do not request that this book be removed from the Bibliography, but readers must be cautioned that it was immediately disowned and denounced by its purported author, who accused Canongate Books of "screwing people over to make a buck" by having published this work "against my wishes" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. That seems like a reasonable approach. Burrobert (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Mmm, as he claims to to have written it I think it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: In opening this discussion, I hyperlinked the words who accused. You seem to have either missed that or not bothered to read Assange's statement. In its second paragraph, he declares:

I am not "the writer" of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan.

I reiterate, I am not requesting that we remove this book from the Bibliography. But to pretend Assange has not disavowed its authorship is dishonest. At the very least, readers ought to be informed that the book's legitimacy is disputed by Assange himself. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not say YOU did, I am saying given this I think it should be. As it claims to be by him, and its not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I responded to your comment that he claims to have written it. Now you declare "it claims to be by him." Mmm, those are two different things. I'm beginning to understand why these threads are so needlessly bloated. Basketcase2022 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

TYpoo, that should have been "as he claims not to have written", the extra to should have been an not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Absent an explanation in the body of the BLP, I do not support removing this book from the Bibliography. I trust that no editor will disappear it without consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to read WP:ONUS. it is the job of those wanting to include to get consensus for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You've already stated that it should be removed. Why have you not done so? Basketcase2022 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Because I was willing to let the discussion run its course, but as you have decided to make an issue of it I invoked policy. But I shall now remove it per your request.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I asked you a question. I most emphatically did not request that you remove the book from the Bibliography. Please don't twist my position, which I repeatedly made clear, out of childish spite. Basketcase2022 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Becaue you were correct, I should have obeyed policy. Also read wp:talk, you discuss content, not users, as you have done more than once in this thread. My point was you are correct, I should have removed it, I should have obeyed wp:brd and once the objection was raised should have deleted the content.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this such a major biography we have to have a discussion of it in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is just more words, that tells us nothing about him or his actions. We need to stop adding everything ever said about Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography as one of the notable publications of 2011 in Australian literature.

• In addition to reporting on the book's release, The Guardian also reviewed it, calling Assange's memoir "surprisingly revealing."
• The Independent published timely "exclusive extracts".
• AFP disseminated a contemporaneous report of Assange's denunciation.

Three years later, Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography gained renewed attention when Andrew O'Hagan wrote an account of his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, published in the London Review of Books.

This in turn generated coverage by

• The Daily Telegraph
• The Independent and
• Business Standard.

Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography is noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph in his BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So, it still tells us nothing about him, this is one paragraph that says "he did not like it, and the author then wrote a bit about it". This really does feel like trying to get it in here by hook or by crrok, hell we do not even say what Hagan said about it, only what Asange did (which also violates wp:npov, as we only give one side).Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I added what O'Hagan said. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: My edits today following your removal of Julian Assange, The Unauthorised Autobiography from the Bibliography have added a net total of 1,205 bytes. This does not seem excessive. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And when the nest lot is only 1,205 bytes. it will not seem excessive. This is why the article is so bloated, one line here, another line there. None of which really add anything to our understanding of the man. What does this tell us we did not already know?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It tells us that in 2011, Canongate Books published Julian Assange, The Unauthorised Autobiography. That Assange immediately disavowed it, stating, "I am not 'the writer' of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan." That Assange accused Canongate of breaching their contract by publishing, against his wishes, a draft that Assange considered "a work in progress" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." And that in 2014, O'Hagan wrote about his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, recalling, "The story of his life mortified him and sent him scurrying for excuses. He didn't want to do the book. He hadn't from the beginning." Until I added that today, readers of our BLP would not have known any of it, unless they were already familiar with this noteworthy episode in Assange's life. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And? What does it add to our understanding of the topic? So what if they knew nothing about it, they do not know what Assahgen had for breakfast this morning. We need to stop adding material unless it really adds to out understanding of him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: You are not the sole arbiter of what "really adds to our understanding" of Julian Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop with the attacks on me, I am fully aware of our policies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

But I have had my say, I do not see why we need this or what it adds. It is just more bumpf, and so I will draw a line under this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)