Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Wikiproject interest

I recently set what I assessed as the importance level of Assange and the case against him by America in diff. And as usual SPECIFICO reverted it without doing any work to assess it themselves or give proper reasons with comment "ave uninvolved editorassess importance" and the usual policy "NPOV - HAVE UNI VOLVD EDIT". Wouldn't it be wonderful if every article was set up by uninvolved editors who put in the energy to develop them to featured articles!

Anyway I don't know of any requirement for uninvolved editors to set up those fields but I do know of a way to try and get uninvolved editors to have a look at a disagreement which is to set up an RfC. But before that I'll go through the changes here and give my reasoning for them. I changed only one assessment which was actually assessed. A bot recently set a number of unassessed ones to low where they were left out or in one case 'h' instead of 'high' was set to low.

Assessments I set where the bot had set to low. I agree that The assessment should be low for WikiProject Law and WikiProject Philosophy. Law certainly is involved but within law it is judges doing what they always do ratherthan specific points of law or anything. It's the politicians that make the law.

• WikiProject Australia crime: mid -> low

He was convicted of hacking when young and fined and released on good behaviour. With wikileaks he leaked some list of important places which an Australian journalist has dismissed as bureaucratic nonsense and hasn't even been noted in Wikipedia anywhere. Compared to anything else even in low importance for Australia crime it is peanuts.

• WikiProject Media: h -> low -> high

A number of reporters have said that the extradition has a chilling effect and impinges on the freedom of the press, it has been described as the most important trian of out time in that respect. However I agree with the assessment that it is of mid rather than high importance to journalism because journalism is a much wider field. And I agree with the original assessment as it being of high importance to the media. If one looks at the other aricles in the mid and high categories of these projects you can see the difference in their coverage in that media is more con=cerned with the environment of reporting rather than specifics.

• WikiProject Freedom of speech: -> high

There has been a number of stories about how important the Assange case is for press freedom e.g. [1][2][3] which directly impinges on freedom of speech. And looking at other entries in the project high does seem the relevant place though not top.

• WikiProject Human rights: -> mid

Freedom of speech is only part of human rights and Assange and Wikipedia just does not make the cut to being of high importance in the subject at large.

Any thoughts? What rating would you change? There is also a rating of low at the top in WikiProject Biography ARts and Entertainment. He shouldn't be in that at all but should be in some Biography list if somebody can figure out which. NadVolum (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not a bot. You need to self-revert and ping the editor whose work you reverted. Pretty basic editing protocol. Don't edit war and don't simply insist on your views. That does not advance consensus. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC. If there's a dispute over the importance ratings for a given WikiProject, post at that project's talk page and request and uninvolved rater. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And I do not consider using User:Evad37/rater as a user doing an assessment. So which ones do you disagree with SPECIFICO instead of just revertiung and not giving a reason? NadVolum (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please examine the page history to see who the editor was, not what software she was using. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: did you really mean to set the assessments to low for projects that were unassessed and to change h to LOw for the assessment for WikiProject:Media? NadVolum (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You can assume that editors actions are intentional. I don't see any reason to dispute them. If you do, then you'll need to gather consensus for your view. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for I dream of horses. NadVolum, your ping fix attempt is unlikely to have succeeded. See H:PINGFIX for reliable methods. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just about to write on his talk page as I was trying it out in a sandbox and I simply didn't get anything from it. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've put an invite to the four WikiProjects I mentioned above. If they say something that would be an independent assessment from the involved WikiProjects which would be good. Thanks too for the pointer. NadVolum (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum Feel free to change the importance assessment yourself if you wish. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

He did, but as an involved editor he overstated the importance in several respects. I thought your edit was fine and a welcome contribution. Please feel free to explain the rationale or your judgment.@I dream of horses: SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO To be fair to @NadVolum, I tend to assume if importance isn't filled in, it's 'low.' I don't remember rating Assange as 'low' for WikiProject Media, but then again, I do a lot of edits. Hence, my "meh" reaction to having it reverted. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Well you said "There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article". I'm surprised you'd say that about someone you think has a low rating in any of the WikiProjects people have bothered to assign him to. Perhaps you'd care to indicate in which area his crimes were so dasterdly and we can then see whether he should be assigned a high importance or even top importance rating in them. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: I don't see any reason to categorize him important in media. He is widely presented in news media, but so are millions of others who do something noteworthy. To be important in media, I think one needs to be a creator, distributor, critic, or the like. Walt Disney, Peter Sellers, Margaret Rutherford but not Margaret Thatcher. Nad seems to have the two confused. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You should read Media studies to understand what it is and look at the articles marked within the project for their rating. Despite what Marshall McLuhan said about the medium being the message media is not about the messages of individuals but as I said above about the environment for them. NadVolum (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No it is not about our article on a related field or you personal beliefs. For the reason I explained above, which you've completely ignored. In fact that view is quite ridiculous, because all WP page subjects are required to be extensively covered in some media. SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

None of the people you mentioned has any WikiProject Media rating. Marshall McLuhan who I mentioned has a high rating. Your understanding does not correspond with what it means in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

McLuhan was the arguably the foremost critical essayist on Media of the 20th Century. His involvement in "media" is not because his personal activities were covered in the press, as is the case with Assange. That's the last time I will repeat this. Nobody is argreeing with your arguments, which are ignoring the issue. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

And like I said Assange should be there because of the US prosecution of him which is chilling and imperiling the freedom of the press. And could you stop treating yourself as being more than one editor with your 'nobody' thanks. NadVolum (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Free speech and human rights

I have set Assange's importance in the Wikiprojects "Freedom of speech" and "Human rights" to "High."

• Concerning free speech, the Associated Press summarizes, "The prosecution of Assange has been condemned by journalists and human rights groups, who say it undermines free speech and imperils journalists [4]."

• The editorial board of the Irish Examiner explained, "to deliver up Assange will be a disaster for investigative journalism, free speech, and a fillip for repressive regimes everywhere [5]."

• Peter Oborne, a journalist for The Guardian, says of the Assange trial, "The impact on British journalism will also be profound. It will become lethally dangerous to handle, let alone publish, documents from US government sources. Reporters who do so, and their editors, will risk the same fate as Assange and become subject to extradition followed by lifelong incarceration [6]."

• Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers and an outspoken defender of Assange on Free Speech and Free Press grounds [7], stated, "If Julian is extradited to the US to face these charges, he will be the first journalist and publisher [tried under the Espionage Act], but not the last [8]."

• Concerning human rights, Amnesty International has repeatedly [9][10] defended Assange, calling his case a "travesty," adding [11],

"If extradited to the US, Julian Assange could not only face trial on charges under the Espionage Act but also a real risk of serious human rights violations due to detention conditions that could amount to torture or other ill-treatment. The US government’s indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. If upheld, it would undermine the key role of journalists and publishers in scrutinizing governments and exposing their misdeeds would leave journalists everywhere looking over their shoulders."

• The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights has defended Assange, saying his case has "wider human rights implications," "a chilling effect on media freedom [12]," and furthermore

"raised important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations."

• Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and other rights groups have condemned Assange's prosecution - the secretary general of RSF said it had "dangerous implications for the future of journalism and press freedom around the world [13]."

• A statement jointly published last year by Human Rights Watch and many other "press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights advocacy organizations [14]," saying Assange's prosecution "poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad." That statement was endorsed by many groups, including,
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Amnesty International - USA
  • Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Committee to Protect Journalists
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Freedom of the Press Foundation
  • Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
  • PEN America

And of course, the United Nation's special Rapporteur on Torture has repeatedly called for Assange's release.

Essentially, you could not find a biography on Wikipedia with a higher importance for these two wikiprojects. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree RE: Freedom of Speech. Human Rights is quite dubious. He is being prosecuted for an identified violation of longstanding widely applied law, and it will be determined at trial whether that prosecution has merit. Not even acquitted suspects all are having their human rights violated. In fact he's navigated and taken advantage of every applicable provision of due process. The importance to Media is simply mistaken -- I've lost track of whether editors are still promoting that one. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, he should have high importance in freedom of speech. However in human rights I'd say mid. He is no Martin Luther King and even if he is given a 175 year sentence there are loads of people who are treated worse than him even in Britain never mind in America where the justice system is totally crap - and yet is far far better than places like Belarus or Myanmar or Egypt or Venezuela. NadVolum (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"and yet is far far better than places like Belarus or Myanmar or Egypt or Venezuela"

That would depend on what you've been accused of. In Assange's case it seems pretty clear that there's a 50/50 chance he'd be treated better in any of the three countries you mentioned than in the US. The reason it's 50/50 is because that's the approximate probability that the US President at the time of extradition would be a Democrat. Democrats starting with Obama have made it clear that Assange's speech is protected under the First Amendment and on that basis a Democratic president would pardon him, thereby overriding any decision by the Supreme Court that it was not protected. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If Biden was going to do that he should have said so long ago and regained some slight moral authority for America. Anyway I guess we better not speculate, just write up the business as it happens as dispassionately as possible. NadVolum (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why list things Assange wasnt actively involved in?

diff: IT is right to list major things done by a company whilt under a CEO. Short description though - any details elsewhere unless the CEO was acively involved I dont understand this. Why include things that hes not actively involved in, or dont have details of his involvement?

By this logic, every CEO of every company with a wiki page would have an entry listing everything the company did while they were CEO.

WP:Relevance: Information that is "once removed" is less directly relevant, should receive a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in other areas (such as wp:npov, weight and strength and objectivity of the material and sourcing) before inclusion, but may still may be sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Including information about the XYZ organization in the John Smith article is a simple example of this. Doesnt this apply?

Listing every Wikileaks release seems WP:Out of scope Softlemonades (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we list the major scandals and criticisms of Wikileaks under Assange, too? Any details elsewhere unless he was actively involved Softlemonades (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Please give examples.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic to make a point but to start with WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_false_flag_theories, WikiLeaks#Allegations_of_anti-semitism, WikiLeaks#Exaggerated_and_misleading_descriptions_of_the_contents_of_leaks, WikiLeaks#Inadequate_curation_and_violations_of_personal_privacy Softlemonades (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are details in bigger things or criticisms. As I said just a short overall description here. If there's more you can put a link to the appropriate part of the EikiLeaks article or elsewhere for full details.NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Assange has been accused of anti-semitism" except thats probably a BLP issue without more detail or qualifiers. I dont see why the WikiLeaks article should go into more detail about what Assange is alleged to have said than the Assange article? Softlemonades (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said every single one, and they aren't all listed. Just major ones like you'd have for a company CEO. They're responsible for them and it seems standard practice. A CEO will be mentioned as being in charge when the thing is done. If there was some major incident then of course that should also be listed, I hardly think a criticism would come under that. The sort of thing where people say that was done under their watch. We note it was done under their watch but we don't go into detail because the details aren't described as being done under their watch, they are described as details of whatever it is. I believe you'll find lots of sources mention him as being in charge of Wikileaks for those so it is just a question of putting in a quick description as that is all that is DUE for his role in them. NadVolum (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because someone is CEO doesnt mean they have a role in something the company does. Whatever Assanges role is in each publication should be stated and sourced.

But it sounds like youre saying that you think the major incidents already listed on WikiLeaks should at least be considered for including here, especially for the ones that mention Assange like allegations of anti-semitism and inadequate curation and violations of personal privacy? Softlemonades (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The person in charge authorizes the things an organization does or heads them a particular way. If there is a significant incident which the organization is involved with and they are somehow responsible for the organization having got in that position by their direction then yes that's fine. I think it is a case by case business and one would have have to check sources to see if they make a connection that way. Otherwise one would starts getting into BLP territory even for a public figure like Assange. See WP:BLPPUBLIC. NadVolum (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you need a source connecting them to the bad things, you need a source connecting them to the good things all on a case by case basis. Otherwise you start getting into OR territory. Softlemonades (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Have you got a specific problem with any of them? Why are you going on like this here when you were quite willing to do all sorts of things to cover up a silly mistake David Leigh did that had rather bad consequences? NadVolum (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

My problem is the bloat, and once again Ill ask you to not make personal comments or accusations. Softlemonades (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Im taking a break. Maybe we all should Softlemonades (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about putting in about Hilary Clinton talking about sending a drone after him as fact rather than something very possibly made up by a conspiracy site. I was quite ready to believe it after those disclosures about the CIA wanting to kidnap or kill him. NadVolum (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

We can only go by reliable secondary sources. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't immediately apparent to me, the text was reasonably written and presented and there were no huge headlines and suchlike. I would have checked it more deeply in a while but on first impressions it looked okay and quite believable. NadVolum (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That does not excuse posting and repeating several times the content that was removed on identified BLP concerns. And saying "the CIA wanted to kidnap or kill Assange" is also a BLP violation, for reasons extensively discussed on an earlier thread here. A few individuals promoting their views internally within the CIA do not constitute the position of the CIA. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's up to ya'll, but I'm gonna assume that this BLP is suppose to concentrate on the person. For example - We wouldn't want the page to become a second Wikileaks page. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly Softlemonades (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Assange was noted as a primary figure in the Wikileaks organisation from its inception. It's reasonable to note the major activities that the organization that is almost entirely responsible for his notability was involved in. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That is what we call original research and in order to protect living persons from anonymous users personal opinions, we do not incorporate such views into article text. It should not have been reinserted pending the outcome of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't what we call original research. Perhaps read the page that you wikilinked to? Or perhaps you can quote what you mistakenly thought was original research. Given your repeated inaccurate posts on various editor's talk page admonishing them for non-existent breaches of the CR sanction, you ought to by now recognise what adhering to CR entails. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

People charged with a sex crime

The reason I added the category was Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority talks about complaints, and so does the Post when it says "a second woman appeared at Stockholm police headquarters to complain of his conduct." Other examples can be found. Theres an entire wiki article about the legal case and him fighting extradition.

The "category is about people criminally charged with a sex crime." Following the link, "A charging document, which contains one or more criminal charges or counts, can take several forms, including: complaint." Softlemonades (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Here the Guardian refers to it as a complaint, the police refer to it as a complaint, and Assanges lawyer calls the women complainants.

I think it meets the standards for the Category, and specifics and clarifications in the article and the Assange v article. Assange promoted the case as an issue so much that I dont think putting it in the Categories is a BLP issue

But Im open to arguments against Softlemonades (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I'm rather surprised Wikipedia has a category like that. One for people who have been convicted okay, but charged? It seems wrong to me. Anyway the category says it is for people who have been criminally charged and the Guardian article you linked to says he was not formally charged. So he doesn't fit the category. NadVolum (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

And the term "charged" has different meanings in different jurisdictions, and the category explicitly includes complaints being filed as being charged. What the purpose of the category isnt for is splitting hairs over Swedish legal terminology. Softlemonades (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Julian Assange hasn't been charged with a sex crime, so that should be the end of the discussion. A complaint or an investigation is not the same or equivalent to charges. The idea of such a category, which would combine those who are charged and found guilty with those who are charged and not found guilty, is also a terrible idea. Such a category would also hold an impossible false equivalence between all the world's criminal legal systems. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a separate category for sex offenders so at least it doesn't do that. But it still strikes me as a very bad idea. NadVolum (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand youre reacting to surprise about the category, but please keep debate the category on the Category's talk page, not here. For what its worth, it looks like its been around since 2017 and is part of 4 projects.

In other words, limmit this discussion to whether the category applies here as it exists now, and not whether it should exist. Softlemonades (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If the category shouldn't exist, we shouldn't add to the category. Therefore, the validity of the category would be relevant to this discussion, except that it is redundant since Assange has never charged with a sex crime. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

See the categorys existing definition and scope defined by the pages it links to, and the separate categories for people convicted and people acquitted of sex crimes. Complaints were made, which falls into the "charged with a sex crime" category.

No one is trying to combine those categories. TAssange wasnt acquitted or convicted, but the formal accusations were made which is what the category is for. Assanges lawyer said there was a complaint. Thats not in doubt, and thats in scope of the category, letter and spirit. Softlemonades (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The source you gave said he was not formally charged. You need a source of at least equal reliability saying he was charged or making your argument about him really having been criminally charged in Sweden. Your argument on a talk page of Wikipedia will not override a reliable source without a clear consensus that it made an error. We shouldn't be trying to make determinations like this without a clear source on BLP matters. NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you 'both' to decide. But, I'd recommend an RFC on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you look at Criminal charge it starts "A criminal charge is a formal accusation...". The source says he was not formally charged. Why does this have to go and on and on especally for a BLP matter? NadVolum (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't even have categories for people simply charged with something, sex crimes or otherwise. Being charged proves nothing. Being convicted in a fair court would be a "fair" category, but not merely charged. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

He hasn’t been charged with a sex crime. So we don’t pretend that he has. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

See [15].--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's certainly more towards making a case than the original source. voelkerrechtsblog sounds like a blog to me though so can't compete with the Guardian. NadVolum (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the opinion of an expert.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In law there's lots of experts all arguing against each other. If some newspaper quoted him I think that would be enough though to counter the Guardian. NadVolum (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Klamberg blog post does not state he has been charged. Other experts say he has not been charged. Reliable sources do not say he has been charged. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the blog post by the lawyer could be used in the article with attribution. Unless of course other experts have been climbing in and saying the opposite. But we can't just state it as fact like the category would. NadVolum (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nils Melzer says the opposite, and in his case secondary sources report on his doing so. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did a Google search and the first one I got back was [16] with some lawyer in court saying what he did wouldn't amount to a sex crime in England. So the experts as is usual in law argue against each other. I really would much prefer a less adversarial atmosphere here where editors looked up sources about what they are interested in rather than just searching for or selecting those that support what they want to say. I would advise always looking for a cite that opposes what one first thinks as a good way to achieve NPOV. NadVolum (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be only one editor advocating for the category inclusion. This discussion should be let to be abandoned due to the suggestion's rejection. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah Im confused why people are arguing about whether the category should exist (offtopic and the wrong place to discuss it) and only focusing on one criteria when there are clearly several, but its obvious theres no consensus for including the category on the page.

I disagree with the result and think some of the arguments against are bad, but the input and consensus is clear. Unless others come in and support it, Im gonna drop it here.

Thanks to the folks who kept the discussion civil and avoided threats and personal comments even though this was kinda hot buttony! Softlemonades (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There's little to no support for including this category, and the category itself is questionable and thinly populated. If this were to be a useful or legitimate category it would be hundreds or thousands of names long. But it seems rather to have been neglected. I think we can move on from this. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this would violate the spirit of BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem that arose with this addition had little to nothing to do with its potential to be "hot buttony", but rather that it was an unsourced addition to a biography, and this website insists that such content be removed immediately. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It wasnt unsourced, sources were given in the first two comments of this discussion and within scope of the category as it exists now.

Consensus was still to exclude it, and that the balance of sources was against it. But it was never unsourced. Saying otherwise is incorrect. Softlemonades (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

To be sourced on this website means to have a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the claim. At the point it was added, there were no references supporting it: it was unsourced. Neither of the two links you put in your first two comments refer to article subject being charged: it is still unsourced, which is why it cannot be in the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Its impossible to add citations for categories, and the articles refer to complaints and complainants, which wikipedia and the category counts as charging documents.

The discussion already ended though and I agreed to go with the consensus so I dont know why youre coming in here to beat a dead horse discussion. If youre trying to make a WP:POINT, find a discussion where the outcome is still being debated. Softlemonades (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The category does not count complaints as charges. A Wikipedia article is not a source. You are evidently struggling with the policy on sourcing on BLP articles: for example saying people are "focusing on one criteria when there are clearly several". There is only one issue that arose here: article content – including categories – must be reliably sourced. This was not sourced at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Youre distorting what I wrote or having difficulty reading because I merely referred to the way an existing article referenced things. I cited the Washington Post and The Guardian in the first two comments, aand the fact that you chose to ignore that is telling.

Youre distortion of what the category said and linked to is just as bad, but Im going to do what Slatersteven suggested below and what I suggested above and drop it. Misunderstand, misread or misrepresent your heart out. Softlemonades (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither The Guardian nor The Telegraph said article subject had been charged. The only misunderstanding, misreading, or misrepresentation is in your fertile imagination. Do not add unsourced content to BLP articles in future. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Its too ridiculous not to point out, but I didnt cite the Telegraph. Nice projection about the "fertile imagination."

The Post and the Guardian say complaints were filed, and so did Assanges. Thats the first example of a Criminal charging document listed by Wikipedia, which is what the category linked to.

But whatever. Im used to (Personal attack removed) by now. Gonna take a break from them and from wikipedia for a day or too. I wont read whatever you write in response, so have fun writing it. Softlemonades (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The matter is resolved, can we drop it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of categories is "to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages." I don't see the point of listing people whose notability does not in whole or part depend on their having been charged with a sex crime.

Also see "Overview of Swedish Criminal Procedure", section 1.1: Phases of the Criminal Procedure. An investigation is opened in Sweden just as it is in other jurisdictions, when there is information that a crime may have been committed. But while the decision to charge someone is made early in the investigation in other jurisdictions, in Sweden people are not charged until there is sufficient evidence for an indictment. IOW, Sweden requires a higher burden of evidence before someon is actually charge.

The argument for inclusion seems to be that had the case been anywhere else, Assange would have been charged. That requires some original research so I think we would need a reliable source for that. The fact that an arrest warrant was issued does not prove this. In some countries, such as England, it is common to arrest people for questioning, before they are charged with an offense. Typically, police are allowed to hold suspects for 48 hours before charging them. Had the case been held in the UK, I imagine that police would have wanted to question Assange before laying charges. The fact is though that the Swedish authorities could have charged Assange without interviewing him, but chose not to. As a result, they were time barred from proceding to prosecution. So probably given similar circumstances, he would not have been charged in England.

TFD (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The argument was that the complaints filed are the first type of "Criminal charge" identified by Wikipedia, but the consensus has been against using the category.

You make good points and I dont expect the conesnsus to change, but wanted to clarify that Softlemonades (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The linked article says that a criminal charge is "a formal accusation made by a governmental authority." In this case the complaint was made (informally) by two women to a governmental authority. The "complaint" listed in the article is a document prepared by a governmental authority and issued by a judge who is satisfied there is probable cause. (Cornell Law School)[17] It's not someone walking into a police station and saying that someone committed a crime against them. It's not even police deciding to investigate their claims. TFD (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DNC leak in lead

I made a change to the part of the lead about the DNC leak, replacing some of the text with Ecuadors decision to censor Assange over the publication and adding mention of the Podesta emails which werent there before. It seemed more relevant and important. Cambial immediately reverted the edit with the note "The secondary impact may or may not be relevant. That has no bearing on its immediate implications (and reason for its publication))"

I dont fully understand the logic.

1. Isnt the "secondary impact" really the primary impact for the subject of the article?
2. The edit summary implies we should include the reason for the publication, which was spelled out in the DMs with Guccifer 2.0, so should we make that clear? I wouldntve thought so but

Softlemonades (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The internet connection is a secondary impact inasmuch as it took place because of what the documents showed and their actual or potential influence. There was no reason, nor an attempted justification, for removing the specific showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries and replacing it with the vague impacting on the U.S. election campaign. Like most content in the lead and the remainder of the article, this was already subject to extensive back-and-forth before arriving at the status quo. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing unusual about the "DNC favoring Clinton" bit. The Bernie supporters, many of them young and uninformed, got all in a snit about it. The significant fact is as Softlemonades describes. Please provide whatever links you think established strong consensus for the old wording. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus will need to be demonstrated to make a change to long-standing material. It's not clear what the purpose of your speculations about "Bernie supporters" is. Try to remember this is not a forum. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I am asking you to document your assertion that there was extensive discussion. That will help your fellow editors to arrive at a valid conclusion in this discussion. Links please. The Bernie Bro bit is why some editors may not know the mainstream NPOV assessment of the emails. Nothing to do with my personal view or "notforum". SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

But its the primary impact to the subject of the article. Were not discussing WikiLeaks as a whole, or the DNC or the election, were discussing Julian Assange. Why shouldnt the focus be on him? I dont think it matters if it had a bigger impact on something other than Assange when hes the subject of the article. If we can focus it more on him, I feel like we should. Softlemonades (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a crime to hack and steal emails. It is not a crime to enhance Hillary. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

He didnt hack and steal emails and that wasnt the alternate content, so I think were getting off topic here. The reverted edit I made was about Ecuadors censorship of Assange and cutting off his internet over the publication of the emails which where already stolen. Theres no evidence he or WikiLeaks had any involvement in the hacking. Softlemonades (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

He is charged with conspiracy relating thereto. That is the legal involvement. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless I missed a third indictment none of his charges relate to 2016 Softlemonades (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The "vague" bit you refer to was a quote from the government of Ecuador, and their given reason for censoring Assange. That was clear in the text. Im not sure if you didnt make the connection or dismissed its importance. Softlemonades (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't hide the DNC's favouring Clinton over Sanders, in 2016. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not being hidden. Its talked about a lot on WikiLeaks, on the DNC email leak page and on the Assange page at Julian_Assange#2016_U.S._presidential_election. Question is whats more relevant to Assange and should go in the lead? What the DNC did, or Assange getting censored by the government for publishing it? Softlemonades (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Both are equally important. PS - Keyboard messed up, can't indent. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if both are equally important, which is more relevant to Assange? Softlemonades (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Both are equally relevant to Assange. PS - Takes too long, to type. So, I'll let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand this POV and would appreciate anyone who can explain Softlemonades (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There were two aspects to your edit: 1. removing the description of the nature or significance of what Assange leaked; 2. adding a sentence about one consequence a step removed from that. The two are not mutually exclusive, obviously. They are separate questions.

You’ve put a (weak) case for adding the internet being cut off. Someone’s internet being cut off is not a sufficiently significant life event to feature in the lead of a BLP: at present we don’t mention that he had a transient ischaemic attack/stroke, for example. Lack of internet connection features lower in the scheme of things that affect your life than having a stroke.

You’ve not sought to make any argument for removing the nature and significance of the leak that Assange published, nor could any serious argument be made for what amounts to replacing a clear explanation with a vague allusion in order to save a grand total of seven words. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not "Someone’s internet being cut off" its Assange being censored by Ecuadors government.

"You’ve not sought to make any argument for removing..." thats just incorrect. As Ive said several times, its because thats not about Assange. And as I pointed out to you above, the "vague allusion" is the direct quote from Ecuador and their explanation for censoring hi . Calling it "vague" or an "allusion" leaves out the obvious context..

However you never answered my question at the beginning - if we should feature the reasons for the leak like you said in your edit summary, should we mention that the intent was to time and disrupt the DNC, since there are sources that that was WikiLeaks' explicit goal? Softlemonades (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It was also a turning point in his asylum in the embassy and relationship with Ecuador, the end of which meant his arrest. Softlemonades (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this material (Assange versus Hillary Clinton etc). This has been argued again and again and again. The longstanding content is just the detritus of a battlefield. And I won't mention the rattlesnakes.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Assange published documents; this is what the documents showed (and why he published them). The argument that "the documents that Assange published were not about Assange, so their contents are not relevant" is, at best, fatuous.

As to an obviously partial source (a JD seeking an indictment against him) claiming the aim was, in their loaded angry-gammon language, “to disrupt”. We would never use such loaded terminology in wikivoice. Whether the aim was to influence the primary - we don’t have to look to some Justice Department lackey’s unsupported inferences desperately trying to portray this as sinister; nor would it be appropriate. Assange is on record, over and over again, stating that the WikiLeaks organisation sought maximum political impact for their sources. It might be appropriate to add an Wp:ABOUTSELF record of this philosophy guiding the timing of all his publications, one which is held in common with many other journalists and news organisations. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I never said their contents arent relevant, despite the quote marks. I said its less relevant to him than Ecuadors relationship with him souring and government censorship of him.
2. The source cited wasnt "an obviously partial source (a JD seeking an indictment against him)." It was a WP:RS media source. You should check it, the exact quote from WikiLeaks is there. Here's more, from the Washington Post and The Intercept. But I dont actually want t put that in the lead, I was making a point about your edit summary and reasoning.

Softlemonades (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Who are you quoting with the "to disrupt"? Its not me or the source I cited. I dont see it in the GRU indictment which doesnt mention Assange or even WikiLeaks directly, or any of the Assange indictments. And no one suggested portraying it as sinister, just stating it as fact. EDIT: I see now I did use that word in passing and missed it on the page search. Softlemonades (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You say your argument is that its less relevant. That statement about comparative relevance, which other editors disagree with, isn't an argument for removing it. As I note above, these are not mutually exclusive bits of text. Finding something you think is more relevant does not lend support to, and is not an argument for, removing a different bit of content.

All three sources are describing the content of the indictment, not making their own direct reporting. The indictment against Russian agents was prepared by the same institution that was seeking to prosecute Assange at the time; it's not an impartial secondary source. Refrain from pointy timewasting in future, thanks.

You asked who am I quoting with "to disrupt". Answer: you, Softlemonades – "the intent was to time and disrupt the DNC" – talking about a proposal you say you only raised to try to make a point. Stay on topic. I'll not be wasting any more time with specious arguments. You want to try to build a consensus to add something? Go ahead. Want to try to build consensus to remove something? That too. "X is less relevant than Y" does not advance your position. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Ridicule of judicial processes is not likely to support any NPOV consensus.
2. Please provide links to the previous discussions in which you claim there was consensus for your views.
3. The Bernie/Hillary stuff is WP:COATRACK with respect to the topic of this page. It's also a BLP issue with respect to Assange, unless you can provide links to him saying that his purpose was to sink Hillary rather than to promote freedom of information.

SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. "which other editors disagree with" Which is why I havent readded it, and raised it for discussion and consensus building either way.
2. Your whole second paragraph is nonsense and not how WP:RS works.
3. Somehow I missed that on my search of the page - probably because you werent quoting me, it was a loose paraphrase. But I think it was clear there that I wasnt suggesting actual page text or wiki voice with that phrase. That also means it wasnt the "loaded angry-gammon language" of "a JD seeking an indictment against him" so Im not sure why you described it that way.
4. Youre the one who brought up the reason for the publication in your reversion edit summary, and said it should be there. Im following it to its logical conclusion, which you seem very opposed to.

Softlemonades (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest reading the RS policies rather than merely wiki linking them, given your evident unfamiliarity with their content, particularly as regards secondary sources and partial sources.

SPECIFICO, on an article whose subject’s notability derives entirely from their publishing of leaked documents, stating what documents they leaked is not a COATRACK. Nevertheless that was amusing to read, thanks. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you called a paraphrase of my words a quote and then called that the "loaded angry-gammon language" of "a JD seeking an indictment against him" Im gonna wait for someone else to help make sense of this. Softlemonades (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to get into irrelevant nitpicking because your argument for your proposed edit makes no sense, in fact it was you who called it a quote; I merely followed your lead in responding briefly to your irrelevant question. That the JD was was seeking an indictment against Assange, at the time they published the documents reported on in those sources, is simply a fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You had already called my words the "loaded angry-gammon language" of "a JD seeking an indictment against him" so Id still like to see the connection between them. An indictment being sought against Assange by someone else is irrelevant, makes no sense in applying it to my words, and the people seeking an indictment against Assange werent part of the Mueller Investigation, so I dont see how thats even relevant to the topic unless you have a source that says otherwise. Softlemonades (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

No contortions or justifications on your part will make a paraphrase of my words "the "loaded angry-gammon language" of "a JD seeking an indictment against him" make sense Softlemonades (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Stupid me. I shouldnt have assumed it was a quote just because you put it in quote marks. Softlemonades (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Quite right, that's my fault for making the clearly foolish and absurd assumption that your words had some basis in sources and in reality, rather than being fabricated from nothing. I've learnt my lesson and will not make such an error in future: quite the opposite. An indictment being sought against Assange is highly relevant to establishing whether the institution which is doing so is a secondary, impartial source on Assange: your assertion of its irrelevance is incorrect.

Speaking of incomprehensible "nonsense", unfortunately I'll have to leave the first of your two(!) additional paragraphs unanswered; I can't detect even the tiniest scrap of something coherent. How did you know I was doing yoga? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ive added the two missing words, Im sorry you couldnt figure it out and that I made that editing mistake.

"Quite right, that's my fault for making the clearly foolish and absurd assumption that your words had some basis in sources and in reality, rather than being fabricated from nothing."

1. Ive cited three reliable sources, including the Washington Post.
2. Its revealing how you seem to think theres no middle ground between deciding my words are "fabricated from nothing" and that a paraphrase you made up of them is "the "loaded angry-gammon language" of "a JD seeking an indictment against him".

I think Ill leave this fruitless thread here, and wait for someone else to chime in with more productive discussion Softlemonades (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You say you've cited three reliable sources. Yet it was you who pointed out that none of them, nor the document they are all reporting on, say the aim was "to time and disrupt the DNC" [sic] (that is a quote). The unsupported attempt at a paraphrase of those sources was created by you, Softlemonades, not by me, as we've already established. So far you've created your own claim, then investigated it when the word was quoted back to you and determined that it was unsupported, now you're trying to pretend someone else made it up. You know there's a page history button right? Fruitless indeed, starting from here. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Im only responding because youre putting words in my mouth.

I said those words werent from the article. I absolutely did not say the source didnt support the conclusion. They did say things like "Wikileaks planned to engineer discord between the supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic National Convention" and "The indictments suggest Russian hackers and Wikileaks planned to sow discord between Clinton and Sanders camps during the 2016 Democratic National Convention." That was in the very first source I cited.

What I said you made up is a paraphrase of my words that you then attributed to "the "loaded angry-gammon language" of "a JD seeking an indictment against him".

Lets not go to ANI. Softlemonades (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've not put any words in your mouth. Do not falsely suggest I've done so. The statement you claim is a paraphrase of those sources – "to time and disrupt the DNC" [sic] – was written by you. I've linked to the diff multiple times above. I’ve not made up a paraphrase of your words or put words in your mouth, and you claiming as much without even bothering to state what the words are that you pretend I put in your mouth is an uncivil accusation of bad faith without evidence.

You asked where the word disrupt was quoted from, claiming it was not you. But in fact it was you, as you've subsequently acknowledged. Now you are repeating your claim that I made up or put words in your mouth. That claim is bullshit, and I'm starting to think you know that. If you want to continue insisting on making a claim about my comments that you've already acknowledged is inaccurate, I'll consider it seriously uncivil and we can certainly discuss it at the appropriate venue if you wish.

Your claim that I attributed it to "loaded angry-gammon language" does not even make sense. You cannot attribute the use of a word to a type of language. I described it as loaded angry-gammon language. I attributed those claims to the JD, because that is who the source you referred to was reporting on and how you, not me as we've established, described their claims. The JD were seeking an indictment against him. So the attribution is accurate.

Given that it's obviously a highly partial primary source, its use would be completely inappropriate. As we have numerous instances where Assange describes Wikileaks' aim to gain maximum political impact for their source's leaked documents, if we were to include some mention of his and the organisation's motivations that would be an appropriate choice, as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't use derisive language to refer to lawfully constituted prosecutorial agencies. It's not helpful and to the extent it refers to specific prosecutors within the department, it could be libelous. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you know what you’re talking about. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you talking about de Gammon on these pages, even if only an angry version! ;-) NadVolum (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"You asked where the word disrupt"

No that is not what I asked. (Yet another example) I asked where the phrase "to disrupt" which you put in quotes came from. You were the first one to use those words, and the edit history shows that. I acknowledged I used the word disrupt "in passing" but I didnt use the paraphrase "to disrupt" that you put in quotes. The reason I didnt find it or attribute it to myself is because I looked for the words you put in quotes, "to disrupt" and those words didnt appear next to each other on the page before you wrote them.

"I attributed those claims to the JD, because that is who the source you referred to was reporting on and how you, not me as we've established, described their claims." Thatd be a good point if the indictment had made those claims instead of just giving the transcript.

Put simply, you cant attribute words, phrasing or analysis to the government just because mainstream media are reporting on the government. Coverage and analysis of something or someone saying something isnt treated the same as the primary source of the event or statement, or that all coverage of government filings is biased. If Im wrong, please point me to what policy says that. Softlemonades (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Shelta

So, your long diatribe here is based on the verb disrupt, which you wrote, being put in the infinitive. What a ridiculous waste of time.

It was your summary of their claims. The fact it was unsupported is on you.

No-one has tried to do so. None of the above is contributing to advancing your argument, facile as it is. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"It was your summary of their claims. The fact it was unsupported is on you."

As Ive repeatedly pointed out, it was supported. By the very first source I cited. I even posted relevant quotes. I strongly suggest you read them.

Softlemonades (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Whether it should go in the lead should depend on how relevant it is to Assange personally (as opposed to Wikileaks as an organization; if it is only covered in relation to that, without any sources connecting it directly to Assange, then it belongs on Wikileaks but not in the lead here.) That question should be answered by looking at the sources and how closely they connect it to Assange as an individual. At a bare minimum, though, we need a source that mentions Assange by name - the current source does not. I'd prefer a source that is actually largely about him rather than one with just a passing reference, but we can't reasonably use one that doesn't mention him at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's a BLP violation re:Assange. We know the Russians were attempting to influence the election outcome. There needs to be RS that explicitly attributes anti-Clinton efforts to Assange, or else the content must be removed, per Softlemonades. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  This NYT article might be the source youre looking for? Not arguing for or against anything with this post because I want to take a break from the discussion to let things cool down, but I knew about the article and didnt want to hold a source back. Softlemonades (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Various editors have objected to using that source in the past. We need to reach clarity on our approach to this. Was Assange reliably reported to have joined Putin's agenda to defeat Clinton? Or was he acting for freedom of information, free speech and transparency of governmental process? This is the underlying issue for this biography's presentation of the 2016 publication. So far, the editors who have addressed it seem to favor removal. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the DNC leak as such shouldn't be in, it does not even occur in a title in the article. The 2016 presidential election however does appear and some details appear there. I believe the relevant part as far as Assange is concerned is that he tried to intefere in a partisan way in that election and there are cites for him personally in that respect. It is not the sort of thing people holed up in an embassy should do if they want to keep the support of their host. NadVolum (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

death penalty?

some politicos stated today on various news stations that they believe he should be tried for treason and executed - are there any RS articles that have discussed the legality/precedent for charging him thus? 50.111.60.40 (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/he-s-not-a-us-citizen-and-us-can-t-try-assange-for-treason-20211214-p59h9z.html. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So if we add this, we would need some very good sourcing to say it is even a possibility. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Assange holds only Australian citizenship. He CANNOT therefore commit treason against - or be a traitor to - the United States. It's unlikely that any RS has claimed this. 86.164.195.171 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

patent nonsense. WP:DENY SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)}}

We would need secondary coverage of this POV, IP editor, to establish the view as noteworthy. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've not heard or read about that, anywhere. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It is nonsense. I closed this thread, because nothing more need be said about it. For some reason the thread has been reopened, Feel free to re-close and/or archive this thread. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a look and I can't see any recent instances of people saying he is a traitor and should be executed. It certainly has happened in the past but there seems no new reliable sources decribing anything noteworthy. I don't see why this was being slapped with DENY - that is for trolls and the originator seems to have done reasonable things and nothing trollish. I can well believe they head this sort of thing on some chat show. It is definitely not nonsense as it has happened a number of times just nothing that really makes he grade for the article. NadVolum (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to assume you have some reasoning behind calling it nonsense. It really would help if you tried explaining your self occasionally The only reasoning I can come up with isd that since what was said would not be legal in a court in the US you are calling it nonsense. However this is Wikipedia not an american court. Its basis is reliable sources. And people definitely have called him a tritor and said he should be executed. NadVolum (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's too bad that mainstream news media, have basically abandoned Assange. But, that's for another discussion. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course they have, but this is not the place to discuss that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And people have said that centaurs should be elected to Parliament. There are no centaurs, but Wikipedia is not a zoo, so we will stick to the reliable sources. SPECIFICO talk 05:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My best attempt to assume good faith seems to have failed so my second best explanation is that you saw the original poster was a fairly nerw editor and you didn't like what they said so you used WP:DENY and nonsense as a vicious attack to drive them away the same as the sort of thing you did to me when I came here first. NadVolum (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks belong on my user talk page, not here please. SPECIFICO talk 12:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Then please follow WP:5P4 and in particular Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and especially constructive ones. NadVolum (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG. This page is only for constructive content and sourcing discussion. My talk page is open 24/7 SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@50.111.60.40:, ya kinda left us behind. No follow up? GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've contacted the IP, to see if he's still interested in the discussion he began. Meanwhile, it's best that no involved editor 'delete' or 'hat' this discussion. Likely best, just to let the discussion expire on its own, as it would avoid tension between individuals. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Founding Wikileaks section barely discusses founding Wikileaks

It goes right into listing its publications and how some of the early ones helped Wikileaks grow. I think we should either rename it or add some content about that. Softlemonades (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Explain? Im not sure why we wouldnt put information in Assanges page about his role in founding Wikileaks under the section Founding Wikileaks. Softlemonades (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I think the name is OK. What alternative do you suggest? 2. The page is already overlong. It is sufficient to have a summary of Assange's founding of Wikileaks. Which is what we have.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding

1. Something more general like "Assange and Wikileaks" with "Founding Wikileaks" as one of the subsections, maybe?
2. Agree that its long, but the Founding Wikileaks section spends three sentences on that and then moves onto publications. So we should add about the founding or adjust the section names a little.
3. I think adding details about his role in founding Wikileaks is more relevant and important than the subsection of later leaks so if something has to go, that seems like a possibility. WikiLeaks#Staff,_name_and_founding has examples of what sort of things we could add

Softlemonades (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with the 'Assange and Wikileaks' and 'Founding Wikileaks' idea. The Founding Wikileaks subsection could then have a main template at the top pointing to Wikileaks#Staff, name and founding and contain those three statements. That would point people to where the business was covered in more detail. I wouldn't bother with anything extra unless it was strongly relevant to him personally. NadVolum (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "Assange and Wikileaks" is that it implies that this is the only section that deals with Wikileaks. Assange continued to contribute to Wikileaks when he was in the embassy. I also don't think we need "Assange" in a heading. The whole page is about Assange. I would also oppose a short subsection.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks wrong as it is at the moment, sobasically I think you're saying the change wouldn't make it any righter for you. How about 'Early Wikileaks' then for a main section title? NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That works too for me Softlemonades (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I like this plan for now, but it sounds like there are other improvements to be Softlemonades (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Just call it Wikileaks? It currently goes up to 2016. Not exactly early.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think thats good. We can always change it again later but thats obviously better than what we have now Softlemonades (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Added to Lede

I added the following to the lede:

In September 2021, it was revealed that the Central Intellegence Agency (CIA) discussed assassinating Julian Assange. Donald Trump CIA director Mike Pompeo had requested ‘options’ for killing Assange.

Tulsipres (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Why, is this a major part of our article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2022 ( UTC)

This has been discussed extensively there is no verification of Pompeo asking for options in the cited source. Please don't rehash previous discussion of this. It is a BLP violation wrt Pompeo. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a bit about that later in the article. There are enough things that did happen to put in the lead without starting on things which were discussed but not in the end approved. NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

WikiLeaks came to international attention

@Cambial Yellowing Thought you might have issue with the lead and "WikiLeaks came to international attention in 2010 when it published a series of leaks provided by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning." since you bring it up on the WikiLeaks talk page (I also replied there). Feel free to go ahead and fix it Softlemonades (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The body says, but after it began publishing documents supplied by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks became a household name, without a citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

PostFinance account problems

I think we should add a mention of Assanges swiss banking problems, but we need to be careful with how its phrased because of BLP issues. None of the sources uses the word "fraud" and the bank said there would be "no criminal consequences" for misleading authorities so phrasing and attention to detail matters. Sources

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11929034

https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

http://www.postfinance.ch/en/about/media/press/pressrelease/press101206.html

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/06/julian-assange-swiss-bank-account

https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/assanges-swiss-bank-account-under-scrutiny/news-story/8be9755b1b99f21bfa6d11f6f7a5417e

https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-sparks-hacker-war-over-wikileaks Softlemonades (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Assange use of surveillance equipment

@SPECIFICO There are two parts of it that are significant:

1 its part of a pattern of Assanges use of surveillance equipment in the embassy, which we can create a small subsection of if youd prefer. The article talks about several

2 this is the incident of Assange fighting with a security guard that was also reported on by many outlets but without context, just saying things like he hit a guard and was a "spoiled brat" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-11/-spoiled-brat-assange-hit-our-embassy-guards-ecuador-says Softlemonades (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. WRT #1, I would suggest making it more explicit that he used it often or continually, and include any information about his authority to do so. WRT #2, I didn't see that context. Of course, captivess would all like to hit their guards every so often, and in a minimum security confinement with no consequences, this may be dog-bites-man? I have no concern about whatever can be well-sourced. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you've added references. I think it would be good also to address #1 above with a text edit or expansion if you are so inclined. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I did a self revert until then because I wanna be careful with the wording Softlemonades (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

EIO etc

The EIO passage https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&curid=26033941&diff=1126909696&oldid=1126892911 was because it wasnt actually about Assange, it was about the case and the process and the whole affair is covered in more detail in the main article which is linked at the top of the section, Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency. I dont object to it being put back but I dont thikn it needs to go there and that was my justification for it, sorry I didnt explain well enough in edit summary Softlemonades (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining SL. As the subject of the surveillance and thus the impetus for the case in Madrid was Assange, and specifically illegal eavesdropping on legally privileged conversations between Assange and counsel, it is relevant to his bio. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: Specifico’s removal with a notional appeal in edit summary to consensus required. Content is long-standing; added by @Burrobert: in 2019. There is a clear edit consensus for its inclusion. Consensus is required for its removal; CR is not an opportunity for POV-pushing editors like Specifico to rmv any sourced and neutral content they wish to and then try to demand other editors demonstrate again the consensus for its inclusion. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see that material was removed because the "details ... are about the cases and not the surveillance ... ". As mentioned by @Cambial Yellowing: the text is long standing so consensus is required for its removal. Just as importantly though, it contains information that is relevant to the subject of the bio. For example, the phrases,

- for permission to question Assange

- Assange was the victim who had filed the complaint

- the microphones used to spy on Assange were bought in Spain,

- Spanish judicial bodies were upset at having their EIO request denied by UKCA and believed the British justice system was concerned by the effect the Spanish case may have on the process to extradite Assange to the US.

Btw, the article Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency is not the main article about surveillance of Assange in the embassy and the consequent arrest of David Morales in Spain. The Kunstler article relates to a much later case that arose out the the surveillance. I have not read the Kunstler page so don't know how much of the Spanish case is mentioned there. Nevertheless, a main article about the surveillance would have a title like "Surveillance of Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy" or maybe "Kingdom of Spain vs David Morales" (if that is the legal title of the Spanish case). Burrobert (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, I have not been able to decipher the edit summary for the edit after that one that removed the surveillance information. The edit removed some interesting information about a release by Assange related to Russia. The edit summary says "Assange is not WikiLeaks and more sources criticize it for being mostly public than praise it".[18] The "Assange is not WikiLeaks" part is clear but the rest is unfathomable. Regarding the "Assange is not WikiLeaks" part, the sentence that was removed does not mention Wikileaks and says the release was by Assange. Even so, this bio contains a huge about of material that is about Wikileaks. We have a huge section about accusations that Wikileaks and Russia somehow collaborated to interfere in a foreign election. We include sentences such as

- A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said that WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government ...

- After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.

- During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails ... etc.

The text that was removed has been in the article since at least September 2021.

Burrobert (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I didnt see it attributed to Assange, and instead of adding negative stuff about the release for balance I just took it out.

I thikn there are too many times the articles does the "Wikileaks did..." without focusing on Assange enough but thats a bigger thing than I can edit Softlemonades (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The negative stuff is already in the article (WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government etc.). There appears to be no clear dividing line between Assange and Wikileaks. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the foreign policy article cited for turning down leaks does mention Assange but Im ok with removing some of that stuff too, I was just saying that instead of adding a bunch of criticism about the spy files russia I took it out. Im not trying to argue, just explain better the edit summary like you asked. I wont argue if you restore it but I might expand it if you do Softlemonades (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that the current article contains a lot of text implying or outright declaring that Assange/Wikileaks are in some way connected to Russia, it seems reasonable to include a reference to an important Wikileaks release about Russia. I am aware that someone, somewhere said that the information was released to obscure Wikileaks' connection to Russia. No problem including that as well if it is properly sourced. It is amusing though that Assange is criticised for not publishing about Russia, but, when he does, he is accused of publishing information that Russia can afford to reveal. The proposition that Wikileaks/Assange is a Russian asset is unfalsifiable in the mainstream narrative. An example of the lack of balance in the current article's treatment of Assange and Russia is our mention of his show "World Tomorrow". We say "In 2012 Assange hosted World Tomorrow show, broadcast by Russian network RT". We fail to mention that the show was produced independently of RT. Burrobert (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not read the Kunstler page so don't know how much of the Spanish case is mentioned there I think you should look at it, theres a lot more than is on the Assange page and it goes into a lot of detail because its background to the American case and has sections and sub sections dedicated to the Spanish case and international requests

As the subject of the surveillance and thus the impetus for the case in Madrid was Assange, and specifically illegal eavesdropping on legally privileged conversations between Assange and counsel, it is relevant to his bio I agree but thats not what the removed text was about, it was about the legal process of the case and requests for testimony. I was careful not to remove anything about the surveillance or findings

- Assange was the victim who had filed the complaint This is important and its included in text earlier in the section. Softlemonades (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

- Regarding the Kunstler page, if you have included background information about the Spanish case, why not cover the whole episode and have a more expansive title such as "Surveillance of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy"? Anyway, that is a side point.

- Yes, the point about Assange initiating the investigation of UC Global is included elsewhere. It is included for a second time for a different purpose - justifying Spain's need to question Assange.

- It is also important to the Assange bio that "Spanish judicial bodies ... believed the British justice system was concerned by the effect the Spanish case may have on the process to extradite Assange to the US". Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I still dont agree that its needed here after it was moved to another page but like I said I dont have a problem with it being re added.

Title of the other page, maybe. You have a point Softlemonades (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

While you are here, can you have a look at my comment above which begins "On a related note, I have not been ..."? I can make neither head nor tail out of your edit summary. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont like how much of the page doubles whats on the Wikileaks page but good points Softlemonades (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to include the Russia bit, it would be up to you to do so in an NPOV way. So instead of adding part of the story and then saying someone else can add the balance if they feel like it, the entire NPOV narrative needs to be added at one time. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Number of children, like I said check Personal life - it clearly says he had a son, Daniel, a daughter, and then two children with Stella. Four children. Sources https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/no-secrets https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/07/03/julian-assange-monsieur-hollande-accueillez-moi-en-france_4668919_3232.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220311024539/https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2011/february/1324596189/robert-manne/cypherpunk-revolutionary

replacing the specific with the vague for no benefit is not an improvement Id agree if it were a good description of DNC emails over all instead of focusing on just one thing which is why I tried to change it

Unexplained source removal Did you actually look at the edit summary and the articles text? It failed verification. The source removed says because he believed the Swedish or British authorities would extradite him to the US and thats VERY different from the source saying its a pretext Softlemonades (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

* Afaict, the most widely covered revelation from the DNC emails was the favouritism displayed by the DNC towards Clinton, which is why it is important to include it. It led to a number of resignations from the DNC, including the chairwoman.

* We have discussed the use of the word "pretext" previously. It was before your time Softlemonades. The relevant discussion is in the archives under "Swedish pretext" Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_24#Swedish_pretext. The NYT states that "Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him and said that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to send him to the United States".[19]

* We have also discussed the number of children previously. Did we boost the number to 6 at one stage? Presumably it's in the archives as well. Burrobert (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I thought its better to not leave stuff out, but ok
• I didnt know about the old discussions, thanks. Was just trying to update the number of children and thought sourcing wasnt clear. Ill look at that and Swedish pretext discussion.

Thanks for the reply Softlemonades (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the Pretext discussion and it covered a lot, but one issue didnt come up: the way its worded and presented without context is a BLP issue for his accusers, and putting it up top might make it worse

Sweden issued a European arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied and said that they were a pretext

If he means the warrant can we make that clearer? Softlemonades (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote from the NYT mentioned earlier is clearer. He isn't referring to the two women but to the actions of the Swedish state. "Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him and said that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to send him to the United States". Burrobert (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should clarify the sentence then, because it sounds like which he denied and said that they were from the lead are talking about the same thing. We should follow the source sentence more closely

But is the accusations were attempts to discredit him from the article talking about the two women or the state? Softlemonades (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I no longer have access to the NYT so can't say who is being referred to in the phrase the accusations were attempts to discredit him. Do we need to know? Do we need to use that part of the source? Burrobert (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the children: "Personal life" indicates there are at least 5 children: Daniel, a daughter, a French resident (we say a son, but I dispute that is defined), and the two with Stella. This indicates he had four kids in 2011, which means he now has at least 6. We simply don't know exactly how many children he has, and we have no source which states a number (as far as I've seen). Regarding the Swedish pretext: I don't think we should airbrush away what Assange said. He said the allegations were a CIA plot to get him to the USA. We shouldn't airbrush that away because it seems unlikely.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I no longer have access to the NYT so can't say who is being referred to in the phrase the accusations were attempts to discredit him. Do we need to know? the wiki should be clear

Im not saying "airbrush that away" but its a BLP issue to highlight that claim so much. It accuses women who arent public figures of something without letting them respond,and putting it up front without context is a problem. There havent been RS that give significant attention to the individual's role which is what WP:VICTIM says the standard should be for this kind of BLP issue Softlemonades (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere does it accuse women who aren’t public figures. Those people are not referred to even using a pronoun, never mind by name. It’s not suggested that Assange’s statement is accusing those people of being the source of the pretext (and of course, as we now know, they are not in fact). It’s normal practice, and necessary to maintain a npov, to give the person’s response where the encyclopaedia mentions they were accused of a crime. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s not suggested that Assange’s statement is accusing those people of being the source of the pretext right so Im just saying we clarify that. Thats all I said in my comment before, if you read it, which is why it said I think we should clarify the sentence then Softlemonades (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If you really feel you need a denial from them go ahead and find a denial but it is not a reason for removal. And I see no reason to require anything from them here. As to being a pretext, it is just his word and I think it is probably untrue but it seemed newsworthy as should be attributed to him. I did read someone saying the CIA wasn't actually interested in getting Assange to trial in America but in getting him doing what he's been doing and run him ragged as long as possible before the law trying to avoid it, but I forget where, and going between juristictions in Europe would certainly accomplish that. NadVolum (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum: That was a suggested strategy in one of the leaked Stratfor emails. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

but it is not a reason for removal

Like I said in my comment above I think we should clarify the sentence then, I didnt say we should remove it, I said we should clarify it Softlemonades (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to spend too much time on this. It is easy to come up with a wording that provides the required clarification. Just use a wording based on the NYT sources above. Regarding the Stratfor emails mentioned by Nad and Cambrial, Nils Melzer recent book has a few things to say. The strategy "was outlined with terrifying precision in an internal mail correspondence of the US global intelligence consulting firm Stratfor : "Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years". Also, "After more than a decade of judicial persecution in four jurisdictions, one cannot help but hear the chilling echoes of Stratfor's 2010 recommendation". Burrobert (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that reference. Yes we should probably have a reference to Stratfor email leak in this article, it is rather relevant to him personally. NadVolum (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to spend too much time on this. It is easy to come up with a wording that provides the required clarification. Agree, thanks. Maybe something like which he denied and said that the warrant was a pretext

Yes we should probably have a reference to Stratfor email leak in this article I think the best way to add it is to use the Melzer book in Imprisonment or Assesments Softlemonades (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The reference to the pretext in the intro are repeated in the body as follows: "Assange and his supporters said he was not concerned about any proceedings in Sweden as such, but said that the Swedish allegations were designed to discredit him and were a pretext for his extradition from Sweden to the United States."--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Autism

My edit summary didnt save so to explain the revert, asperger is autism

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. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252489508/Assange-has-Aspergers-syndrome-and-depression-court-hears

Page is Category:People with Asperger syndrome too Softlemonades (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Autism is extremely common and the boundary is very blurry, I think it s silly to stick thousands of people into such a wide category unless they are notable for the characteristic. We don't stick everyone into a category for their religion or ahether they are atheist, they are only listed if their religion or atheism is a notable part of their life. NadVolum (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You could say it is since its relevant to the extradition, and the wikiproject decided its relevant to them, which is up to them and not us. The category exists, and the criteria is people who were diagnosed with Asperger syndrome which he was. If you disagree with the category itself, thats for a different talk page or rfc Softlemonades (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, actually we do use categories quite liberally. There is enough significance, per OP. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just had a look and there is a guideline WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which has a section on 'Disability, intersex, medical, or psychological conditions', and the first bit in that says 'People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category.' So it seems to me that Wikipedia in general agrees with me. I'll bring it up at that project as a quick look at their list and the second person I looked at it has a one line sentence saying they were diagnosed with autism when young but hey deny it. It doesn't look like a defining characteristic of Assange and it most definitely ws not a defining characteristic of that one. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So he shouldn't be in the category for autism. Yes it was cited as a reason to not extradite but that does not mean it is WP:DEFINING for him. My guess is there are a lot of obsessive types especially around mental problems sticking people in such categories even though the guideline says that is inappropriate. NadVolum (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the pages you linked and I dont agree but wont revert it again if you re delete it Softlemonades (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a section on "Health"?--Jack Upland (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why shoud we? It comes up in the context of imprisoning but it can be and is covered in that context too. Lots of people suffer terribly from prison, personally I think it is a cruel and weird punishment and people should be given the option of being whipped for first crimes. NadVolum (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Pompeo assessment removal

Cambial please address the issues and questions in my revert instead of just undoing it and leaving a warning on my page

Most things in that section only have one RS and one is about a tweet, but you dont remove those for the same reason. So why this? The former CIA Directors assessment is relevant and its not fringe. We can cite it from his book and from the article. Both RS for his assessment. How many RSes do you need? Softlemonades (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think Pompeo is sufficiently notable and relevant to Assange that his remark about him is relevant. NadVolum (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As one individual holding this view, without similar views expressed by others, this is a minority view. Looking for secondary RS that report on it, there seems to be exactly one， the Australian. Inclusion is giving it undue weight to an opinion unmentioned by all but one RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Theres an entire section of stuff on the WikiLeaks article pointing to connections to Russia as criticism, its more than Pompeo

You didnt answer about why this and not the other things in the section that have only one source, or that are obviously less important. So why this and not them or the ones that arent asessments just saying that someone "spoke in support" of Assange? Softlemonades (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Include it please.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not for this article but I thought [20] was a classic come around for Pompeo, and from The Atlantic too! NadVolum (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please quote.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as being for this article even though what's being said about him is what he said about Assange. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Did Pompeo make the statement as a CIA employee or former CIA employee? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The useful idiot bit? That was after he left the CIA, and in fact he wasn't the one who started that. I think that was Luke Harding who co-wrote the book that published the password to the diplomatic cables. NadVolum (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent deletions

A recent edit has removed Assange's statement that the CIA was trying to subvert his right to freedom of speech.[21] It also removed mention of Reality Winner and Pamela Anderson from the page. A subsequent edit then added material critical of Assange that has just been added to the Barrett Brown page.[22] I have not had time yet to look at the text that has been added to Barrett Brown's page but it initially looks a little pointy. I think a discussion about this major change is necessary. Burrobert (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Barrett Brown is a reaonable source to quote on Assange I think. I don't see why Assange's support for Reality Winner or his response to Pompeo was removed. I've no strong feelings about Pamela Anderson but people are interested in what she does. It would be far better if the edits were divided into ones which move text around and do fixes or rephrasing and ones which add or remove cited material so people don't have to do big checks. Editing is supposed to be collaborative. NadVolum (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I object strenuously to the removal of Pamela. Her tussle with Scomo is famous in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it was hard to work out what was happening with the edit. Assange's statement about the CIA is notable because it was in response to the declaration of Wikileaks as "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia", which we mention elsewhere. The Reality Winner item is notable because of the reward offered by Wikileaks to identify the journalist who exposed her identity. We mention elsewhere that Wikileaks offered a reward in relation to Seth Rich's murder. The Pamela Anderson item is notable because of her interaction with the Australian Prime Minister over his inaction on Assange. Burrobert (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Morever, Pam is another one of the host of celebs that have come out in favour of Jules. She has declared her love for him. Comrade Pamela is a revelation to those of us Australians who grew up in the 1980s.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hes not an active participant in most of that so I think it belongs on her page not his but its not even mentioned on her page, because we dont mention every interview he gave, but wont argue if you want to restore

which we mention elsewhere then find a source that isnt WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS and put it there. Same with Reality Winner. I have no objection Softlemonades (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Reality Winner item is partly sourced to The Hill.

The Pamela Anderson item is sourced to 9news and the ABC.

Assange does not need to be an “active participant” in an event for it to be relevant to his bio. An example mentioned above is where we say “WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about [Seth Rich’s] murder and wrote … “. Both the Reality Winner item and the Pamela Anderson item are relevant to Julian's bio.

Fox News is not unreliable or deprecated for politics. It is fine for “routine and uncontroversial coverage”. The following are not exception or controversial:

- Assange said the CIA were trying to subvert his right to freedom of speech.

- On 6 June 2017, Assange tweeted his support for NSA leaker Reality Winner, who had been arrested three days earlier. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The extradition isn't political, that's me trying to emulate the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass! NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Reality Winner item is partly sourced to The Hill. The part about wikileaks not the part about him, it doesnt mention Assange

The Pamela Anderson item is sourced to 9news and the ABC. I didnt say sources were a reason and said I dont object to it being restored but if its important enough to be in his page, it should be in hers too since its more about her

Assange does not need to be an “active participant” in an event for it to be relevant to his bio. An example mentioned above is where we say “WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about [Seth Rich’s] murder and wrote … “. But he was an active participant in suggesting Seth Rich. If he wasnt the WikiLeaks reward wouldnt belong, itd be coatrack

{{tq|- Assange said the CIA were trying to subvert his right to freedom of speech.} } We dont include everything he said, why this? If the only source is fox it should go. If there are other sources then I agree about including it

The extradition isn't political, that's me trying to emulate the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass! What? Sorry I dont understand what this means Softlemonades (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Your aversion to Fox News for these uncontroversial sentences is not in accord with the community's assessment of Fox News. Anyway, there are other sources which will do just as well, although they don't give exactly the same information.

- Regarding Assange's statement in response to Pompeo, the Intercept has this article.[23] Assange says "“For the head of the CIA to pronounce what the boundaries are, of reporting or not reporting — is a very disturbing precedent. The head of the CIA determining who is a publisher, who’s not a publisher, who’s a journalist, who’s not a journalist, is totally out of line". We could include part or all of this in place of the quote that was removed.

- Regard Reality Winner, The Hill has an article which covers Assange's support for her.[24] We could use this in place of the Fox News coverage.

- Regarding Pamela Anderson, you said the sourcing was not an issue, but you thought that the fact it was not mentioned on her page was an issue. You also thought that her attempt to prompt the PM of Australia to do something about Assange was more about her. Given the people involved and the nature of the interaction, it seems relevant to me. Burrobert (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Pompeo sounds good

Reality - sounds like a good solution

Pamela Anderson - you misunderstood part of what i said but thats mute. why are you debating this still? I said several times that I dont object to it being restored. Softlemonades (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Your aversion to Fox News for these uncontroversial sentences is not in accord with the community's assessment of Fox News. Sorry. I should have used the needs better source tag instead of just removing them Softlemonades (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

White Queen (Through the Looking-Glass), she could believe six impossible things before breakfast. About fox news report being political and the extradition by the US not being political. Or perhaps I mixed up my negaives, doesn't matter, I'll believe it ;-) NadVolum (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Call to drop charges

Per the NYT, The Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El Pais have called on the US Government to drop charges against Assange, saying the prosecution under the Espionage Act "sets a dangerous precedent" that threatened to undermine the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. This is a pretty bold move that probably deserves some coverage in article. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait for a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Reuters, WaPo, The Hill and a bunch more are covering it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a key paragraph from the letter for balance

This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticize his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database. But we come together now to express our grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials. Softlemonades (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

May develop into a notworthy story. It will need lots of independent RS to frame the narrative neutrally. The press that publishes such information is a party at interest and frequently takes stands for the publication of confidential and controversial material. Its defense of press freedom and its economic interest in doing so must be described by independent voices. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There have been calls for years to drop charges, but seem to fall on deaf ears. Wikipedia will probably also be equally deaf to the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I would support a sentence on the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mr Ernie, Jack Upland, and Jtbobwaysf that this is important and Wikipedia should cover it. The Washington Post's comments [25] are excellent. While some media organizations have criticized aspects of Assange's work, they argue,

much of Assange’s indictment focuses on his 2010 and 2011 disclosure of thousands of pages of classified military records and diplomatic cables about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq... The news organizations said that they partnered with Assange more than a decade ago to reveal “corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale,” and that the trove of records he made available is still being mined by journalists and historians.

The WP also notes that the prosecution of Assange is dangerous enough to First Amendment and press freedoms that there is conflict within the US Justice Department itself over the case:

The indictment has stirred controversy inside the Justice Department... Two federal prosecutors in Virginia who were involved in the Assange case argued against bringing charges under the Espionage Act, concerned that, among other things, it posed risks to First Amendment protections.

Many other newspapers have criticized the prosecution of Assange, including the editor of the WP, who stated that the US Government's case against Assange is advancing a legal argument that places such important work in jeopardy and undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment.

Al Jazeera reports [26] on the letter and notes that the ACLU and Amnesty International have also, alongside some world leaders, recently urged the Biden Administration to drop the charges. The story has been reported by papers all over the world, including Reuters [27], Deutsche Presse-Agentur [28], and other papers around the world often reprinting these stories, plus the additional coverage cited above by Ernie. -Darouet (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Have they all not been calling for this for years? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes - most big papers internationally, and American and international rights groups, have all been saying this for years. It's remarkable how consistent that has been. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well of course they have. It's like McDonalds opposing PETA. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The United States Department of Justice isn't PETA and the news organizations that we depend upon as reliable sources aren't McDonalds. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I conclude the analogy was too obscure. The corporate media defend their business interests and reflect the personal beliefs of management who have devoted their careers to spreading information. Just like the managers of fast food chains have devoted themselves to factory slaughter of animals. That is not to say that the press may also have a legitimate point or a point that is proven noteworthy by independent endorsement of academic or non-profit commentators, but in itself, this is dog bites man. News media want more news. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It better fits on Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange especially since its about the case and not about him or something he did Softlemonades (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Assange's prosecution and imprisonment are "about him." -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I dont think you understood what I meant Softlemonades (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that other article as being a bit of a fork at the moment causing trouble by there being differences between it and here as it deals with the same ongoing events. When/if Assange is sent off to America or released then it can become a major subarticle of this one and a lot of the stuff here merged into it. So I don't see there being any particular different topic involved except for it being a subtopic. NadVolum (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Have mainstream corporate news media (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS) called for the charges to be dropped, too? GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel are mainstream, just not American. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

They are the newspapers that worked with Wikileaks to publish the stories originally coming together to defend their actions as newspapers. There's not an awful lot of difference between what they did and what Assange did. NadVolum (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Assange published the unredacted cables which they condemned at the time and plus the original charge Softlemonades (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

And if you've read anything about the business you'll know not doing so at the time he did would have been more dangerous for people. And the idiot who released the encryption key was foremost amongst those condemming Assange and has never even apologised. Thinking about it I wonder if his co-author was more to blame - he seems to have later put out disinformation for the security services. NadVolum (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is turning into a forum. Let's stick to the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to shut you up. I just wanted someone to propose text.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing selective assessments

Cambial,

Please stop removing selective assessments. You removed one saying it needed a secondary source when it was cited to one. You ONLY removed that one and didnt use the same reason to remove the many positive assessments with only one source or the ones that arent assessments.

WP:SECONDARY A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

Theres no question that the source and assessment was an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. But if you use this reasoning you need to use it on all of them and not just assessments that arent positive.

Please self revert Softlemonades (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The author is expressing their opinion about the article subject. The source is the opinion section of the new yorker magazine. The opinion expressed is the author's own: this is not a secondary source. Where other sources report on an opinion that has been published, we ought to include it. For the same reason, I added a secondary source for the Guardian/Spiegel/Le Monde letter (rather than the Guardian's publishing it themselves. The claims you make about what I need to do are not accurate. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The claims you make about what I need to do are not accurate. So you dont need to be consistent and use the same reasoning on ?

The opinion expressed is the author's own: this is not a secondary source The author described others opinions and gave his own analysis of them and the facts. Thats the definition of secondary. Softlemonades (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree! This article is about JA, hero or villain!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I put it back because its an RS and noteworthy person, not self published, and it doesnt look like theres any consensus for removing it Softlemonades (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Paranoid revert

@Burrobert my edit summary didnt save sorry. The description came from the Telegraph sources, but I made it more complete because you were right about focusing on just that Softlemonades (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually I didn't notice the Telegraph sources. Both Telegraph sources are based on O'Hagan's LRB essay. Here are some thoughts on the O'Hagan material.

• We should provide some context for O'Hagan's essay. Something like the Telegraph's introduction would suffice: "In a 45-page essay chronicling the collapse of a $2.5m deal for Assange’s autobiography, ...".
• Why did we choose those particular quotes from a 45 page essay?
• Some of the descriptions that The Telegraph attributes to O'Hagan do not appear in the essay. Here is what I found for each of the terms:

funny - he could be funny

lazy - I couldn’t understand the slow and lazy way they went about things.

courageous - What Julian lacked in efficiency or professionalism he made up for in courage.

vain - doesn’t appear in the text though some of the stories O’Hagan tells about Assange could be interpreted as vanity

paranoid - Keller wrote a long piece in his own paper saying Julian was dirty, paranoid, controlling, unreliable and slightly off his head

moral - the Afghan war logs that had justified WikiLeaks’s presence as a new moral force in the world.

manipulative - But his sentences too were infected with his habits of self-regard and truth-manipulation.

Burrobert (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So I think youre just searching for the key words in the essay, but its not just those words. Its things like he claims to be in constant fear of assassination Softlemonades (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, mainly keywords. Obviously the Telegraph have placed its own, possibly inaccurate, interpretation on some of the things mentioned by O'Hagan. Anyway, what about the other points, (A) context and (B) why were those particular quotes taken from a 45 page essay? Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont know how to answer that without OR, but if you still want to challenge paranoid Im ok with removing it. I only put it back because I could make it more complete and your edit summary about focusing on the Keller quote made it clear you didnt see the Telegraph articles, and one of them put paranoid in their headline Softlemonades (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was "Why have you (not The Telegraph) chosen those particular quotes from a 45 page essay? Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I didnt, The Telegraph did. In the essay, O'Hagan describes Assange as passionate, funny, lazy, courageous, vain, paranoid, moral and manipulative. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10655318/Julian-Assange-couldnt-bear-to-reveal-his-own-secrets-says-ghostwriter.html Softlemonades (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"uttered, late at night, many casual libels, many sexist or anti-Semitic remarks". Btw we have two separate references to O'Hagan's LRB essay. Burrobert (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats from the other Telegraph article. O’Hagan writes: “I wanted to warn him that they certainly had transcripts of our interviews, sittings in which he’d uttered, late at night, many casual libels, many sexist remarks. There was little security consciousness at work in those interviews.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10655638/Paranoid-vain-and-jealous-the-secret-life-of-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange.html

It started with He is vain, secretive, paranoid and jealous, prone to leering at young women and making frequent sexist jokes – and that's not the view of one of his many enemies, but of a friend who regards him sympathetically. Softlemonades (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not quite the same. The Telegraph removed "or anti-Semitic" from the quote. Presumably it had a good reason. Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Im confused and dont know how to explain this. I agree they probably took it out for a reason, but dont think we should use an incorrect quote. So I think the quote should be taken out unless theres another secondary source. Softlemonades (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Domscheit-Berg

I'm getting a bit worried about how much attention is paid to Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book on Assange. The article does have a quote from one person listing hm as one of a number of people who fell out with Assange but not the extreme extent of the falling out. And as to credibility he did the opposite of what he said he'd do. He said he'd set up a rival organisation but he didn't. He said he'd distributed leaks but he went and destoyed a large cache of them that Wikileaks had. I think we need to be very careful about saying anything he said in anything resembling Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

He said he'd set up a rival organisation but he didn't He did but it failed

I think we need to be very careful about saying anything he said in anything resembling Wikivoice Fair

The article does have a quote from one person listing hm as one of a number of people who fell out with Assange but not the extreme extent of the falling out. Do you think this should change? Softlemonades (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think 'failed' is rather over generous. He knew from Wikileaks what was required by the newspapers was a first publisher. Someone like the one in charge of Cryptome who wrote to the US Justice department pointing out that they should be indicting him as well as Assange for the publication of th unredacted diplomatic cables. Yes I do think a bit on Domscheit-Berg's relationship to Assange is in order, there's lots of stuff in reliable sources for instance Ex-Wikileaks man 'deleted files' or WikiLeaks Defector Slams Assange In Tell-All Book where he says he hates Assange - which I think is a much more understandable reason for destroying all those file than his self serving thing about tAssange's lack of care. They had been sent in by people who'd risked imprisonment - if Domscheit-Berg really was going to set up OpenLeaks he'd have secured them away safely. NadVolum (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

They went to the extent of having the Chaos Computer Club's annual hackathon field test the site's vulnerabilities. It failed the test miserably, after which the project started a slow fizzling out. He did but it failed is a fair summary imo. The fact of its spectacular failure rather puts the lie to the claim that 'the Architect' was the main driver of Wikileaks' mostly secure design. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact of its spectacular failure rather puts the lie to the claim that 'the Architect' was the main driver of Wikileaks' mostly secure design. Thats OR

Do you think this should change? Not sure if there was an answer sorry

which I think is a much more understandable reason What we think doesnt matter, its what the RS say. We should include both versions but Im not sure either are even brought up on this page, or should be. If it did what where would it go? Softlemonades (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes - and? WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages.

I think the main thing missing from the period when several wl staff members left (I recall reading a dozen? can't remember where) is the comments from Birgitta Jonsdottir. Not sure if we have a better source than the Daily Beast for that though. I agree, NadVolum, that Domscheit-berg's deletion of several thousand leaked documents and its effect on their relationship should be included. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were saying something should change on the article

Birgitta said different things in a few places, Im not sure which you mean. The dozen members leaving I think is referenced on the WikiLeaks article

I agree, NadVolum, that Domscheit-berg's deletion of several thousand leaked documents and its effect on their relationship should be included I dont know any sources on how it effected their relationship, but we should look at them in the article if they exist.

We could look at his relationship with all dozen of them fall apart. Softlemonades (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried to improve on some of it Softlemonades (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)