Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

"Relationship with the Putin Regime"

I've removed a section titled, "Relationship with the Putin Regime." Beyond the obviously POV title ("Putin Regime" vs. the more neutral "Russian government" or "Putin administration"), the section is based largely on one article in the Guardian. That article ([1]) misquotes Assange very seriously, completely changing the meaning of what he said to La Repubblica in the original interview ([2]). In the interview, Assange says that Wikileaks doesn't publish much on Russia because he lacks Russian staff, and because there are other outlets that already do a better job of publishing Russian leaks. The Guardian article twists this statement to say that Assange praised the open journalistic environment in Russia, something he does not do in the original interview. The Guardian's feud with Assange is well known, and we shouldn't rely on one particularly poor example of journalism in the Guardian to write an entire section in this article. It's both undue and POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, the Guardian is not a reliable source in this case, as you can see from their blatant misquotation of Assange. And this section is undue, since it is based largely on one article. How many articles have been written on Assange in the last decade? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that Assange's quote, as it is summarized in this article, is completely turned on its head. Assange specifically praises organizations that leak Russian documents, and addresses the linguistic reasons why Wikileaks is not more active in Russia. This Wiki article changes that into its opposite, saying that Assange said there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia. This is a serious BLP violation, and I would appreciate it if Volunteer Marek would self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian is a perfectly reliable source. If you really wish to contest that please go to WP:RSN, but I can tell you right now, it's not gonna fly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Some judgment is required when editing Wikipedia. You can read the original interview, and see how blatantly the Guardian misquotes it. I'm surprised that including defamatory information, which we know to be false, about a living person doesn't bother you. This is a very serious BLP issue, and if you don't self-revert, I'm going to have to bring this to the BLP noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I've re-reverted. Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher though, so I don't doubt this will have to be taken to a drama board, somewhere Marek is very comfortable unfortunately. lNeverCry 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, with a comment like that you're not going to be taken seriously. Please read WP:NPA and then make a constructive comment addressing content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That comment will be taken seriously by anyone who really knows you. Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned. lNeverCry 06:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, it looks like you do some good work in other parts of Wikipedia so I really don't want to have to report you for these repeated personal attacks. How about you self-revert your revert and we call it even? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

With the word "Regime" in it? Can you really tell me that's not a loaded POV term? All based on one lone source. Your position here isn't anywhere near as strong as you're pretending it is. You have two users here who disagree with you and that disagreement is legitimate. You know it's legitimate. You're the one edit-warring to defame a BLP and push your anti-Russian agenda not me. lNeverCry 06:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Regime" is straight from the source: "Assange, who briefly hosted his own talkshow on the state-owned television network Russia Today, has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime". This is well sourced, so no, it's not a BLP violation or "defemation". And you really need to drop it with the obnoxious (and false) accusations and personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But I'm fine with changing the section title to "government".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Now RT's a "propaganda network". You're a shameless POV pusher - you know it and I know it. You've been one for years. You're definitely anti-Russian. BTW, The truth isn't a personal attack. lNeverCry 10:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The main focus of "Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview," The Guardian, December 24, 2016 is not Assange's "Relationship with the Putin regime," but rather Assange's belief that Trump "is not a DC insider" whereas "Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States." If we are going to use that article as a basis for an entire sub-section of Assange's biography, it should be for a section detailing Assange's views on both Trump and Clinton, with particular attention paid to his harsh (yet entirely accurate) criticism of Clinton: "'Hillary Clinton and the network around her imprisoned one of our alleged sources for 35 years, Chelsea Manning, tortured her according to the United Nations, in order to implicate me personally,' Assange claimed in the interview. He went on to accuse Clinton of being the 'chief proponent and architect' of the military intervention in Libya, which he claimed had created instability throughout the region and the refugee crisis in Europe." Anything else would misrepresent the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We can use the article for other stuff too. But keep in mind WP:PRIMARY - we should use the source as a secondary source, not as a primary source for Assange's opinions.

Also, please keep your personal opinions out of it (i.e. "yet entirely accurate").Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

this matter is getting very close to attracting a block or two for edit-warring. I'm not going to play out much rope on 3RR. Sort it out here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Putin regime" vs "Russian govt": see WP:SPECIALSTYLE. Assange interview in La Reppublica vs The Guardian's "summary" of that interview see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD(essay) on the issue of quoting . Furthermore, headlines are not terribly reliable--use the body. At first I trusted The Guardian's rendition (including headline), since Wikileaks and Assange have been vaguely courting some pretty deplorable "anti-imperialist" elements--Baathists, alt-rightists, Putin-lovers, even anti-semites--for some time. But when I read the actual interview in La Reppublica, I realized that the discussion was about something else, namely the alleged difficulty for wikileaks of getting inside non-English speaking political macrocosms like Russia and China. His point about Trump is that he provides an opening for opposition to the US govt, not that he is worthy of any praise. VM's one-sided coverage of Assange's "relationship" with Russia, based on that one Guardian article, is a borderline BLP-vio. This "relationship" (which remains very unclear) should be covered by referencing a variety of viewpoints, including Assange's own, or not covered at all. Unproblematically labelling opposition figures as foreign stooges is something people rightly condemn Russia for doing, though in fairness nobody at wikileaks has posed for pictures like this one
  Read more for context and analysis

  The Guardian's claim that Assange is viewing Russia through rose-tinted spectacles is presumably based on his quote about how some dissent is tolerated in Russia and how Wikileaks might have "competitors" there who are not interested in going through Wikileaks (ctrl+ F "Novaya Gazeta" in the LP interview), but Assange goes on to say that it's because these critics "don't  have a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow." This is true enough: Novaya Gazeta or Moscow Times can say whatever it wants about MH17, bombing Syrian hospitals, Panama Papers etc. While Navalny was hounded for opposing monstrous corruption, he still has a platform. None of this matters much when propaganda is blaring 24/7, no opposition parties exist, and everyone has gotten so completely used to the notion that the state is built around mega-theft that nobody really cares when crimes are exposed. Due to pervasive cynicism, you cannot have a genuine "scandal" caused by leaks in Russia. The existing state is shameless and can't be shamed. I mean this is a country where Stalin remains popular despite the fact that everyone knows he was a mass-murderer, more or "less". Or take a recent press conference where Putin allowed questions like this. He just BS'ed his way out of it because he knows only an infinitesimally small percentage of the population will be actually moved by the question or his answer to it.  As for "competitors": yes and no. People with access to sensitive information in Russia are not Bradley Manning types--they're cynical careerists who "leak" to throw their partners in crime under the bus, and they don't need wikileaks to do that. Concerned citizens who see some low-level corruption usually think about appealing the matter to the Russian press or to higher authorities, not to Wikileaks or western papers. Putin's propagandists will often pat them on the back for it. Opposition figures will often talk to the western press, but they don't have any leaks to speak of. Assange went on to call both China and Russia "authoritarian" societies. As for the stuff about Trump, the Assange actual statements are quite different, both in substance and in tone, from the Guardian headline. He's saying that Trump is less entrenched than Clinton: regardless of how awful/great he may be, his election means the apparat of the American state stands weakened, meaning that it will be easier for citizens to challenge it. Whatever you think about Assange's opinion, it constitutes "praise" (per Guardian headline) only if you're willing to interpret his comments in the most tendentious way possible. You know, when Ernst Thälmann said "after Hitler, our turn!" he was not "guardedly praising" Hitler. Readers may dismiss much of what I wrote here as OR, but I hope they'll absorb the message just the same: what Assange said to La Repubblica is not particularly deplorable, or off the mark.
  Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As you yourself pointout WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is an essay. WP:NOR is a policy. And actually WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD doesn't even support the removal here. The info is straight from a reliable secondary source, The Guardian. I've read the La Reppublica interview as well and I don't see a problem. Yes, Assange talks about other stuff in it. But arguing that "because Assange also talks about other stuff in the interview the Guardian references that makes the Guardian unreliable" is just silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is all well known, sourced and should stay on the page. How much should be written about it and what exactly is of course debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"How much should be written about it and what exactly is of course debatable". I think that's pretty reasonable, but the burden is on VM make an edit that meets basic standards of neutrality and factual rigour . In current form, his POV-section will just poison the well: if it stays, it will be an uphill battle to detoxify the BLP. That's why people have been reverting it on sight. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The text is perfectly neutral and factual - it's based on a reliable source and it represents that source accurately. You're substituting in "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT for "neutrality" - which is actually just the opposite of NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not well known or sourced. It has one source, which as I said above and as you can learn from reading the original interview, completely misconstrues what Assange actually said. This is a serious BLP violation, and amounts, in fact, to libel. I expect a self-revert from My very best wishes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What? Here are just a couple of additional refs [3], [4], among many. I agree this part could be rewritten and sourced to a larger number of RS, but it is actually something widely debated (even in Russian language sources) and certainly not a BLP violation as well sourced claim. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a goddamn BLP violation, it's sourced to the goddamn Guardian. Again, if you genuinely believe that the Guardian is not a reliable source go to WP:RSN and ask there about it. It's not gonna work. And you know it, which is why you're not actually going there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The text, as edit warred, misrepresents The Guardian column - e.g. Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there. v. In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there. (emphasis added). The Guardian also misrepresents the La Repubblica interview - cherrypicking from Assange's responses - and (regardless of how we might view the publisher generally) is not a reliable source in this context. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Guardian article for reference [5]. Now, to your point:

If you want to add "Wikileaks to undertake" to the text, that's fine. What we have currently is not "misrepresentation" but just plain ol' paraphrasing. But like I said, you can add that part in.

Second, I take it you're not claiming that this part "According to the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime."" is being misrepresented. So that should go back in.

Third, no, the Guardian is not "misrepresenting" the "La Repubblica" interview. It is summarizing it. Anyway, it's not your call, nor mine, to make. La Repubblica is a primary source here. The Guardian article is a reliable secondary source. We follow reliable secondary sources rather than conduct our own original research. You go down this road, then any reliably sourced material can be removed because someone or other feels that it "misrepresents" the underlying primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

One: It's misrepresentation, not paraphrase - in exactly the same way as "I do not need to provide you with water (because you already have some, and I don't have any to give you)" is not congruent to "You do not need water". Two: See WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The Guardian columnist's opinion - which should be attributed to the columnist, not the publication - is interesting, but not necessarily noteworthy; and not NPOV without wider and more varied commentary; and not BLP compliant without Assange's own statements on the matter, if any. Three: It's a clear misrepresentation - Assange, in the interview, references[6]: existing Russian critics as competitors to Wikileaks; absence of Russian language proficiency in Wikileaks staff; Wikileaks' publication of 800,000 documents pertaining to Russia or Putin; majority of Wikileaks information obtained form Western sources; (Russian and Chinese) cultural distances from English - to reduce that to he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there is perverse. The Guardian is not a reliable source for this particular information as a statement of fact; it is clearly, provably, false - there is no divine right of Grauniad which means that The Guardian is exempt from the normal examination of the verifiability of its content. By no policy do we blindly follow the sources. We rightly, and by policy, exclude information which does not pass examination - a decision which is made, like any other, by consensus (so the reductio ad absurdum is ... frankly ... absurd). You go down this road, and you might end up with a quality encyclopedia. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it is a BLP violation, because it's incorrect, libelous material. This particular Guardian article is not reliable, because it blatantly misrepresents what Assange actually said in the La Repubblica interview. With BLPs, you have to be very careful with what you include, and simply pointing out that something was published by the Guardian does not eliminate the obvious BLP issues involved with misquoting someone and saying they have a connection to the "Putin Regime." If you insist on re-inserting this libel into the article again, I'll have to raise it at the appropriate noticeboards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For the nth freakin' time. If you think the Guardian is not reliable, go to WP:RSN. I mean, if you're so sure about it, go there, that's what that board is for. But you know, and I know, that the Guardian is in fact reliable and that's what RSN will tell you.

The idea that it's "incorrect, libelous material" is your own invention. It's pure original research. I can go to any article on Wikipedia, pick out some reliably sourced text which I JUST DONT LIKE and then claim that the reliable secondary source it is based on is "incorrect, libelous material" and then remove it. But that would violate Wikipedia policy on no original research. Just like what you're trying to do here does as well.

Go to WP:RSN or drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that there are five sentences in that paragraph that is being removed. But you're only contesting one. How does that work? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, please stop edit-warring and attempting to insert that paragraph. If you attempt to add it again, I will help others here in removing it. I have read both articles just now. The paragraph you are attempting to insert is a point-by-point restatement of what The Guardian's Ben Jacobs (a former Daily Beast reporter) wrote, whose article looks to me like a transparent attempt to spin Assange's Reppublica interview in a negative light. A journalist's editorial spin on a notable person's interview should never be emphasized above the words in the interview itself. There are also several other obviously POV-pushing parts in that paragraph which back up INeverCry's assertion that "Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher". To be precise, terming RT a "propaganda network" (it sometimes pushes an agenda, but all the other TV news networks have also been accused of that by one party or another) and repeating the Guardian's vague assertion that "journalists are killed frequently in Russia" (it has actually declined a lot, along with the overall crime rate decrease; see the graph here. Russian journalists have actually always had a much lower homicide rate than the general population, which is more than can be said of India, Mexico or Brazil; that quote is an example of counterfactual anti-Russian POV-pushing by the journalist, and it should not be quoted uncritically on Wikipedia). Esn (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. For the thousandth time no. Please read No Original Research. "Journalist spin" is exactly what we use in Wikipedia. No, we don't use primary sources such as interview. This is like Wikipedia 101. You can't just assert that a particular reliable source is "spin" and then proceed to remove it. Because it's not up to you to decide whether it's "spin" or not. And yes, RT is a propaganda network, and not a reliable source - that's been discussed to death a million times on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that newspaper editorials (or poorly-substantiated opinions of a writer, even if that writer writes for The Guardian) are not to be given the same weight as uncontroversial facts. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise. Our role as editors is to have brains, and not to blindly accept assertions if other reliable sources (or publicly available primary data) clearly demonstrate them to be false. Esn (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper editorial. This isn't an opinion piece. It's a straight up news story. Ok, where are these "other reliable sources" that contradict the Guardian article? Please present them. Your own inventions based on the primary source don't cut it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Esn that we shouldn't turn off our critical thinking functions here. We shouldn't overlook the obvious misquotation of Assange in a particular Guardian article, simply because it's the Guardian. Especially with a BLP, some caution is in order. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "critical thinking". This is "original research" being used as a pretext for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me not liking it. I would be perfectly fine with including information that Assange had a short-lived show on RT at one point, and that RT is a Russian state-funded news channel, because that's true (the 1st of those is already explicitly mentioned in the article, though not the 2nd). I am also absolutely fine with including the accusations of notable political figures that Assange is a Russian agent, which the article also includes already. I am not fine with using the editorializing of some journalist at The Guardian to use as a source allowing the Wikipedia article to "neutrally" claim that Assange is a Russian agent (yes, it's not officially labeled an editorial, but the editorializing is nevertheless there; I've pointed out how, as have others). I am fine with including whatever evidence is claimed for that (particularly if it has been repeatedly claimed from different places), as long as it is presented in a neutral fashion and does not conflict with what other reliable sources say. Esn (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The text under discussion does not say "Assange is a Russian agent" so what does that have to do with anything? See strawmen.

And it's not an editorial, you're just trying to pretend it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Guardian is RS; so are thousands of other sources of varying quality. That does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the form of an whole paragraph. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that we've moved away from the "The Guardian is not a reliable source!" argument and onto the "it's undue!" argument. The info is perfectly on topic and pertinent to the article. It's informative. It's encyclopedic. It should not be removed according to some persons' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And yes, for all parts of that paragraph except maybe the "freedom of press in Russia is just fine" part, there is "a thousand other sources" which say the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, how about this - it seems the major objection is to that one sentence where Assange praises press freedom in Russia (or however you want to describe his word). But that's just one sentence out of like five. Can we at least agree that the other sentences in that paragraph are fine? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that "part" takes up most of your POV-section. In Pravda-like fashion, the Guardian starts by calling Assange a Trump-praising Putin stooge, without giving adequate support, nevermind nuance. Therese are WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, especially for a BLP. The Guardian backs this up with the fact that Assange had a show on RT (like Ed Schultz, Larry King etc.) and a misleading rendition of Assange's interview, which barely supports its boilerplate about "praising Trump" or the Russian media. That's it. You can't make an entire section out of this. It's not only UNDUE; it's also just a transparently crappy edit.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it actually doesn't. Here is the text under discussion (with citations removed for reliability):

"According to the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime."[1] He briefly hosted a talk show on the Russian state propaganda network Russia Today.[1] U.S. intelligence agencies also say that the e-mails damaging to the DNC and the Clinton 2016 campaign leaked by Wikileaks were hacked by the Russia and given to Wikileaks.[1] Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there.[1] The Guardian, however, notes that journalists are killed frequently in Russia, and notes that Freedom House has ranked Russian press freedom as "not free... The main national news agenda is firmly controlled by the Kremlin. The government sets editorial policy at state-owned television stations, which dominate the media landscape and generate propagandistic content."[1]"

The bold part is the one people are making specific objections to (because, according to their original research, it doesn't match verbatim what Assange said in the interview). It is one sentence out of six. So it does not "takes up most of your POV-section" (sic).

What about the other parts? There's absolutely nothing controversial about them. For the first sentence see sources below. For the second, is anyone disputing that Assange was on RT? Likewise third sentence is noncontroversial, US intelligence agencies do say that. Fourth sentence is the one we're talking about. The fifth sentence is the Guardian and is properly attributed. The sixth one is also non-controversial.

So what is essentially an inane objection (because in the original he said "Wikileaks doesn't" and that's not included) to one part of one sentence is being used as an excuse to remove the whole thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The final two sentences are a clear attempt to discredit Assange through juxtaposition (much like director Sergei Eisenstein used to juxtapose two scenes, for example, a capitalist and a slimy worm, to make the point that the capitalist is a slimy worm). It is an example of editorializing while pretending that one is not editorializing. I've pointed out in a previous post why those two sentences are seriously factually misleading and should not be included. The "state propaganda network" phrasing should also be changed to "state-funded news network". RT (TV network) does not say "state propaganda network" in its lede, and we should not use that phrasing here either. Esn (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The final two sentences are straight from the source. And it's not "juxtaposition" and it's nothing like Sergei Eisenstein's movies. What it is is the source saying "Assange said this, but in fact this is true". It's fact checking Assange (and it's not like The Guardian is unique in stating that the freedom of the press is ... severely limited, to put it nicely, in Putin's Russia - not exactly controversial).

And the lede of RT does indeed say it's a propaganda network.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No it does not. It says it has been called a propaganda network. Just as Assange has been accused of being a Russian agent. The so-called "fact checking" sentence includes an assertion ("journalists are killed frequently in Russia") which is based on false evidence, as I have already pointed out in a previous comment. Freedom House's rating of Russia has been subject to criticism from multiple sources, as noted in its own Wikipedia article. Russians themselves think their country has become more free in the past 20 years according to the independent polling agency Levada Center: [7] [8] ("do you feel like a free person"). This counter-evidence should also be included to provide a balanced perspective, if you insist on including those paragraphs. Personally, I think that would take up too much space. Esn (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've brought this issue to the attention of the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian_Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• This comment about "loyalty" is priceless Questioning the loyalty of dissidents and journalists, without ovewhelming national security reasons (like invasion), is the true mark of totalitarian thinking. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the more charitable interpretation was that he questioned what or who Assange is really loyal to (e.g. to his ideals or to a foreign government), rather than questioning whether he was sufficiently loyal to the American government (or whoever)... I'm giving the benefit of the doubt because the edit led us on the path to a possible solution. Esn (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm hurt that my 'loyalty' comment was not favored, but Esn's charitable interpretation is the one I sought. The relevant issue is where Assange's loyalties lie, if anywhere; do they lie to people, to a government, etc. etc. Assange doesn't owe anyone any loyalty to my opinion, but if he is loyal to someone it is quite relevant when he operates as a government watchdog.

Also, to continue the trend, I'm completely with Esn here. I'll throw my few grams of weight behind him on the "include it but remove editorializing" side of things. Trumpetbum8794 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal. The comment was about about "loyalty" tests in general, and throughout history. If you wish to avoid all of that baggage, it's probably best to use different language. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence to support Ben Jacobs's extraordinary claim that Assange "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime"; all Jacobs can cite are "eight interviews (by Assange) that were broadcast on RT (in 2012)." This is a WP:BLP violation and a classic example of fake news and citogenesis, and should be removed immediately. As Glenn Greenwald notes: "The absolute last person anyone should trust to accurately and fairly report on WikiLeaks is Ben Jacobs, unless the goal is to publish fabrications that will predictably generate massive traffic for The Guardian. (Recall, for example, Jacobs's belittling Manning's confinement and torture: "And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song.") Jacobs's lies about the la Repubblica interview—taking Assange's commonplace reference to "opportunities for change in the United States" created by Trump's election and turning it into "praise for Trump" (who Assange actually describes as "part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities"), twisting Assange's praise for Russian dissidents into a deranged suggestion "that Russia is too free and transparent to need whistleblowing"—have gone viral, but the objections of la Repubblica's interviewer—Stefania Maurizi—have been mostly ignored: "I am completely furious with how my interview with Julian Assange has been distorted"; "this is completely false: Julian Assange never ever declared that in my interview." While I think WP:TNT would be a more appropriate response, if those eight interviews with RT have to be covered under a section dedicated to Assange's imaginary "Relationship with Russia," we should include some reviews from the time: "Practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn't put out ... Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed."—Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times, April 17, 2012; "Assange's questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad. ... The media attacks on Assange's show reflect far more about the critics than about him: they assumed that he would slavishly serve the agenda of his benefactors because that’s what American establishment journalists largely do. It’s pure projection."—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 18, 2012.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Guardian retraction: "This article was amended on 29 December to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange 'has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime'. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said 'there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there'. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia's 'many vibrant publications'." Maybe this will cause the other side to engage in some serious self-reflection, but I'm not holding my breath.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• I see Thucydides411 beat me to it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it may a good idea to recreate the section and put all of this in. It remains notable. Otherwise this shit-throwing will go on forever, because people like Ben Jacobs will never run out of it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Guardian Retracts Claims about Relationship with Russia

In an interesting turn of events, the Guardian has retracted the two claims that were so contentious on this talk page: namely that Assange has a relationship with the "Russian regime" and the paraphrased quotation that suggested Assange thought whistleblowing was not necessary in Russia. Here is the Guardian's statement:

This article was amended on 29 December to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange “has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime”. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said “there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there”. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia’s “many vibrant publications”.

Given that the Guardian article no longer makes the claim about a relationship between Assange and the Russian government, and that it is the main source for that assertion, I'm removing the section on "Relationship with Russia." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See also this analysis piece in The Intercept, "The Guardian's Summary of Julian Assange's Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False".[9] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the retraction I have no problem with the removal. Like I said before - we follow reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(But don't make me read Greenwald, I can't stand it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Too bad. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, yes, there is a degree of editorial control though, there is no divine right here as I understand it to add whatever you can find to an article just because it is a so called reliable source, as it has turned out, this reliable source was not reliable and although I don't know why, the guardian UK has some kind of beef personally with Assange. It is good to remember, there is no rush to report such minutia of opinions and claims, the major points indeed absolutely require reporting in due time but involved opinions and reported comments require a lot more consideration than their simply being in a WP:RS. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove Anti-semitism accusations

Seriously there is a section on "Anti-semitism accusations" ??? Who is adding these? He is accused by one person, he denies it and gets a "Anti-semitism accusations" section on Wikipedia?

It would be appropriate to have a section on accusations, criticism, so on.

That is a serious charge without much evidence to back it up. Shouldnt have a section all to itself.

I suggest deleting or creating a section for accusations/criticism. I lean towards deleting.Paulthemonk (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. 31.200.155.102 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatantly false attributions

In the current article, there is a paragraph in which the following sentence is included:

However, Assange has publicly denounced Clinton on multiple occasions, even stating that he will release information that will have Clinton arrested in an interview with ITV.

That is blatantly false. The interview provided is only 3 and a half minutes long and Assange imagines a scenario that could lead to an indictment because of the gravity of the content in the emails Wikileaks has leaked but states himself that it is a highly unlikely scenario due to the fact that Loretta Lynch is the head of the DOJ.

This is patently and absurdly false and requires just a moment of verification. Why is this still up?

Thanks for pointing that out. The sentence you reference was only sourced using a video of an interview. That's not firm sourcing (we need a written article), so I went ahead and removed the sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[W]e need a written article... Baloney. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published: The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but some random Wikipedia user's editorializing, based on a video with no written transcript, can't be included here. If you can find a written source that supports the sentence in question, then that's acceptable. But as it is, it's terribly sourced, not to mention written in highly POV language. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Date about John Jones death seems to be wrong. Source (https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1138414/britains-top-human-rights-lawyer-who-represented-julian-assange-and-worked-alongside-george-clooneys-wife-amal-dies-in-apparent-suicide/) is from 21 April, but Wikipedia states that he died on 16 August. "On 16 August 2016, Assange's lawyer in the UK, John Jones, was found dead, according to the first reports after being hit by a train in an apparent suicide." should be changed to 21 April and also probably moved up, since rest of paragraph is in chronological order.

2A02:AA16:5300:4E80:F9BF:532:524B:B56B (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The Sun is not a reliable source. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Jones's obituary in the Guardian (text by Geoffrey Robertson QC), his death occurred at West Hampstead station on 18 April.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/01/john-rwd-jones-obituary

The Wiki article goes on to say 'The death of both lawyers in such a short period of time sparked conspiracy theories', but the theories aren't cited and it doesn't seem to say who the other dead lawyer supposedly was. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

In the section regarding the death of Julian Assange's UK lawyer, John Jones, for balance it is probably worth noting that while Wikileaks may imply assassination,the actual coroner's verdict specifically states that John Jones intended to end his life and that he acted alone (http://www.camdennewjournal.com/john-jones-inquest), but that the evidence didn't quite meet the legal requirement for a determination of suicide.

62.255.39.68 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you provide additional reliable sources for this? -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also the Ham & High (Hampstead & Highgate Express as was):-

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/qc_who_worked_on_julian_assange_case_jumped_in_front_of_west_hampstead_train_after_being_allowed_out_of_private_hospital_1_4664571

The coroner found as fact that Mr Jones jumped under the train and that no one else was involved. The train driver said it appeared to be a deliberate act. But the coroner said that the state of Mr Jones's mental health was such that he could not have had the necessary intent for a verdict of suicide: that is, legally, he may not have known what he was doing. There was no question of foul play at all and the WikiLeaks tweet, and the internet conspiracist comment that followed it, was disinformation. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange has never disclosed how much he or Wikileaks were paid for his tv-show

Two editors have deleted the sentence "Assange has never disclosed how much he or Wikileaks were paid for his tv-show" which is sourced to the New York Times[10]. This is noteworthy both because of Assange's alleged connections to Russia and because he and his organization are supposedly dedicated to transparency of this exact kind (the relationships between powerful organizations and powerful state actors). If the New York Times feels that it is worthwhile to mention that Assange has never disclosed how much the Russian government paid him for his services, then this page should too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No one discloses what they get paid for tv shows - I will delete it if you add it again also - It is a no fact, unworthy of reporting. Also your edits that RT is a whatever you called it diff that you and User:Calton have been edit warring into the article were sadly biased as well. Why don't you go improve some article you don't have a strong bias about, one that you have a WP:NPOV position regarding? Govindaharihari (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Try to argue the substance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the incessant attempts to introduce POV language here. The things you're trying to include don't add any substance to the article. Don't try to add them in without consensus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing POV about my language. The things I have included add plenty of substance to the article. Try to argue these things on substance and by pointing to Wiki policy. Don't just scream bias when reliably sourced and notable content is included that happens to reflect critically on Assange. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RT's funding isn't relevant to Assange at all. This BLP isn't a coatrack for every critical comment or insinuation you want to make about the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times considered it relevant. Why isn't it relevant that a transparency activist who has been widely accused of working on behalf of Russia, criticized others for revealing things about Russia, and not leaked anything of note on Russia since having his show on RT has never disclosed how much he or his organization received in payment from Russia when the organization was struggling to fund itself? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times published an opinion ("news analysis") piece that insinuated Assange was in league with Russia. We had an incident here not long ago where the Guardian, which like the New York Times, has a public feud with Assange also published a very poorly written piece, that the Guardian eventually had to retract. The lesson from that spat should have been that when it comes to BLP's, we should be just a bit careful about including innuendo on the basis of one article, especially if it's published by an organization that's in a highly public feud with the living person in question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think the New York Times is a reliable source, take your complaint to the appropriate forum on Wikipedia. If Assange has in fact disclosed how much he or Wikileaks got paid by Russia for their tv-show, please point it out so that we can add it to the article. As it stands, you alone are determining that NY Times is unacceptable, you alone are determining without any basis that the information in question must be incorrect. That's not good enough and not at all consistent with Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a BLP policy for good reason. The fact that one source writes innuendo about a living person doesn't mean that that innuendo should automatically be inserted into the BLP. After the Guardian mishap, where editors insisted on including an obvious distortion of Assange's interview with La Repubblica, simply because one Guardian article included that distortion, I'd think editors here would be a bit more careful about how they treat a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RS guide our actions here. You don't get to veto any content that you disagree with on the flimsy basis that one RS once retracted a story and therefore the RS policy out the window when it comes to Assange. Like I said before, either take the 'reliable source' status of the NYT to the relevant forum on Wikipedia or show that the information in the NYT story is incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Policies & guidelines guide our actions here. In this case, it's not about reliability, it's about whether this inclusion conforms to NPOV & BLP. I am convinced that it does not. As a factoid, it appears included (both here and in the NYT) only to cast aspersions on the article subject. We do not do that. Editors may be interested to note WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) - we do, by consensus, get to decide to exclude verifiable information; and WP:IMPARTIAL, we must, by policy, reflect a neutral tone, even (especially?) where sources do not. Finally, I note the equivocation between NYT's reliability for fact and a purported burden for us to include the opinions of its staff - and reject such outright - they are not equivalent, and one does not imply the other. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that an RS says something doesn't mean that it automatically should be included in the article. That was the biggest problem with the argument over the Guardian article before. It was clear to several editors who actually went and read the interview in La Repubblica that the Guardian had terribly distorted the interview. But rather than use some common sense and decide not to include an obviously problematic statement by a normally reliable source, several editors insisted on including what the Guardian wrote. Their argument, in essence, was that publication in an RS automatically requires inclusion in the article, and that editors can never use their own brains when evaluating an RS.

In this case, we have one article in the New York Times, which has a very public feud with Assange, which insinuates that he's a fellow traveler of Russia, in the best McCarthyite tradition. We should use a bit of caution and not automatically include this innuendo, just because the NY Times decided to let it through. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor deletes mention that RT is funded by the Russian government

Countless reliable sources find it noteworthy that Assange had a TV-show on a network funded by the Russian government, never mind a network that's widely described by reputable sources as a state propaganda network. I'm curious what the editor's justification for the removal is.[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The current text with "funded by" is fine. I'm glad we dropped the obligatory stutter about how it's a Russian "propaganda network." Unless Assange's show was itself "Russian propaganda", the fact that RT serves a propaganda role is irrelevant: RT is not the subject of the article. You might as well have said that "Assange had a show on RT ... which is "the propaganda network of the "Putin regime, which has been guilty of invading Ukraine and bombing Syrian hospitals." Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point of writing "funded by the Russian government." How is that relevant to Assange, exactly? There's an article about RT that users can click through to if they're interested, but how it's funded is pretty tangential to Assange. This is just part of a pattern of editors coming in to use the article as a coatrack for every insinuation that anyone ever mentions - in this case, the "Assange is a Russian agent or fellow traveller" conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't hide salient information just because people may draw conclusions that reflect poorly on the individual. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We also don't automatically include any innuendo that a particular newspaper might decide to publish. We exercise some judgment with what we include. The fact that Assange hasn't disclosed how much he made from his interview program on RT, or that RT is funded by the Russian government, isn't very relevant to this article. Most people don't publicly disclose how much they make from media deals, or their income for that matter. You're advocating including sentences that add no new information about Assange, but simply repeat an innuendo made by one article in a newspaper that has a public spat with Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he didn't publicly disclose how much he got paid is borderline. The fact that RT is funded by the Russian government is quite relevant and most sources that cover it bring it up in one form or another.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors delete any mention that Assange promoted and popularized conspiracy theories about Clinton and the Democratic Party

The content in question relies on multiple reliable sources. I'm curious how the editors who removed this content[12] justify the mass removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the editors claims that these are "opinion pieces", which illustrates that the editor in question has no clue whatsoever what he/she is talking about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not even remotely neutral, and it's undue. You literally wrote that Assange "repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about [Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party]." At best, this is your own synthesis from a number of opinion pieces and Snopes articles, some of which don't even mention Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It can be rephrased as "Assange and Wikileaks repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about [Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party]." That is to say, if you're actually interested in improving the text, as opposed to whitewashing the page. It's not synthesis if it's a description of the content that follows: a multitude of falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Clinton and the Democratic Party. If your problem is with "repeatedly", we can write "Assange and Wikileaks promoted and popularized a multitude of conspiracy theories and falsehoods..." The sources are also many and reliable. Given your dismissal of the NY Times as a reliable source, discussing this with you seems pointless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if it's a description of the content that follows. Nonsense. If no source makes the conclusion, then it's SYNTH; which I encourage all editors to review before commenting further. I also note that the removed section conflates Assange & Wikileaks. They are not the same. This article is about Assange. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Bloomberg[13]: "Since posting that scoop, which led to the resignation of party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Assange has seemed to align himself closely with the Donald Trump campaign, routinely promoting anti-Clinton memes and conspiracy theories and teasing further anti-Clinton leaks." I take it that you're now fine with re-inserting both the language and the content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I take it that you're now fine with ... Don't do that. Ask. Chafkin & Silver's conclusions in Bloomberg need in-text attribution, at least; to meet NPOV; and probably a second or further source for DUE. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Wikileaks' actions during the 2016 presidential race has no bearing on Assange is ludicrous. Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange, who is the founder, editor-in-chief and director of the organization, and who has made a large number of media appearances representing the organization during the campaign, and who has earned a great deal of attention in the 2016 race due to Wikileaks' actions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Wikileaks' actions during the 2016 presidential race has no bearing on Assange is ludicrous. Thankfully, that's not a claim that I see anyone here making. Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange. That's a fairly strong claim. who has made a large number of media appearances representing the organization during the campaign, and who has earned a great deal of attention in the 2016 race due to Wikileaks' actions. Then we should have, and use, sources which discuss Assange, not use those which discuss only Wikileaks. The place to use those is over there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

""repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about ...". Yes, that is what he did according to publications. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

... and those publications should be attributed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What exactly claim do you think was insufficiently attributed here and should be corrected or attributed better? My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering only the lead section for now (and putting aside WP:BURDEN) - Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016. - no source. During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them. - the bold phrase, if not the whole, is a strong and contentious claim which warrants in-text attribution; the sources also need to be reviewed to ensure that they directly verify these claims. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the content in the body and again noting that the WP:BURDEN falls elsewhere ...

Analysis of content & sources inside

I again note that this is largely information not about Assange, but about Wikileaks, which, if verifiable, belongs in the latter article. During the presidential election, Wikileaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, - this conclusion is unsourced, and even if sourced, is contentious and should be attributed. NOTE: More neutrally worded content documenting Assange's commentary during the election may be more easily sourceable & supportable. such as tweeting an article which suggested Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals, which was later revealed to be false, - this is sourced to Vox, which does mention Assange, but makes no mention of "satanic" (or variations thereof), does not make the claim in our article, and should be attributed; Snopes, which does not mention Assange, does mention Wikileaks, but does not make the claim in our article, and should be attributed; and Washington Post opinion which does not mention Assange, does mention Wikileaks, does not mention "satanic" and does not make the claim in our article, and should be attributed for anything which it does actually verify; the url which was linked in a Wikileaks tweet also does not mention "satanic", so the statement in our article is verifiably misrepresentative. implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed - sourced to NBC News which includes Assange ... implied Rich was the source of the email and was killed for working with his group and ... Assange said in the interview, before bringing up, unpromoted, that Rich was killed "for unknown reasons.", this is not congruent to Assange implying that the Democratic Party was responsible, and we should not make that equivocation; the claims which are made in the source should be attributed. NOTE: That this is actually Assange, not Wikileaks; the conflation of the two appears to be bidirectional. stating that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange - sourced to Snopes, the tweet in question is not a simple statement, but a link to a True Pundit article, which makes the claim; the statement should be attributed to that site, as is done in the Snopes source; Snopes covers Clinton's response when questioned on the rumour, which should also be included.

more to follow in subsequent edits - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• the desired edit - −

Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016. During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them - is laughable. Assange was globally recognized prior to the USA election and a claim as if fact that he "repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about Clinton and the democrats is trash. What are the conspiracy theories and falsehoods he repeatedly promoted? Usually I don't bother getting involved but this addition is so disgusting I have bothersome to remove it, I imagine the usual suspects will be around soon to stuff it back in, that won't make it ok or of benefit to a neutral reader. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

An earlier version of the lede said that "Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails ". I was content with keeping that particular language, but I wouldn't mind changing the wording. As for the second complaint: you just removed multiple sources and examples of the conspiracy theories and falsehoods that Assange and Wikileaks promoted. Why are you removing content which you haven't read and then coming to the talk page asking people to show you the exact content which you deleted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange was globally recognized before any of this crap. I've seen the content - been reading the links, sorry but its rubbish and has no place is a wikipedia biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why there are those words "even more" in there. And come on, that isn't even the part you actually have a problem with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It is part of what our policies have a problem with - in that it is unsourced - WP:V does not require that each editor agree with a challenge, or find such challenge valid; merely that any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. More cynical minds than mine may perceive the inclusion of this sentence to be a hook on which to hang the coatrack; that without the reference to notability, the subsequent information is undue for inclusion the lead. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was wildly undue for the lead, in addition to being synth. Most of those are about Wikileaks on twitter—where everyone else writes only the most measured and accurate things, as we all know—not Assange per se. All we have is: (a) Assange insinuating that the death of a DNC staffer was vaguely suspicious, without evidence, and then vaguely backtracking; (b) saying that Podesta's password was "p@ssword", without clarifying that it was not his gmail password but rather his Windows password at work. Assange brought this up in the context of his larger point about lax security at the DNC—here's just one example. The second isn't even a "falsehood", nevermind a conspiracy theory, so we are just left the first. Groundless suspicion followed by backtracking arguably don't constitute promotion of a "conspiracy theory". And one is not "numerous": can you name one public figure that has not made spurious claims, at least once? Finally, while I know the American and British media can be pretty hysterical about Assange, I have to ask if there are are any news sources that explicitly adopt this kind of language. I'd like to see several verbatim quotes: insinuating that someone is a liar and conspiracy-monger a la Alex Jones in the f&^*^ng LEAD is a serious charge, and this is still a BLP, no matter how many want to see him dead or locked up. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not piece of original research. Reliable sources say otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No VM, reading is not original research. It's usually good form to see what the sources actually say before forwarding them on wikipedia, facebook. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Guccisamsclub. Since when did Wikipedia become a forum where blatantly biased accusations were acceptable? WikiLeaks releases wholesale information which is left to interpretation. The sources included either do not deal with Julian Assange directly or is grossly taken out of context. This is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia, not a tabloid.VasOling(talk) 04:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which reliable source directly supports, as fact, During the presidential election, Wikileaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton?; which directly supports tweeting an article which suggested Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals?; which directly supports implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed? Near enough is not good enough here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This one. And this one. Oh and this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Those sources do not contain any content which directly support those statements. The one which comes closest is the Slate article, which is a blog, and reliable for attributed opinion only. It says, Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton (note how hedged the language is) and The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month’s WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. (note how non-specific that is) - neither of these are implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed (though the first, absent the hedging, might seem close), and the source is not reliable for this as a statement of fact. I also note that neither the NY Daily News nor the Slate sources were used as references in the edit warred content. Information needs to be verified by the sources used as references, not by things that happen to exist somewhere in the ether. I challenge any editor who maintains that the sources used in the article do support the information included in the article to quote the sections which they believe do provide direct support; or, if they have alternate sources, to provide those, including quotes, here for discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, I agree with Ryk that "Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange.". Therefore, I think the controversy was so notable that removing everything is not an option. If anyone wants to change something, that's fine. In that case, please post your changed version here and wait for response. Otherwise, please post an RfC, but I am not sure what exactly that RfC would be about. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ryk that "Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange.". My very best wishes, please re-examine my statement. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with My very best wishes that an exclusion of this topic from Wikipedia entirely is not an option, and that some mention in this article is likely warranted. I do, however, consider that the current inclusion is sufficiently troubled as to require WP:TNT - OR/SYNTH issues, inclusions of information not directly supported by the sources, NPOV issues w.r.t. tone & attribution are, for mine, not likely to be addressed through carefully curating the content. I believe that we should restart from the sources, and cleave strongly to them. And I believe that policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP) requires removal while we discuss & agree the best approach towards inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some discussion of the 2016 Presidential campaign is warranted in this article. However, I think we have to keep two things in mind:

1. We need to avoid recentism. Assange has been a public figure for several years, and Wikileaks has had several high-impact document releases. The 2016 Presidential campaign documents shouldn't take up more space than warranted in the article.
2. Our coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign should be representative, rather than focusing solely on the criticisms and "conspiracy theory" accusations that have been discussed in the above talk.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per BLPDELETE. The cited sources do not support the thesis that Assange is a serial liar and a conspiracist, that's if one actually bothers to read them carefully before forwarding. Furthermore, no sane editor can operate under the assumption that Assange's incidental suspicions about Seth Rich are as important as everything else he did in 2016. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Clipped section that needs work

@Volunteer Marek, Esn, and Ryk72: Best to start fresh. Clipped here for reference.

Relationship with Russia

According to Ben Jacobs of the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime." He briefly hosted a talk show on the Russian state news network Russia Today. U.S. intelligence agencies claim the e-mails damaging to the DNC and the Clinton 2016 campaign leaked by Wikileaks were provided by the Russian government, which Assange has denied. When asked in a December 2016 interview why Wikileaks does not focus more on Russia, Assange replied that there are already "competitors to WikiLeaks" in Russia which include "many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexei] Navalny", and that "no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player". He further claimed that Wikileaks had published "more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions? You mentioned "POV-sloppiness problems" in the edit summary; elaborate? On my end, I think the first sentence should be something like "Some critics have accused Assange of having a close relationship with the Russian government", sourced to the Guardian article as well as several others that VM linked to above. It looks weird to have the accusation just come from one writer. Esn (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't share VM's pov so I can't make his argument for him. The point is that he has to make a vastly better case, and he has the sources to do so. You edit was basically fine, except for the opening sentence which insinuated that Assange said that Wikileaks has no business in Russia because it's already a free society. Actually, that's Guardian's out of context smear. What was actually said was this (there is some stuff before and after too, but you still have to take this bit into account): Q: These abuses have had a heavy impact in an open and democratic society like the United States and produced 'dissidents' like Chelsea Manning willing to expose them. Why aren't human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries? A: "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow." A very plausible interpretation is that Assange is here defending Russian civil society against the charge of cynicism and inertia. We don't have to interpret however, we can just quote (what exactly, we can discuss). But VM needs to write a minimally encyclopedic section first, so we know to work with. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"which insinuated that[...]" I don't think that's what it insinuated, but in any case I agree that it was bad phrasing and I was about to fix it when it was done for me. Do you have any problems with the latest version, rather than the initial one which was fixed? I don't know if it's worth it to wait for VM to do all the work. It may be more work to fight with him over the details of whatever he comes up with than to just write something that most people are "okay" with (otherwise known as "consensus"). Esn (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Only the NY Times and Independent articles that VM cited above would merit inclusion, as non-opinion pieces. I don't think, however, that these accusations are notable enough to merit an entire subsection. They're best included in the section on the 2016 US Presidential campaign. Obviously, the POV language and the unrelated commentary about the Russian media landscape will have to be removed before then. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In theory, I have no objection to having a section about the accusations and Assange's response to them. If I remember, the accusations first started before the 2016 election, either since the Snowden affair or somewhat earlier. Would be good to find more sources from before 2016. There may be some usable ones here. It seems that in 2010, relations between Russia and Wikileaks were not especially friendly. Esn (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Guccisamsclub that we have to take the original interview into account. It's clear that the Guardian piece misrepresents Assange's statement very seriously, and as written right now, the summary in the subsection we're debating turns Assange's statement on its head (from praise for Russian dissidents to a statement that Russia doesn't need any leakers). Including statements that we know to be false would be bad form, to say the least. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"a statement that Russia doesn't need any leakers" I don't see how the current text under debate can be interpreted that way. Elaborate? I interpret it as neither one of the two, but something like "others already do it better than us, though we have actually done something". Esn (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

People can interpret things differently, but that was the way I saw it. BTW anyone if anyone has a position on this edit by My best wishes, feel to speak up. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Esn. I was referring to the earlier version of the article, which stated,

"Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and 'vibrant' media environment he claims exists there."

That earlier version inverted Assange's point, I think, because it claims he was dismissing the need for whistleblowing in Russia, when he's clearly praising opposition outlets and talking about linguistic difficulties Wikileaks faces in the country.

I think the text we have now is somewhat better, but it does not deserve its own section. It belongs in the section on the American election, which is what these accusations of collusion with Russia most closely relate to. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit should include where Assange says the Podesta and DNC emails came from: A disgruntled DNC worker. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Craig Murray claims this—not Assange. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

the word organisation in the first sentence is misspelled it should be organization. 73.169.140.17 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This article is written in Australian English, which uses the spelling "organisation". Gulumeemee (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with regular English? SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Australian English is somehow "irregular"? Please strike your comment, which might be interpreted as a callous attack against Australians. Thank you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Assange as a Moon-Landing Hoax believer?

One of Assange's fans on YouTube insists that WikiLeaks is preparing to expose "evidence" that the US faked the Moon Landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. I also remember an article from several years ago claiming Vladimir Putin denied that we landed on the moon, and in light of Moscow's attempt to manipulate the 2016 election, it makes me wonder if he's just working for Putin to fabricate this "evidence." It also makes me wonder if this claim about Assange has any legitimacy. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

BS Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Gucci, if they were going to do something that big, they'd announce it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

The "Swedish sexual assault allegations" section currently has a pro-Julian-Assange bias.

• That the alleged victims had consensual sex has no relevance on the non-consensual acts they've accused him of
• "The case" was never closed. One charge was temporarily dropped for two days
• No Special Prosecutor was ever involved
• His lawyer was told at one point he was free to leave the country, but he only actually left weeks later, after an arrest warrant was filed.

I recommend this edit to replace the section:

Julian Assange was in Stockholm in August 2010, during which he had separate sexual encounters with two women. Afterwards, the women made accusations regarding what had happened during some of the sexual acts. One woman claims Assange pinned her down and restrained her from reaching for a condom, and after he did agree to use one, she alleges, he purposefully tore it. The other woman alleges that, after consensual sex with a condom earlier in the morning, Assange later had sex with her without a condom while she slept, despite her previous insistence that she would not consent to unprotected sex. The women went to police, apparently to coerce Assange into an HIV test, but were told their statements would need to be passed to the prosecutor. As a result, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrent for two charges: molestation and rape.

The rape charge was briefly dropped, and Assange was questioned by police on the molestation charge. The next week, on appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer, the rape charge was reinstated and two new charges were added: sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.. Assange's attorney was informed on 15 September that he was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden," but further attempts to interview him failed when, according to his attorney, Assange was unreachable for an eight day period. Assange left Sweden the same day the Swedish prosecutor ordered his arrest, and after further attempts to interview him failed, the prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant in November 2010.

Assange denies the allegations. He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States, although the United States, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all afford legal protections experts claim would make prosecution there unlikely. Assange unsuccessfully fought extradition through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and after his final appeal there failed he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he was granted diplomatic asylum.

Assange claims he has always been willing to be questioned on the charges from the embassy, but multiple negotiations to do so failed. Sweden and Ecuador both blame each other for the delay, which allowed the lesser charges of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion to expire their statute of limitations. The rape charge is still pending, and its statute of limitations will not expire until 2020.

On 14 November 2016, police, Swedish prosecutors, and Ecuadorian officials met with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London about the sexual assault allegations. Ecuador delivered its report on the questioning to Sweden on 5 January 2017. Sweden is currently in the process of translating the document from Spanish and are expected to make a decision on how to proceed the investigation afterward.

Well for a start the sentence "Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where two women accused him of sexual allegations" is in need of further work. Britmax (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC).

Appreciate it. I'd first just kept the initial sentence in-tact ("Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where he became the subject of sexual allegations from two women with whom he had consensual sex") and removed the irrelevant bit that they'd had consensual sex and changed it to the active voice. I've expanded a bit on what the allegations are, while still trying to keep it brief and impartial. 198.244.108.135 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been pending for over one month now without objection. Does that qualify as consensus? Thanks. 198.244.108.135 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)!

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You need to re-open the discussion and alert the other participants of your changes. Aurato (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Britmax: Could you please review my elaborated extended edit? 198.244.108.135 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Britmax: Just a friendly ping. The new proposed paragraphs elaborate on what the actual charges are, while still (I hope) give both sides of the story. 198.244.108.135 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 198.244.108.135. The current "Swedish sexual assault allegations" section really do has a pro-Julian-Assange bias. I´m a swede and this is the text on swedish WP (sorry for the crappy english). A rather big difference, isn´t it?

"In August 2010, Assange visited Sweden to present the latest WikiLeaks disclosure. During the visit, Assange was arrested in his absence by an on-call prosecutor on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women. The arrest was lifted just one day later, on 25 August, by the regular prosecutor Eva Finné, and the suspicion was changed to molestation. On September 1, the investigation was resumed, now by Marianne Ny and the rubric changed again apply to rape. On November 18, Assange was arrested in his absence by the Stockholm District Court and 7 December it was reported that he was arrested by British police when he arrived at the police station. On December 16, Julian Assange was released on bail. On February 24, 2011 a British court decided that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden. It was appealed and a new trial if the extradition was carried out 12 to 13 July 2011. On 2 November 2011 the High Court in England decided to reject his appeal and that he should still be extradited to Sweden. June 19, 2012 revealed that Assange sought political asylum in Ecuador and thus found themselves on the country's embassy in London. On 16 August 2012, the news said that Ecuador granted him asylum. Nine people who set bail for Assange has by a British court been ordered to pay 93,000 pounds to the British Treasury. On July 16, 2014 examined the Stockholm District Court again arrest the grounds and found that Assange was still on probable cause suspected of a crime and that the arrest would be made. On November 16, 2014 the Svea Court of Appeal decided, after Assange appealed there, that he would remain in custody. However, in its order directed the Svea Court of Appeal criticized the prosecutor in the case, Marianne Ny, for not doing enough to push the investigation forward."

Information about the first (and only) hearing with Assange, when he left Sweden, the expiration of some of the counts and the hearing in London seems to be missing. I think they should be added, and that the names of the prosecutors probably is irrlevant in EngWP.--Godfellow (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Godfellow: Thanks for the feedback. The proceedings in England actually have their own article: Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority which is linked to at the top of this section. That article goes into a lot more detail. I've tried to keep this section as a brief summary. But you're right I the bit about his questioning in Stockholm should be mentioned, since I did mention "further attempts to question him" without mentioning the successful attempt. In fact, all the discussion of attempts to question were a bit disjoint and confusing, so I'm now proposing a replacement to the entire section that I think clarifies the situation. What do you think? 198.244.108.135 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@198.244.108.135:If you refer to your proposed paragraph above, I have some objections raised. But hey, it is much better than the present! If you mean some other ideas you come up with I do not know what you mean.Godfellow (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Godfellow: Please let me know your objections and I will address them. I need to achieve consensus before officially requesting the edit again. Thanks! 198.244.108.135 (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

---

@198.244.108.135: Maybe I am conservative (is possibly because I have legal training) but I don´t think you really should say something about what either the plaintiff or the suspect / accused thinks of what happened during the event, before a case is decided. I think "In August 2010, Assange visited Sweden to present the latest WikiLeaks disclosure. During the visit, Assange was arrested in his absence by an on-call prosecutor on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two swedish women he met during the visit." is much more neutral than the first sentence you proposed, and I don´t think Assanges opinion on whats happened is relevant either. All men are regarded as innocent until proven otherwise, that goes without saying. It´s shorter too, and it´s eaisier. If you use a sentence where you say something about the consensual sex before the rape, you get into a lot of truble explaining for the readers that in Sweden, to go on with a intrecourse that was consensual at first but becomes non-consensual after a while, actually is rape. It´s not in USA, as I understand, but it is in Sweden.

So, the part of consensual sex is not relevant about the rape. It is relevant about the molestation, but thats why its molestation and not rape, so it´s already in there. And you can´t mention the part about condoms ant not mention the fact that he pinned Miss A down. Because, it´s the fact he was holding her down that was criminal. Not the part about the condom. The condom part is just a weird detail that media love, it´s not that interesting in the case.Godfellow (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I can not read the sources (no account on Wall Street Journal...) and I can remember wrong, but it was not Assange's own lawyer who claimed that he was informed that his client was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden,"? What I´m saying is, are there any other source this actually happened? Assanges own lawyer is not a good source, since he was caught with a lie on other details, by the Supreme Court in GB.Godfellow (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

---

@Godfellow: My initial proposed edit was closer to what you proposed (it didn't detail any specifics), but User talk:Britmax seemed to imply it was lacking. And, I'd agree. I think it makes sense to specify the accusations, especially as they've been public for a while. Also, it's certainly not true that you cannot legally revoke consent to sex in the US (or any other jurisdiction I'm aware of). In their appeal, Assange's lawyers tried to argue that the charges would not constitute rape in the UK, but failed. They continue to make the point in public, though, that somehow this is only rape because of some arcane Swedish legal loophole, which is probably where you got that notion.

Certainly that the women agreed to consensual sex before the alleged sex crimes doesn't excuse any potential crimes, but I do think the circumstances are important to mention to tell the story accurately. It sounds like you think mentioning the consensual sex diminishes the seriousness of the accusation, but after all, the rape charge is being made under the paragraph of the Swedish Penal Code that reads (according to the official English translation) "If having regard to the nature of the violence or the threat and the circumstances in general, the crime is considered less serious, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed." So there does exist a legal distinction between the type of rape Assange is accused of and, say, one using extreme physical violence. I think not mentioning any circumstances at all, saying only "he was arrested for rape" just raises more questions than answers.

You mention the alleged purposeful condom tearing being a "weird detail," but that actually is the basis of (one of the) sexual molestation claims. The physical restraint was the basis for the unlawful coercion claim. Both charges come with a two-year sentence, so I think it's important to mention both.

The WSJ source says:

Ms. Montgomery [the UK lawyer representing Sweden in his appeals case] disputed this claim in court Monday. She said Mr. Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, was told on Sept. 15 that his client was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden." But sometime after Sept. 15, Ms. Ny contacted Mr. Hurtig and asked him to arrange an interrogation with Mr. Assange. Mr. Hurtig said he could not make contact with his client, according to Ms. Montgomery.

I believe the actual communication is included in this document, which captures communications between the Swedish prosecutor and Assange's lawyer http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/ass-hurtig-ny.pdf but I defer to your ability to read Swedish (and a Swedish primary source isn't appropriate for Wikipedia). I did try to fairly express that he only left Sweden days later after having evaded prosecutors' attempts to question him and immediately having an arrest warrant issued, implying he was not free to leave Sweden when he did, although he claims he had no way of knowing that.

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to achieve consensus, so please let me know if you think this change is appropriate (in which case I'll reset the edit flag) or if you still think there are problems with it (in which case we can further discuss). 198.244.108.135 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Thank you for that source. The document with communication seems to confirm that Hurtig actually got the information about the lack of enforcement against Assange. According to the document he should have received the information by phone, some time between Sept. 14 and 15 November. I suppose the WSJ source is correct.

I still can´t really understand why the part about consensual sex is relevant. Especially if it doesn't excuse any potential crimes in US or UK either. If thats necessery to mention, it´s also important mentioning that it´s still rape (lesser degree) to have non-consensual sex after consensual sex. Otherwise, it's like introducing information about women's short skirt in a rape case. Or point out that she used to like to have sex with several men, or that it was she who invited home to the rapist himself. It's a classic guilt of the victim, not okay.

If one should mention Assange fear for extradition is also important to mention that Swedish law does not allow any extradition if he is at risk of torture or the death penalty. Or if the offence is purely military or if the offence is a political offence. (And maybe that Ecuador has extradition agreements with the US, but I'm not that picky ...)

What about:

"IN AUGUST 2010, ASSANGE VISITED SWEDEN TO PRESENT THE LATEST WIKILEAKS DISCLOSURE. During the visit, Assange had separate sexual encounters with two women. AFTERWARDS, THE WOMEN MADE ACCUSATIONS REGARDING WHAT HAD HAPPENED DURING SOME OF THE SEXUAL ACTS. One woman claims Assange initially PINNED HER DOWN AND restrained her from reaching for a condom, and after he did agree to use one, she alleges, he purposefully tore it. The other woman alleges that, after consensual sex with a condom EARLIER IN THE EVENING, Assange LATER ON HAD sex with her without a condom WHEN SHE WAS ASLEEP. The women went to police, apparently to coerce Assange into an HIV test, but were told their statements would need to be passed to the prosecutor. As a result, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrent for two charges: molestation and rape.

----

Assange denies the allegations. He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States. HOWEVER, SWEDISH LAW DOES NOT ALLOW ANY EXTRADICTION IF THE WANTED PERSON IS AT RISK OF TORTURE OR DEATH PENALTY. OR IF THE THE OFFENCE IS PURELY MILIARY OR POLITICAL. Assange unsuccessfully fought extradition through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and after his final appeal there failed he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he was granted diplomatic asylum. ---" Godfellow (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

---

@Godfellow: Thanks again! A few comments:

• "IN AUGUST 2010, ASSANGE VISITED SWEDEN TO PRESENT THE LATEST WIKILEAKS DISCLOSURE" I'd say it's uncertain exactly what the purpose of his visit was. He did present a seminar while there, but he stayed for weeks afterward and applied for permanent residency. If his plan was to move there permanently, it looks incriminating that he left and declined to return on request, suddenly deciding it's unsafe for him, despite his previous claims. He claims the purpose of the trip was "to put in place a legal strategy to try to protect our publishing servers" and that he planned to stay less than a week (and only stayed longer than that because of how much he wanted to cooperate with the police, which is an obviously self-serving claim). I think his purpose there is too vague to be worth mentioning. But I think I should change "On a trip to Stockholm in August 2010" to "While in Stockholm in August 2010" since it wasn't necessarily a "trip," if he was planning on residing there permanently.

• ...EARLIER IN THE EVENING, Assange LATER ON HAD sex with her without a condom WHEN SHE WAS ASLEEP" The events are alleged to have happened in the morning, not the evening, but everything else seems fine. I think, using the sources already cited, I can also add ", despite her previous insistence that she would not consent to unprotected sex," which I hope alleviates some of your concerns that mentioning the protected sex excuses the alleged rape.

• "HOWEVER, SWEDISH LAW DOES NOT ALLOW ANY EXTRADICTION IF THE WANTED PERSON IS AT RISK OF TORTURE OR DEATH PENALTY. OR IF THE THE OFFENCE IS PURELY MILIARY OR POLITICAL." While that's true, the sources you've cited are both personal blogs and not really appropriate for this article. Additionally, it's not clear any hypothetical US charges would be military or political in nature, or if he'd be eligible for the death penalty. I think a better way to counter his claimed fear of US extradition would be "He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States, although the US has not charged with him any crime or sought his extradition to date."

198.244.108.135 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

---

I´m fine whith your suggestions about part one and two, didn´t remember the time of day. But it would be good if the myth about the possibility of extradiction could either be adressed or erased. The blogg by Mark Klamberg isn´t just any blogg. He´s Doctor of Laws, a senior lecturer in International Law at Upsala University and (still I think) Associate Professor in International Law At Stockholm University. And has been teching International Criminal Law at Edinburgh Law School and Queen Mary University of London. ( And has been law clerk at International Criminal Court in the Hague. :) ) I underestand the problem, personal blogs isn´t good. I couldn´t find any other englishspeaking sources Im afraid, maybe you can? Is it just me who thinks it should be some sort of public knowledge that countries in EU are bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or tortur? :) Godfellow (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

---

@Godfellow: I found this http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/ which is a strong source that mentions the specifics of the extradition treaty, but also points out that there are no current charges, so it's somewhat pointless to speculate about hypothetical future ones. Dr. Klamberg also mentions that the US could charge him for a non-political offense and Sweden would extradite him. To me, this seems like an issue to re-visit if he ever is charged by the US (which is unlikely). Speculating what Sweden *might* do if the US *might* try to extradite him seems unnecessary when the US has already said it doesn't plan to. What do you think? 198.244.108.135 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The problem is the article mention Assange speculations about that hypothetical future situation. I would say that if his speculations has to be in the article, something about EU and ECHR regulations about extradiction in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or tortur has to be mentioned. And yes, of course any country with extradition agreements with the US will handle Assange over if US asks them, and theres no risk for death penalty or torture and the crime isn´t military och political. Thas just common sense, they way international law works. What Assange does when he says Sweden would extradict him to US is that he will be treated much worse than other, that he is a special case. And thats simply not true, theres nothing that indicates he would be treated worse than any other criminal US ask for extradiction.

What about this?

Assange denies the allegations. He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States, POSSIBLY FACING DEATH PENALTY OR TORTURE, OR A FAKE TRIAL OVER A PURELY POLITICAL CRIME. HOWEVER, SWEDISH LAW DOES NOT ALLOW ANY EXTRADICTION UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCES. The US has not charged with him any crime or sought his extradition to date. Assange unsuccessfully fought extradition through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and after his final appeal there failed he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he was granted diplomatic asylum.

With some sources for Assanges claims about death penalty, torture or fear of a joke trial of course.

Or, just erase the part about the extradiction, but maybe thats not good? It´s sort of central.Godfellow (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I found these sources. Couldn´t they be valid ones for Swedish law not allowing extradiction when someone is facing death penalty or torture? http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382 Godfellow (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Ok, I think I can be convinced to try something like your proposed paragraph, though it still feels vague and speculative. I also feel like mentioning "torture or a fake trial" gives credence to the idea that those are possibilities in the US. Neither are legal possibilities in the US, so I'd probably try something more neutral in tone. I feel like you're trying to defend the Swedish legal system for not exposing people to unreasonable charges, and I'm defending the American system for not being unreasonable in the first place. Perhaps we could do something like "Assange claims to fear Sweden will extradite him to the United States for criminal charges there, though Sweden, the United Kingdon, and the United States all afford legal protections that experts claim would make such prosecution difficult."?

I'll ask you to consider one more thing, too. Your sources all date from around 2012 and talk about WikiLeaks publications to that date, primarily the Manning publications. Your citation from Mark Klamberg says that "absolute political crimes are those exclusively directed against the state." Since the Manning publications, WikiLeaks has published:

• E-mails hacked from Stratfor, a private American corporation
• E-mails hacked from the Democratic National Committee. Political parties are private organizations in the United States, not affiliated with the government
• The personal e-mails of John Podesta, an American civilian. The e-mails were hacked from Google, a private American corporation.

It would seem to me, that if the US tried to extradite from Sweden on conspiracy charges related to one of those more recent publications (which is just as speculative as extradition for espionage), they'd have a decent shot convincing a Swedish court that at least one of those is not an absolute political crimes, that they aren't exclusively directed against the state.

If you could find a more recent source that claims those would be covered in Sweden as political offenses, I'd be happier to add the specific claims about political offenses.

Thanks, @Godfellow:! 198.244.108.135 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Assange claims to fear Sweden will extradite him to the United States for criminal charges there, though Sweden, the United Kingdon, and the United States all afford legal protections that experts claim would make such prosecution difficult." This is fine with me! I understand the problem with metioning torture and fake trials. And if hte myth about the possible extradiction hadn´t been so central for Assanges story about why his dogding the justice at the embassy of Ecuador, I would vote for erasing it. But I dont think that´s an option. Lets go for your suggestions, with some oogf my improvements, as you wrote.Godfellow (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Please consider again this request for an edit. The original request (though it's since been expanded somewhat) has been pending for two months, with only two other users expressing any form of objection. talk has been pinged several times over the past three weeks and appears to have abandoned the change. User talk:Godfellow and I have had a thorough debate over the past several days, and have reached a consensus. Thank you, 198.244.108.135 (User talk:198.244.108.135) 07:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Godfellow: I think your account can make this edit... I'm not sure anyone else cares about it :)

@Godfellow: Ping. If you could make this edit, I'd appreciate it.

@Train2104: Some of the bias has been removed (e.g. it no longer says the sex was consensual), but I still have a big issue with these sentences, "He was questioned, the case was closed, and he was told he could leave the country. In November 2010, however, the case was re-opened by a special prosecutor who said she wanted to question Assange over two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of "lesser-degree rape" "

The case was never closed -- one charge was temporarily dropped. Weeks passed between when he was told he was not restricted from traveling and when he finally did -- during which he seemed to evade multiple attempts to arrest him. There was never a special prosecutor. The current text seems to imply that the prosecutors had closed the investigation for lack of evidence, only to later change their mind for sinister political reasons.

The version in this edit request, I believe, contains a lot more information, told fairly, and is more up-to-date. (Godfellow) and I put a lot of back-and-forth into this, and I think this request is vastly better than the current article. I ask that you reconsider your decision to deny it.

198.244.108.135 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: Closing due to auto-archive. — IVORK _Discuss 05:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

It's now Official

The US government is preparing to arrest Assange.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Only English language material is leaked

Assange is often criticised for leaking only against the US. It needs to be mentioned in this context that Assange does not speak any other languages than English and can therefore only assess material in English. It has been said often that he does not leak against for instance Russia or other countries. This would require very competent translators who translate Russian (or other languages') material into English. This is is not happening for reasons that we do not know, probably the lack of translator funds.

I wonder if this shouldn't be mentioned here in the talk section because it is overlooked but an explanation. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:4DBA:BFF5:71FB:16B7 (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources to back up what you are saying? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am an Australian and am bilingual (German). I have kind of observed Assange (because I had been a victim of abuse of power by the German government, an emotional connection). There has been nothing in the public sphere to indicate that he reads another language. I have worked as a translator and journalist. If you have any bilingual friends they will tell you that the knowledge of another language to the necessary level of assessment for publication has a very high bar. This means, any material in another language than English, that deserves leaking, must be expertly translated before it can be assessed by Assange/wikileaks. In the real world out there, important material is not only translated by a qualified translator but another person is hired as a checker. I just wanted to take the wind out of the sails of those people who constantly demand that wikileaks/Assange should leak material from Russia or other countries. In practice it's not so easy; you (wikileaks) cannot publish something that you don't understand. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:AC74:3C37:49B0:432D (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: Assange's attorneys can be asked if he speaks another language. He'd be able to understand simple Spanish by now after all this time in the embassy, which would be advanced tourist level, I guess. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:AC74:3C37:49B0:432D (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your own personal observations and opinions are not considered a reliable secondary source. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Assange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/flanagan-regrets-wikileaks-assassination-remark-1.877548
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627195622/http://humanrightsaward.org/past-honorees/ to http://humanrightsaward.org/past-honorees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Claim that Julian Assange is a journalist

It seems a bit odd that Assange is credited as journalist, without any verification of that claim. The hyperlink on this page goes to a definition of "journalist", and this description does not comply with Assange's efforts. He's not credited as "journalist" anywhere else, by established journalists. He is also sometimes credited as "editor-in-chief" (on the Sam Adams Award Wikipedia page) which is also incompatible to his work and qualifications. The case is not made in this Wikipedia entry to provide enough information to back the claim that Assange is a journalist, by definition. I suggest it is deleted, and replaced with "activist", "entrepreneur" or other more fitting title.

Blingladen (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Sweden's investigation was dropped

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/swedens-top-prosecutor-drops-year-rape-investigation-wikileaks-47507187

can someone edit the page? please and thank you 104.33.114.195 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead is garbage. Sweden wanted him for questioning, he was NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME. So, how do NONEXISTENT charges get "dropped"??? It would also be helpful to learn what the statute of limitations is for the crimes, specifically the Swedish crimes, he was being investigated for.98.21.66.236 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The statue of limitations ends in 2020 and the Swedish authorities said that should he reenter Sweden, the investigation will resume. Objective3000 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed "Allegations of Russian connection" section

I've removed the subsection titled, "Allegations of Russian connection" (diff). First off, most of the section did not mention Assange at all, but was more generally about allegations that Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. However, since some of the material was relevant to this article, I took two paragraphs from that subsection that dealt directly with Assange, and moved them to the "Leaks" subsection. I'd also like to mention that there are problems both with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT in including such a long subsection on accusations of a "Russian connection." The length of the subsection was completely out of proportion to its relevance to Assange's biography, and moreover, most of the section didn't even deal with Assange himself. The level of mention these accusations receive now, inside the "Leaks" subsection, is appropriate. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Comments about women" section

Why is this here? It appears to be discussing a single interview in which he denies the sexual assault allegations and claims there is a feminist conspiracy against him. I'm not entirely sure why this single interview is notable, but even if it is, "comments on women" suggest his comments were about all women, not a particular subset who he believes is out to get him. The section at the very least should be edited to make it clear what he said, not just Poitras' interpretation of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.46.159 (talk • contribs)

This seems more relevant to the Laura Poitras article, where it isn't even mentioned. I moved the section there rephrasing a bit to adapt to the context of that article. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, add mentioning about "Risk (2016 film)".

Please, add (to section Work -> Filmography -> As himself) mentioning and link to documentary "Risk (2016 film)" made by "Laura Poitras".
Proof links: Risk_(2016_film), Laura_Poitras#Risk, www.imdb.com -> Risk (2016)

After adding this information you can delete this section of "Talk". --141.101.23.38 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fugitives wanted by Sweden

Fugitives wanted by Sweden category should be removed since his Swedish case was dropped. 80.98.199.159 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. The Swedish gov't said the investigation could be reopened should he enter the country.[14] Objective3000 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

معماران نسل کشی

در این فیلم که درباره نسل کشی ارمنیان توسط ترکیه، انکار اسناد تاریخی، توسط ترکیه، کشتارهای صورت گرفته علیه ارامنه در جمهوری آذربایجان در سال 1988 میلادی، حملات جمهوری آذربایجان به روستاهای ارمنی در ماه آوریل 2016 و انکار نسل کشی، از سوی آمریکا می باشد، افرادی همچون "جولیان آسانژ"، بنیانگذار "ویکی لیکس"، "سیبل ادمونس"، خبرنگار و کارمند سازمان "سیا" در آمریکا و "جئوفری روبرتسون"، حقوقدان مشهور بریتانیایی، اظهار نظر کرده اند. "آسانژ" در این فیلم، اعلام نموده است اسناد زیادی وجود دارند که ثابت می کنند آنچه که اتفاق افتاده است، نسل کشی بود. "جئوفری روبرتسون" نیز اظهار داشته است که بی رحمانه ترین روش های نابودی، علیه ارامنه، مورد استفاده قرار گرفته اند. همچنین، "دین کین"، تهیه کننده این فیلم و بازیگر مشهور، اعلام کرده است که نسل کشی ارامنه (توسط ترکیه) باید به رسمیت شناخته شود.

Appears to be something about a documentary on Armenian genocide that Assange may have had input to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)

This is the English Wikipedia, which makes non-English contribution to the talk page pretty useless. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DONE: I added Architects of Denial (2017) to Assange's Filmography (as himself), with citation to IMDb. KalHolmann (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: Is IMDb a reliable source in this case? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: IMDb is cited in the same section (Assange's Filmography) for his role as producer of The Engineer (2013). If it's reliable there, it ought to be likewise for Architects of Denial (2017). KalHolmann (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I suggest you read WP:RS/IMDB. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you for directing me to WP:RS/IMDB. In accordance with its designation as a Questionable Resource, I have removed both titles from Assange's Filmography that cite only IMDb. KalHolmann (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Worms Against Nuclear Killers accusation is not substantiated

Checking the first citation regarding Worms Against Nuclear Killers (namely, the newspaper article called "International man of mystery"), the evidence linking Assange to the attack therein can be summarised as: (1) The attack originated in Austalia (2) Assange was in Australia at the time (3) Therefore, chances are it's Assange!

This is flimsy evidence, in light of the fact that there are thousands of cyber attacks on Pentagon every year and that Australia has a population approaching 7% of the United States'. While there are no reliable data about the geographic distribution of cybercriminals, it is well-understood that a compromised Internet-connected machine in any country may be used by cybercriminals remotely.

It could be argued that the fact of the existence of a piece of gossip itself is encyclopaedia-worthy. However, as this gossip isn't connected with any substantial event, group, lawsuit, etc., it appears to be as notable as any of the billions pieces of gossip in circulation, thus, not notable enough for Wikipedia, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.225.23 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Twitter account

Any serious info on Assange's Twitter account? Semi-mainstream news media state that it was deleted, e.g. http://mashable.com/2017/12/25/julian-assange-delete-twitter-account . There was a break-in to Baltasar Garzón's office on 18 December and a WikiLeaks tweet including "As CIA threats against @WikiLeaks heat up, ..." - from which WP:OR could lead to quite a bit of speculation (not reliably sourced info). Boud (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Huffington Post (link "There was a break-in") comments on the close chronology of the Garzón office break-in and the Twitter account closure - without making any stronger link than just close chronology. Boud (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The twitter account re-appeared. End of story. Relevance low. Boud (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox information

Should we add information to the article infobox on his position in The WikiLeaks Party?

i.e.

Julian Assange/Archive 14
Leader of the WikiLeaks Party
In office 1 July 2013 – 23 July 2015
Deputy	Gerry Georgatos
Preceded by	Party established
Succeeded by	Party abolished

Rewrite of introductory sentence. Is Assange currently best described as a computer programer?

Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɒnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins, 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer and the founder of WikiLeaks, an organization which he founded in 2006. He has won accolades including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.

It would appear from the introductory paragraph he is a journalist as that is what he is winning awards for. He could be described as formerly a computer programmer, cryptographer, systems engineer or something else.

While he is the founder of Wikileaks he also appears to be currently the head of the organization, whatever title would describe that.

I understand the use of the word journalist or editor might be controversial.

A sufficiently noncontroversial first sentence might be:

Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɒnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins, 3 July 1971) is the head of Wikileaks, a multi-national media organization and associated library, which he founded in 2006. He has won accolades including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.

"multi-national media organization and associated library" is the language wikileaks uses in their about page. 

https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html

Assange wanted for espionage?

The German IT news site heise online (see de:Heise Online) claims "Die britischen Behörden erklärten aber, dass sie ihn wegen anderer Vergehen im Zusammenhang mit den Veröffentlichungen brisanter Dokumente trotzdem festnehmen würden", ie. "however, the british authorities said that they would arrest him because of other offsenses relating to the publication of delicate documents". However, heise doesn't give a source for this claim. Is it true or not? --rtc (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)