Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Australian criminal?

As this issue has come up again, I would like some clarity. The "Category:Australian criminals" says, Australian criminals are Australians who have been convicted of crime of a notable nature or notable Australians who have been convicted of serious crimes. I don't think skipping bail was a serious crime. However, taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years was notable. Hence, I think skipping bail was notable by the way that Assange did it. There is also the 24 hacking charges that he pleaded guilty to in 1996. They are notable, being featured in works such as Underground (Dreyfus book) and Underground: The Julian Assange Story. Various sources name him as a former hacker:[1][2][3][4]. He pleaded guilty to hacking when he was 25, having been under police investigation since 1991. He was given a three year good behaviour bond. The Swedish charges arose in 2010. He skipped bail in 2012. Last year he was expelled from the embassy and imprisoned. He is now 48. For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system. Criminal charges have dominated his life. I can't see how anyone can say this is WP:NOTDEFINING...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What crimes has he been convicted of? Hacking - 3 year good behaviour bond - not a crime of a notable nature nor a serious crime. Breaching the Bail Act - 50 weeks - (the bail breach itself is) not a crime of a notable nature nor a serious crime. I do agree that seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean Consulate is both notable and defining - but that might warrant adding Australian asylum seekers or Seekers of asylum in Ecuador.
As for NOTDEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having. "(career) criminal" is not how reliable sources generally describe the article subject, though I'm sure some could be Googled up with the right search string. Simply being involved with the justice system for extended periods of his life does not make him a criminal nor make him eligible to be categorised as one. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No not notable the A UN special Raporture has commented on it? So not notable 60 doctors world wide have commented on it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that either the UN Rapporteur or the 60 doctors have commented on either the "hacking" conviction or the "breach of the Bail Act", or on any other convicted crime, but am happy to be shown sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No they have commented on his jailing (and on him being effectively jailed in the embassy), he was jailed for a crime.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased I hadn't missed anything then. But their having commented on the psychological effects of his prison time, when combined with the time in asylum, doesn't make the crime itself a crime of a notable nature or a serious crime; and it doesn't mean that reliable sources generally refer to (define) the article subject as a "criminal". - Ryk72 ^talk 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Debatable I think it does, as without the crime he would not be going the time, but his crime was notable anyway, look at the sources, Assanges arrest was global news, his trial was global news, the crime he committed (bail jumping) was global news.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Only because, he was already notable. The category's entry ticket for notable persons is "a serious crime". Skipping bail is not a serious crime. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Skipping bail is not a serious crime, but it is notable when the offender goes into an embassy and stays there for seven years!!! That is the "entry ticket". If he simply applied to Ecuador for asylum, he would not have been holed up in the embassy. The reason he didn't want to leave was there was an arrest warrant for him.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought we'd come to crime of a notable nature at some stage, and here we are. "Crime of a notable nature" is not "notable crime". It speaks to a quality of the general crime committed, not to a quality of the specific crime committed. Also, to hear him tell it, he didn't want to leave because he feared not an arrest warrant, but extradition, via Sweden, to the US. And, as I'm reliably informed, seeking asylum is not crime. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) - add Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I mentioned "crime of a notable nature" in my original post. Where do you get your definition?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From reading the English words, in the order that they're written. "Crime of a notable nature", for the audience, is, of course, from the description of the "Australian criminals" category. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, the asylum seeking is notable, but the bail skipping is, itself, not a "crime of a notable nature"; certainly not in the same way that "serial killing" would be. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think your definition is linguistically invalid. Clearly, the bail skipping was of a notable nature because it lead to him staying in the embassy for 7 years. With regard to the other point, he was on bail because of the Swedish extradition request. When he entered the embassy, an arrest warrant was issued, and he faced arrest if he stepped outside. The arrest warrant remained in force even after Sweden dropped its investigation. The arrest warrant was the immediate reason he couldn't leave the embassy. When he was hauled out of the embassy, he was arrested for skipping bail. Of course, his legal problems are intertwined, but it is wrong to say that skipping bail didn't matter. The application for asylum was accepted under Ecuadorian law, but it also constituted a breach of bail under British law. Whether or not you like it, he was breaking the law the whole time he stayed in the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I could see support for "Australia Hackers" or similar; though "hacker" is a loosely defined term, not always associated with criminal hacking. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom or one of its subcategories. His imprisonment is absolutely notable (it covers a full fourth of the lead and has an entire section devoted to it), but I'm not sure his conviction is, comparatively speaking. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• No, "criminal" is not his defining characteristic. As noted, he's only been convicted of two crimes that do not raise to the major crime level, and those convictions are a minor part of his biography. We have a higher bar for categorizations which may run afoul of WP:BLP concerns, and we should not place him in that category. As noted, Category:Hackers may be justified, as may the "prisoners and detainees" category noted above, but certainly not any criminal category. --Jayron32 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, he was convicted of 25 crimes. I don't accept that the hacking was minor just because he received a light sentence. He was treated leniently — because of his disrupted childhood apparently. Those convictions should be a major part of his biography because, as I said, they've dominated most of his adult life.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Labeling him an "Australian criminal" would be absurd. Please, don't descend to that level. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not? This is why I wanted clarification on the issue, because the nay-sayers never engage with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply because his convictions haven't dominated most of his adult life. You've made that call. I suggest you justify it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree The category is appropriate. This is self-evident. He is Australian and he is a criminal. Within the group, it is heterogeneous but that does not negate the use of high-level categorization. We do that on nearly every page of Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I did, in my original post.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

He's 48. An adult for 30 years. "Most of his adult life" would have to be at least 20 years. I find it hard to accept that his convictions (not just charges) have dominated his life for 20 years. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant crimes he was convicted for. He began hacking in 1987. In 1991, he was raided by police; his wife left, taking his son. He was hospitalised with depression, and spent some time sleeping rough.[5] His hair turned white.[6] In 1994, he was charged with 31 hacking offences. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 offences. The judge said the offences were quite serious[7] but ordered him to pay reparations and gave him a three-year good behaviour bond. Those three years bring us up to the end of 1999. Now some editors try to trivialise the hacking convictions, but I think it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally. In this period he also collaborated Underground (Dreyfus book), published in 1997, which established his first claim to notability. Then Assange had roughly a decade when he had no legal problems, as far as I know. In 2010, the Swedish and US government began proceedings against him. In 2012, he breached bail and faced arrest if he left the embassy, as discussed elsewhere. He was arrested for breaching bail and was convicted of the offence this year and served his sentence. A British judge has declined to give him bail now because of his history of absconding.[8] So the hacking crimes dominated his life from 1987-1999, skipping bail has dominated it from 2012-2020. That is roughly 20 years, though it don't understand how you arrived at 20. "Most" should mean more than half, so more than 15... My original statement was: "For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system", which includes facing charges, being on bail, serving a sentence etc. I think this is clearly true.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally" A little too much OR. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OR is OK on Talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OR is not okay as a justification for content changes to the article. Being "in the clutches of a criminal justice system" does not make one a criminal. The minor crimes Assange has been convicted of (and which are a very minor part of his biography) do not make him a "criminal", and he is not described as such by reliable sources. It's amazing that you were against labeling him a "journalist", despite dozens of reliable sources, but are now trying to label him a "criminal" without any sourcing at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of what I said. The crimes he has been convicted of are not a "very minor part of his biography". The hacking dominated his youth and gave him his first claim to notability. If he hadn't breached bail, he would have remained a free man. He would not have spent seven years of his life in the embassy. He would have fought the Swedish and US allegations and might have won. To say that the breach of bail is a "very minor part of his biography" is absolutely absurd. It was a pivotal point in his life. There is absolutely no connection with the question of whether he is a journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Assange's teenage hacking conviction is a very minor part of his biography. It's barely ever mentioned in coverage of Assange. You're taking the years that he spent as a political refugee and condensing it down to "skipping bail." He skipped bail in order to get to the Ecuadorean embassy, but that's a minor aspect of the entire ordeal. Compared to the things that Assange is primarily known for (WikiLeaks, journalism, political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy and the ongoing attempt by the US government to prosecute him for publishing government secrets), the two episodes you're highlighting are very minor indeed.

But the crux of the matter is that you're making up this "criminal" designation yourself, without sourcing. When we were arguing over whether to label Assange a "journalist," I presented dozens of news articles from reliable sources that unambiguously referred to Assange as a "journalist." You complained that I was supposedly cherry-picking sources, and that there were other reliable sources that didn't state either way whether or not Assange was a "journalist." Now, without even presenting any news articles that refer to Assange as a "criminal," you're insisting on labeling him as such. Your positions on these two labels are inconsistent, from the point of view of sourcing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think Assange is known as a journalist, do you think OJ Simpson is known as a football star? Ronald Reagan, cowboy TV personality? Cosby known as a family favorite comedian? One way these discussions can easily get derailed is to cherrypick outdated sources like the ones that said Assange was a journalist, when he later and currently is seen as a criminal. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to Thucydides: we don't need sources to say Assange committed crimes. That's not in dispute. The issue seems to be if the crimes were "notable" or "serious". By the way, I am not "insisting" on labelling Assange a criminal. I just asked for some clarity. This issue keeps coming up. If there is a solid argument, let's hear it. So far, the arguments are dismissive, convoluted, or emotional.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Get back to us when you find reliable sources that label Assange a "criminal". Until then, there's nothing to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Filed under "dismissive". Start a properly formatted RfC if you wish. Be sure to set up a separate section for discussion so all your comments don't get interleaved with the !votes. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

With regard to previous discussions about Assange's time in the embassy from 2012 onwards, the US indictment wasn't made until 2018 and wasn't unsealed until 2019. I don't believe he could have been arrested in Britain until the the indictment was unsealed and the USA made a formal request for his extradiction. Up till last year, the only arrest warrant outstanding was for him skipping bail, so I don't understand how this is not notable. I agree the US indictment is notable too, but I don't understand an argument that says Assange is not a criminal because there are outstanding criminal charges. Yes, there are. This is part of his life. Why deny it?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So why was he on bail?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

He was on bail because Sweden was trying to extradite him.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And not for any political crime in Sweden. Just a serious crime. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at other examples, celebrity doctor Geoffrey Edelsten has the category "Australian criminals", public servant Michael Coutts-Trotter has "Australian drug traffickers", actor Tim Allen has "American drug traffickers", and actor Mark Wahlberg has "American people convicted of assault", as does rapper Jay-Z. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that these crimes are a defining part of their lives. While their convictions are confirmed by sources, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the terminology in the category is confirmed by sources as such. I doubt you can find a plethora of reliable sources labelling Tim Allen a "drug trafficker".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't label Assange a "criminal" without strong reliable sourcing. I remind you that this is a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• No Assange is best known as the guy who was locked in the embassy, and his actions are alleged by some to be criminal and others to be heroic. He has not yet been convicted of any real crime, other than the slap on the wrist for hacking. He certainly was and is not known for some minor conviction in Australia, no more than Tim Allen is well known as a coke dealer. This is POV pushing again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, but Tim Allen gets the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, to be repetitive, he was stuck in the embassy because he had committed a crime, breaching his bail.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OSE about these comparisons. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What part of that are you referring to exactly?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To be added to the above examples: Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in prison, a $30,000 fine, 250 hours of community service and one year supervised release for the college exam cheating scam. This is a far lesser sentence than Assange's recent one. She has the categories "People convicted of fraud" and "21st-century American criminals". Also, George Michael who has the category "British people convicted of drug offences" and apparently he only served four weeks in prison.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. In his teens, an Australian court let him go when he was first charged with hacking. The decision argued that his intrusions had been harmless explorations and not profit-focused or malicious. Can we say that the nature of the crime he was convicted of was harmless and not serious? His hacking activities endangered the national security of some countries as well as the lives of people. A case in point was his exposure of people (journalists, religious leaders, political dissidents, etc.) throughout the world who provided information to the U.S. This included the identities of the more than 100 Afghans assets who were informing on the Taliban. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Catalan independence

The following text was recently removed:

===Catalan independence===
Assange has stated that did not take a position on the outcome of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. However he believed that Catalans had the right to self-determination. He provided assistance to Catalans in the lead up to the referendum by providing instructions on how to communicate and organise through secure channels, providing historical background on the struggle for Catalan independence, correcting misreporting of events and providing live video updates about Catalan protests and actions by the Spanish police. When the Spanish Government disabled voting apps, Assange tweeted instructions on how Catalans could use other apps to find out information about voting.
The Ecuadorian government, responding to pressure from Spain, removed Assange’s internet connection and stopped his access to visitors at the Ecuador embassy. 
Assange was awarded the 2019 Dignity Prize by The Catalan Dignity Commission for his efforts during the 2017 referendum. 

Reasons for adding the text are:

1. Assange received an award for his work
2. His work had severe consequences for him - loss of internet and visitors
3. This is his page. It is about him including work he has done.

Burrobert (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well form a start "Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped." is what the source says it does not say this was due to Spanish pressure. The Award is not (as far as I know) a major award.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the standing of the award the source says “has not stopped him winning a major award”.

Yes I cheated by saying that Spain’s pressure caused assanges internet and visitors to be stopped. The source doesn’t say this explicitly but does imply it by saying “Assange’s support for the democratic process led to a backlash from Spain sparking concerns within Ecuador’s government. Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped”. I don’t think he Ecuadorian government ever confirmed that the two things were linked though there are sources which speculate that there was a connection. This part of the text can be amended to say something like Spain expressed its displeasure to the Ecuadorian government about assanges activities” which can be sourced to say this guardian article if the news.com.au article isn’t enough.

I should comment that the fact that assanges actions around the Catalan referendum created an international situation between Spain and Ecuador adds to the significance of assanges actions.

Burrobert (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it could have a brief mention, but not its own section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert, Jack Upland, and Slatersteven: I think this definitely needs to be mentioned in Assange's biography, but shouldn't have its own section. -Darouet (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to also not involve "cheating" and must accurately reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: great. I'm sure we can come up with text everyone's happy with. I suspect that Burrobert's use of the word "cheating" may reflect some linguistic or translational barriers. If you read the opening paragraphs of these Guardian and News.au articles [9][10], you'd probably agree, Steven, that the text Burrobert added approximately follows what the sources write. Because the Guardian article notes that Ecuador's decision was based on multiple factors, and because I agree we should always be cautious, what do you think about this text instead?

In January 2020, the Catalan Dignity Commission awarded Assange its 2019 Dignity Prize for what it described as Assange's role in supporting the Catalan people during the 2017 Catalan independence referendum[11]. Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government and increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government.[12][13]

I'd propose adding this to the end of "Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy" section, right after the CNN paragraph. It seems related, since it concerns Assange's political activity while at the Embassy. Let me know if you suggest something different. Also happy to hear your thoughts Jack Upland. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: does my text address your concern that the sources were not properly represented? -Darouet (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I still think this is undue, but even if we have it, the stuff about the Ecuadorian government needs attribution, it may not be a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it doesn't need attribution since the president of Ecuador stated "We do not want to intervene under any circumstances with respect to Catalonia... We have reminded Mr Assange that he has no reason to interfere in Ecuadorian politics..." [14]. However I suppose there's always room for interpretation there. How about "Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government, and according to The Guardian increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government."? There are other sources as well but The Guardian is probably strongest. -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This Guardian article suggests the Internet was cut off because he intervened in a dispute between Britain and Russia. If we are going to mention this Internet cut-off, I think we should just stick with the Ecuadorian government's statement that it was concerned about him interfering with other countries.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: agreed - which is why my proposed text only states that Assange's position / actions regarding Catalonia increased tension (as per the source). -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support adding in a neutral way. Jack's proposed text looks fine to me. No full section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Repetitive headings

Currently we have two headings following each other: Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy and Asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Previously, the second heading has been "Later years in the Ecuadorian embassy" or "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy", but editors keep changing back. Is there a consensus for an alternative, or is repetition OK?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would combine them into one heading: "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would make a big section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We cannot insinuate "asylum" for a fugitive wanted for rape and conspiracy, now charged with espionage, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We already have!--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs fixin'. These articles must be NPOV. Fanboy and Original Research stuff needs to be weeded out. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I have taken a quick look at the whole article. It's almost bad enough to blow it up and start from scratch. It's full of editors' insertions of Assange's own discredited narratives and deprecation of the facts reported by RS and supported by national and international law. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fact that Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. It is also a fact that he was on bail facing extradition to Sweden. That's why I added "Breaching bail" to the first heading, to clarify the situation. I think there is nothing wrong with using "asylum" in a heading, but we have to avoid presenting a false narrative which simply says Assange was facing a US indictment for his work with WikiLeaks and so he sought asylum, in other words, presenting Assange as a martyr. I agree that there is too much of Assange's own narrative here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well like many criminals, he claimed he was a victim of political persecution. The British for their own reasons did not enter the Embassy and seize him, but they could have. Why Ecuador went along with the charade is another question. The Brits could have grabbed him. If he'd tried to flee, they would have. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Truish, but so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So the narrative that he's a fine lad, a journalist threatened and persecuted for political reasons other than his criminal acts, reflects neither RS reports nor the facts. It needs to be way way toned down and editors should not push that propaganda and its false narrative from some self-appropriated righteous stance. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I've replied to that straw man above. He claimed he was hanging out there for "asylum" and the governments who needed to bring him to justice declined to press the issue by entering to extract him. The Ecuadorans finally got sick of it and we know the rest. It's like you going to the bus station and claiming asylum there. The authorities might let you stay for a long time, but that doesn't mean they waive their right to extract you. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In which part and in which way is What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. a "straw man"? What actually does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? - Ryk72 ^talk 23:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I just explained that immediately above. This did not fit the definition of asylum. He was not under political persecution. He was under indictment. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address, directly or indirectly, either of the questions that I asked. But, insofar as it is a comment on what article content should be ... got source? - Ryk72 ^talk 00:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ecuador Grants WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Political Asylum". I'm not "insinuating" anything. It is a fact that Ecuador granted Assange political asylum in August 2012. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the question of whether he got asylum is like the question whether he is a criminal. Perhaps he shouldn't have been given asylum; perhaps he shouldn't have been convicted. But our opinions don't change the facts. Two jurisdictions collided, and we should acknowledge both.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Has anyone got a response to my original question?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There have been no further responses, so I have made my own changes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I would merge to one section. The nonsense above about asylum is POV pushing, as it asylum was used in the majority of sources. Agree Jack, doesn't make sense to repeat the section headings. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That would make a big section. Previously, the two sections were divided because the information about the Democratic Party was inserted between the two. Now the article is out of chronological order. My preference would be to have two sections because I think it is easier to navigate. Alternatively, we could create more subsections.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are just talking about the time at the embassy, subsections would be better in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the time in the embassy. I can see we could have a subsection, "Applying for asylum and breaching bail", but after that the only way that I can see to divide it up would be chronologically, for example 2012-2016, 2017-2019. Do you have any suggestions?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am good with chronology. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Jtbobwaysf: I think the changes you made Jack are fine. As I've written previously I also think we need to condense down the 2016 election publications material: maybe less than what I'd done previously, to please all parties, but the section headings and text are currently bloated compared to the rest of the article. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: I support your proposal to condense the 2016 elections, I suggest by half of current text. A summary would be fine, this is a BLP after all, not a history of the 2016 elections, which there are whole articles for. A lot of this section is POV pushing that Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks influenced the election. Neither of these allegations are proven and thus WP:NOTCOURT applies. Better to just summarize it so it isnt the weight issue that it is today. I guess most it duplicated from other the wikileaks and other 2016 election articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

90's travel

The following paragraph has been just reverted with rather obscure justification "We do not need a list of everything he has ever done"[15]. Certainly we don't have to list everything he has done but frequent travel to Eastern Europe and Russia in 90's is certainly a relevant information in a biography of someone accused of supporting Russian foreign policy in 2000's. The paragraph is also very well-sourced, by both Assange's interview and autobiography:

In 90's Assange visited Russia and developed interest for Russian literature, mentioning Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak and Dostoyevski as his favorite authors, as well Soviet children cartoons. After release from prison, between 1996 and 1998, he started traveling worldwide, visiting Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Irtkutsk and Beijing.

Cloud200 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What does this tell us, its just a facotd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with it. The main problem with this article is excessive wikileaks content and a lack of biographical content on the subject. This summary seems ok as it points to the subject's interest in a summarized way. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"After release from prison"? We have had extensive discussions on this, and everyone has agreed he did not go to prison in the 1990s. The fact that he visited Russia does not imply he supports the Russian government. In the interview he is very critical of Putin.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph nowhere alleges his support for Putin. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on this wording because from legal point of view "arrest" or "custody" is not the same as "prison sentence" even if he was locked under guard. Let's just leave "Between 1996...". Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I support its inclusion. It is not unusual for a bio to contain this type of personal information. I can only verify the first sentence as I don't have access to the autobiography. Burrobert (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

You do have. The book is available on Google Books[16] with the relevant fragment in the beginning of Chapter 7. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

it seems that he only spent a few days in each city during a roughly 5 week trip. Was that his only overseas travel? If so would it be better to remove the cities and mention the countries he visited instead? The book has some other interesting information such as his study of maths and physics at Melbourne Uni that would be worth including here. Burrobert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of mentioning a five week trip. It's pretty clear from all the sources, he didn't go to prison. He was not held in custody prior to his trial in 1996 and didn't get a prison sentence. If anyone has any other information, please let us know. Prison time is more significant than overseas travel.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It was not a tourist trip. He clearly mentions the purpose was to meet with fellow hackers. Not many Australians travel to places such as Irkutsk just to meet some people they knew online. Another part of the autobiography also mentions Assange meeting people from Chaos Computer Club in Germany, both of which are closely related to Assange's presence in the hacker community but not even mentioned in the current version of the article. This is precisely the kind of background information you find in people's biographies. Cloud200 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if it's couched in terms of the meeting the global hacker community, then it should be included. (So long as it's accurate...)--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and if he just went on a college tour of europe, we dont need to list the countries one by one. Also agree the above comments that there might be other good information in the book as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think some of this could be included, if attributed to Assange's autobiography. It does certainly seem that meeting people from the Chaos Computer Club would be important in an Assange biography. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

interview to Melzer by de:Republik_(Magazin)

Other than on german language ( www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange ), the UN relator Nils Melzer interview by de:Republik_(Magazin) is also in english language:

www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

And there is another (english language) source about this:

www.swissinfo.ch/eng/un-torture-investigator_assange-being-set-up-to-be--burned-at-the-stake-/45530514

--5.170.47.204 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

5.170.47.204 and Da Vinci Nanjing have been adding "According to Melzer Assange's Layers contacted him in December 2018 and sent him documents related to allegations of rape in Sweden.". Can either of you explain what the relevance of this is? According to the source, the lawyers asked him to intervene in Dec 2018, and contacted him a second time in March 2019 and that's when they sent him documents. How does that matter to the article? Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the Da Vinci reasons, and also why he posted only the german language link instead that (only) the english language link; but i'm according with him ("The interview with Mr. Melzer is a lot to comprehend, I will go on with it asap") that in this source there is a lot of relevant about all the Assange current-story.
By the way, the Da Vinci edit was deleted not because was not relevant, but with (different) wrong reasons: "Not a mainstream source"; also swissinfo.ch is not a mainstream source, now?
...so please stay tuned to this (the deletion of Da Vinci edit was wrong motivated), not inventing different reject-reason. --5.170.47.204 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not clear on the bit about the source, ignoring that. I get there's a lengthy interview with Melzer, but anything from the interview added to the article has to be pertinent and relevant. And honestly, adding that the lawyers sent him papers is pointless. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree: it seems pointless. And we have way too much about Melzer.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the current material relating to Nils Melzer in the article, which relates largely to allegations of torture, should be condensed. However, there is a lot of material in the Republik interview which should affect the contents of the article: contradictions of the version of events given by news organisations, including detail about Assange's rebuffed approaches to the Swedish police; allegations of malpractice by the Swedish police and authorities including changing a statement and leaking material to the press; moves by the Americans to "deluge Assange with all kinds of criminal cases for the next 25 years"; the previous handing of two men over to the CIA without any legal proceedings; the disappearance of Assange's laptops from locked luggage during an SAS flight to Berlin; confirmation that pressure was applied by the British to stop the Swedes from dropping the case; failure of the British and Swedes to co-operate with Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, by their response to his questions.     ←   ZScarpia   10:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)   (12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC): extended comment after Burrobert's response below)

Yes I agree the interview put a lot of information together. Some of the information appears to be new and is available to Melzer because of his position and standing. Burrobert (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it, or is it because he was fed it by Assanges Lawyers (which seems to be implicated).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That Melzer received some documents from Assange’s lawyers is not implied (if that is what you mean), it is stated openly - “They sent me a few key documents and a summary of the case”. He also says he has all the documents from the Swedish investigation including emails, and text messages and is able to read the original documents in Swedish. Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

So? The cal,im is his claims must be authoritative because of who he is. But do we know which of his claims are based on the lawyers documents and which on the Swedish polices (who would not be allowed to discuss the case with the press, so could not contradict him).Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no case in Sweden as the investigation has been dropped. If someone on Melzer's standing were to misrepresent documents or invent facts then it is almost certain that the relevant authority in Sweden would defend itself by providing a statement of some sort. Melzer makes a number of claims about the Swedish prosecution that are quite serious. No authority would let those claims stand uncontested if they were false. As far as I am aware the relevant Swedish authority has not disputed Melzer's claims in any form, even to say it disagrees but cannot discuss the matter. For our purposes all we have is Melzer's analysis and silence from the other end. Burrobert (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea about Sweden but in the UK confidentiality extends even after a case is dropped.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As a representative of the United Nations, it's Melzer's job to report on the legality and circumstances of Assange's case, and the implications for press freedoms more broadly. Melzer is doing that. It's our job to present what Melzer has stated, without converting his statements into fact without further corroboration, and without trying to discredit him as if we were prosecutors in the case against Assange. I agree with ZScarpia and Burrobert that some of this material is both relevant and can be presented in the article neutrally. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

He is also only one person, whose views are be given way to much prominence in an article not about him. No it is not out job to present his views,It is our job to present an article about Julian Assange. No we should not try to discredit him as if we were prosecutors in the case against Assange, but nor should we act in the opposite way and give too much coverage to attempts to defend him as if we were his defense council in the case for Assange. IN fact in can be argued that as the case in Sweden has been dropped anything relating to that is now largely irrelevant to Mr assagnes story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Put any relevant information in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include contents from the German language interview and point out where there may be any conflicts with what the press has reported. Verbatim from an expert is reliable for WP. Statements made by this expert should be deemed more reliable when taken verbatim than quotes from so called RS, that may have a POV on this issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What is he an expert in? What is he being used as an expert for?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jack's idea of putting information in the article Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. There is more scope for adding detailed information about the rape investigation from Melzer's analysis there and at the moment Melzer's name does not appear at all. I also think the important points or a summary of them can be included in the current article. Something along the lines of "Using his access to emails, text messages and other documents from the Swedish investigation, Nils Melzer made a number of criticisms of the investigation and claimed that Sweden was never interested helping the two women or in finding the truth but deliberately left Assange in limbo for nine years without a chance to defend himself". Of course Melzer's analysis included other parts of the story, such as the actions of the British justice system. Perhaps a similar approach would work. The various Arbuthnot articles may be a good place to include the detail of this information and perhaps a suitable summary could be included in Assange's article. Burrobert (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He is (at best) an RS in the area of his expertise, what is his area of expertise?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent developments

Assange was recently released from solitary confinement in the medical wing at Belmarsh prison and placed in a wing where he can interact with other prisoners. It seems that this was as a result of the intervention of other prisoners who found Assange's treatment appalling and wrote to the governor. It has been mentioned in a number of places and WikiLeaks Ambassador Joseph Farrell has made a statement that it is a breakthrough. One of the sources had this quote "Julian is finally released from solitary in Belmarsh because the other prisoners in the prison were appalled by his treatment and took up action on his behalf. A small victory for basic humanity – and it took criminals to teach it to the British state."

On 3 February The Guardian published an article by Roy Greenslade who wants to organise a statement by British editors opposing Assange's extraditon before the hearing starts.

Burrobert (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is according to The Guardian. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Roy Greenslade mentions solitary confinement. It's just another opinion piece calling Assange a hero. Associated Press has picked up the story about Assange being released from solitary, but the source is Wikileaks...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126322565001
"Julian Assange removed from solitary confinement" (25/01/2020)
--5.170.47.12 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 5.170.47.12 that is a good catch. The article states that "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been moved out of solitary confinement and into a wing with other inmates at Belmarsh prison near London. The breakthrough occurred after his legal team and three petitions by inmates said his treatment was unjust and unfair". No mention of Wikileaks as the source. I think we can accept that this is what happened. Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and Assange - detour around the First Amendment

FAIR has published an article ‘’These are new tactics being employed to silence journalism’’ which compares the Assange and Greenwald prosecutions.[17] Here is one quote referring to an op-ed by James Risen in the New York Times:

Well, James Risen had an op-ed in the New York Times saying that Greenwald's case, and that of Julian Assange—also charged with aiding his source, Chelsea Manning, to access a military database—that “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” And what I thought was also interesting, was Risen says governments like Bonsonaro’s and Donald Trump's “seem to have decided to experiment with such draconian antipress tactics by trying them out first on aggressive and disagreeable figures.”

What do editors think about a brief section providing commentary about the similarities between the two cases? Burrobert (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll revise a bit

James Risen stated in op-ed in the New York Times that Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, both charged with aiding sources, are “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” 

I think this is a bit more neutral. The POV editors wont like it anyhow, so we have to see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: we can't have every bit of commentary about Assange, and this is nothing new. What we need is summaries, not quote farms.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Been saying that for ages.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Council of Europe sides with Julian Assange

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the 28th of January asked the State members to support Assange, 'cause his detention is a detrimental to press freedom; also UK representants asked for this.

independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/council-of-europe-declares-support-for-julian-assange,13565

www.assangecampaign.org.au/council-of-europe/

assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en

--5.170.47.185 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes 5.170.47.185 we do have a sentence about this under "Other reactions": "In January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to oppose Assange’s extradition to the US". Burrobert (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Nils Melzer's statement on Assange's ability to leave the embassy.

The consensus is to exclude the material for being undue weight.

Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Should the following text be added to the section International Courts and the United Nations?

Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said Assange was as free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy "as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool". 

Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes include the text. My views are in an earlier inconclusive discussion on this talk page. Melzer's statement is in response to other statements which suggested Assange was free to leave the embassy at any time. Burrobert (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• No: we already have too many quotes from Melzer. This isn't necessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. It does not meet WP:DUE, and the source cited is unproven at best. KyleJoan^talk 11:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. If you want that information, you can just say Melzer disputed the statements that suggest Assange was free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

allegations

@Jack Upland: you reverted an edit by Nishidani that looked interesting. Your summary was that it was "too POV," and that is not a valid justification for revert. I didnt revert your revert (yet) as I think we also need better RS for this type of statement. Nishidani, do you have any other sources that support these claims? Specifically was Assange charged with rape when only one woman had alleged it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be good to work Melzer's analysis into the article in some form. It should be attributed to Melzer unless further sources come forward confirming his analysis. We have been discussing his interview in a previous topic above. There was a suggestion that we include a summary of Melzer's analysis and put the details in the article about the case. I suggested as a summary "Using his access to emails, text messages and other documents from the Swedish investigation, Nils Melzer made a number of criticisms of the investigation and claimed that Sweden was never interested helping the two women or in finding the truth but deliberately left Assange in limbo for nine years without a chance to defend himself". Burrobert (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever, the revert was inanely incompetent. I corrected the allegation that two women denounced him for rape because an impeccable source, written by one of the world's foremost experts in torture, Nils Melzer, corrected the systemic misreporting of the facts. That is not POV pushing. The text is in error, sincde what newspapers reported at the time has turned out to be flawed, after alòl relevant police reports werer examined by an international jurist, for chrissake. The Upland fellow thinks that a newspaper report contemporaneous with the event is more valid than an eminent legal scholar's review of the primary evidence, in the original language (Swedish), where he writes:

Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.

On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.

Use attribution by all means, even if, unlike all the newspaper reports, this one was written by a professional lawyer who actually read all of the official Swedish documentation. A lot of this article has defects reflecting dated journalistic meme reproduction. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Jack Upland: both of you are highly reasonable editors and I think there's a way of adding specific information — that SW did not accuse Assange of rape, and that tabloids misrepresented this — in a manner that is brief and more neutral. For instance Nishidani, the word "whatsoever" is over the top and does not need to be used to convey this information, per Upland's concern. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Darouet's comments, this needs to be presented more neutrally in the article. If Sweeden's position was misrepresented in the early press and now it is corrected, will state it as such. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Competence means not dragging editors into pointless talki page discussions by making a revert that, were the edit summary reasonable, would suggest the complaining editor remodulate the contested edit to suit perceived NPOV issues. But the gravamen here is that I fixed per WP:BLP a patent error, since the articles at the time reported what is now known to be a misrepresentation, simply by adding that the story of two rape complaints was what newspapers at the time reported. This is elementary, very basic. Reverting instead of using commonsense is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An expert on torture does not make them an expert on Rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Slater, these statements are contrary to fact and totally unproductive here. Melzer's short bio is available at the UN website [18], where it is explained that

Prof. Nils Melzer is the Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He is also Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow. On 1 November 2016, he took up the function of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Prof. Melzer has served for 12 years with the International Committee of the Red Cross as a Legal Adviser, Delegate and Deputy Head of Delegation in various zones of conflict and violence. After leaving the ICRC in 2011, he held academic positions as Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (University of Zürich), as Swiss Chair for International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Academy)... Prof. Melzer has authored award-winning and widely translated books, including: "Targeted Killing in International Law" (Oxford, 2008, Guggenheim Prize 2009), the ICRC's "Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities" (2009) and the ICRC's official handbook "International Humanitarian Law - a Comprehensive Introduction" (2016), as well as numerous other publications in the field of international law.

In other words, he's one of the world's most respected human rights lawyers, and in that capacity he is qualified to comment on all aspects of Julian Assange's case. It is also his mandate at the United Nations. -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

His "mandate" from the UN is to report on what he think is torture. His area of expertise appears to be humanitarian law, not rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If the magazine Republik [19] reports on Melzer's legal opinions regarding Assange's case, per our policies editors here can edit the article to include that commentary. Do you have a news article stating that Melzer is unreliable regarding Assange's case in Sweden? -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Melzer is very pro-Assange, and Republik states, "Its purpose is to criticize the powers that be".[20] My concern was about neutral wording. A while ago I suggested that we have more information about this issue, which has been pivotal in Assange's life, but I was knocked back. Now that there is a source which supports Assange on this issue, the attitudes seem to have changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this is just the sort of content this article needs. Way too much content right now on the elections (really wikileaks opinion of it and maybe participation in it) and way too little content on Assanges life. Given that Assange has and probably will spend the majority of his life in some sort of dungeon, it is notable what notable people say about Assanges choices and the consequences. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Melzer is very pro-Assange": Melzer has publicly stated that he actually had a very negative impression of Assange before he began investigating the case, not that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether his views should be noted. As for the notability of Melzer's commentary, I'd like to bring something new to the attention of editors here. A group of 130 very prominent German politicians, journalists and artists recently issued an appeal for Assange's release, and they prominently cited Melzer. This appeal is kind of a big deal in Germany, given that it was authored by one of Germany's most famous investigative journalists, and signed by a former Foreign Minister, a former Interior Minister and politicians from most of the major political parties. I added a short, solidly-sourced description of this appeal to the article, but it was reverted a few minutes later on the basis of the compelling argument, "So what?" It's apparently back now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack above. I.e. Melzer is very anti-torture, in line with international law, and the legal systems and practices of most democracies. That means he is doing the job he was appointed toi carry out, and when I used his 2008 book here in several articles unrelated to Assange, no one stepped in to personalize it by saying his defense of victims of torture means he is opposed to the countries that practice them. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• By the way, with regard to the Swedish allegations, this much of this material is not new, but was aired 10 years ago.[21]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

melzer interview about assange on german television ZDF

melzer interview about assange by german television ZDF:

consortiumnews.com/2020/02/06/ray-mcgovern-german-tv-exposes-the-lies-that-entrapped-julian-assange/

Der Tagesspiegel: www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/schweden-lehnt-kommentar-ab-wie-un-experte-melzer-wikileaks-gruender-assange-entlastet/25517070.html

--5.170.44.52 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with the source. But, it reads like a conspiracy rag. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely not the ZDF or the Tagesspiegel. Those are excellent sources. I'm not familiar with Consortium News. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Of note: the Tagesspiegel article also discusses the public appeal by 130 prominent Germans:

Support for Julian Assange, imprisoned in Great Britain: After a UN expert has just exculpated the Wikileaks founder and made serious accusations about his arrest, broad protest is now being organised. More than 130 personalities from politics and culture have signed an appeal for the release of Assange. -Der Tagesspiegel

I didn't choose this article, but it covers the public appeal. The fact that a random article on Melzer mentions the appeal is a sign of the how much coverage it's getting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That article shows why nobody takes Melzer's exaggerated and ignorant claims seriously. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

..can you please quote the sentences (both original german language and translation to english you made), where is showed what you say? --5.170.46.207 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The article actually states the opposite, as the passage I quoted above shows. Some of the most prominent people in Germany have come out in support of Melzer's assessment. SPECIFICO is giving you their own personal assessment, not the Tagesspiegel's assessment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

..well, in really, SPECIFICO wiki user don't tell "to me" his opinion: he's leading on bad way the edit of this article, by his totally wrong assumptions (see how "nobody" takes Melzer's seriously: "assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en" 6.2.), his personally Melzer bad opinion.
It's ok to wait for SPECIFICO reply on that, but - at the time - i think is better if he will be banned from edit this article, and he will become considered not relevant here in the talk, about decisions about how to edit the article. --5.170.47.67 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not an article about German punditry. Germany fans are entitled to their enthusiasms, but not to put POV text in Assange's biography here. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply; so you have nothing right on theme to reply, and you can only change the talk pointing on other (invented) things? --5.170.47.67 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Appeal by Prominent Germans

The recent appeal by over 130 prominent Germans is manifestly DUE. When perhaps the most famous investigative journalist in Germany writes an appeal calling for Assange's release, which is signed by politicians from across the major parties (including former government ministers, alongside many members of the Bundestag and European Parliament) and dozens of journalists, and this receives coverage across the German press, then it's clearly an event that warrants mention in the article. I added two short sentences about it: [22]. SPECIFICO immediately reverted me ([23]) and commented "So What?" ([24]). I find this flippant response troubling, as I suspect many other editors here will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All well and good. But, there are a lot of countries. It's hard to see how Germany figures into this. O3000 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"It's hard to see how Germany figures into this." To answer your own question O3000 you could consider reading the articles that are the subject of this discussion [25][26][27][28]. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Remain calm, Thucydides411. I did not revert you. Just your article text. In a nutshell it's primary source and cherrypicked. We have these things come up in the US-related articles on Donald Trump -- 600 attorneys say this, 200 clerics say that, 300 doctors say whatnot. It's all primary-sourced and unless there were something very noteworthy about this, I can think of dozens of other assessments of Assange that belong in the article before this kind of thing. Not sure about the "prominent German" expression either -- is that a "thing"? SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources used in the text you've contested are primary sources [29][30][31][32]. When you write it's "cherrypicked" what do you mean? Usually that phrase implies a source is misrepresented. Here, you're saying you'd like us to ignore this and write about other things. What other things would you like placed in the article? If you were notable enough to have a biography, 130 prominent German figures made an appeal on your behalf, and major German papers covered their appeal, that would certainly go in your biography. Every argument of substance you've made here - primary sources, cherrypicking - is simply untrue. -Darouet (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to find a way to deal with these expressions of a support in a succinct way: two sentences on prominent Germans, three sentences on Comrade Pamela Anderson, 11 paragraphs on Melzer... where will it end?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: When reliable sources stop writing about them? -Darouet (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point there's been enough campaigning on Assange's behalf, there could easily be an article titled "Campaign to free Julian Assange." There's no reason to write that article because all the material is plainly within the WP:SCOPE of his bio here. -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for a POV fork. If we start including "free Julian Assange" statement as valid content for this article, we would need to assess its relative significance vs. the opposite POV, which I suspect dwarfs anything in his favour. It's primary in the sense that you are relying on the notability of the folks who signed the letter rather than the noteworthiness of the letter itself when you assert this is significant and deserves inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability is determined by reliable sources, and we have them in abundance here. It's unclear what other metric you're asking for. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Notability" has nothing to do with it. DUE WEIGHT is the question, and your sourcing is weak. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, if you think this is a DUE issue, what's your analysis of this issue? The Deutsche Welle is one of Germany's most important national and international papers, and states that

"The letter's signatories include famous German investigative journalist Günther Wallraff, former Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Austrian winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, Elfriede Jelinek."

[33]

The Evening Standard [34] writes that

The German appeal, which is supported by Reporters Without Borders Germany, as well as members of Amnesty International, Transparency International, the German Journalists’ Union (dju), the Whistleblower Network and the writers’ association PEN-Germany, calls on the British Government to “release Julian Assange from prison immediately so that he can recover under specialist medical supervision and exercise his basic rights without hindrance”.

Another major paper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, writes [35] that

The conditions under which the 48-year-old is being held in the Belmarsh maximum security prison have long been criticized... The behavior of Sweden, which has now closed its case against Assange, is also being questioned by the UN... Well-known supporters of the whistleblower turned to the public in Berlin on Thursday. Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff, ex-foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, ex-interior minister Gerhart Baum and left-wing Bundestag MEP Sevim Dağdelen called for the federal press conference to release Assange from prison immediately. This was preceded by a public appeal from 130 politicians, artists and journalists, including the writers Eva Menasse and the PEN Center, which appeared on Thursday in full-page in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

The FAZ is arguably Germany's biggest paper, and the SD its second.

This seems like a relatively significant event, given the broad support behind the appeal. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here for your view. There are millions of famous people and opinionated people in the world, some of them German. That doesn't mean their personal opinions are significant to the life story of Assange. If this is being discussed a month from now in the mainstream media, not just a few German publications, let's revisit your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A good inclusion and I support it. We should include information as it appears in reliable sources. If a person or organisation stands up to defend Assange's treatment or prosecution then we can include their view too. It doesn't seem to be happening though. Burrobert (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Germany is not party to any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thucydides411, given the power of the cult of Assange, it's not especially difficult to come up with a collection of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. Demonstrate significance by reference to third party coverage beyond the initial press release. Guy (help!) 09:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, according to WP:ONUS, reliable sources do not mandate inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you're comparing 130 of Germany's most prominent figures, including perhaps its most famous investigative journalist, a recent leader of one of the two major parties (he was foreign minister, which is the second most important position in the German government), numerous members of the Bundestag and European Parliament, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and cultural figures, to random people who write letters to newspapers. I don't have to explain why this comparison is absurd. In case you're not moved to click on Sigmar Gabriel's Wikipedia page, I'll cite a small extract, which should make the absurdity of your comparison obvious:

Sigmar Hartmut Gabriel (born 12 September 1959) is a German politician who was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2017 to 2018 and Vice-Chancellor of Germany from 2013 to 2018. He was Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from 2009 to 2017, which made him the party's longest-serving leader since Willy Brandt. He was the Federal Minister of the Environment from 2005 to 2009 and the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy from 2013 to 2017. From 1999 to 2003 Gabriel was Minister-President of Lower Saxony.

This appeal is manifestly significant to Assange's biography, based both on who signed it and the press coverage it has received. It's obviously going to be included in the article. No valid reasons have been given above for excluding it. The only question is if there are any suggestions to improve the wording I gave. I think I wrote a concise, neutral description of the appeal. If there are no suggestions to improvement or valid complaints (beyond comparing Sigmar Gabriel and Günter Wallraff to random malcontents who write to their local newspaper, or falsely claiming that secondary coverage in the Süddeutsche Zeitung or Tagesschau constitutes a primary source), I'll add the material back in shortly. In the meantime, I welcome any suggestions to improve the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your text seems fine to me and, at two sentences long, is the right length. Burrobert (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Most prominent? {{citation needed}}. See also appeal to popularity. Guy (help!) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Under any reasonable definition of "prominent," the long-time Vice Chancellor, leader of the 2nd largest political party, and foreign minister of Germany is one of the "most prominent" people in Germany. Reading appeal to popularity, I see

an argumentum ad populum [...] is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it

I'm not arguing that the appeal is correct. I'm pointing out that it's notable, because of the people who signed it and the coverage it has received. "Appeal to popularity" does not apply here.

I still don't see any policy-based or logical objections to the proposed text. I still welcome any suggestions for improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, your comment is not responsive to the concerns several editors have raised to demonstrate that the text you added was invalid. "Notable" - ??? - aren't we past that one yet? Please review the thread, check the related policies and guidelines, and share your analysis with reference to PAGs and sources, if you still believe this is appropriate article text. Insistence and repetition is not going to move things forward. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, have you tried citing sources covering this beyond the original press releases? That might be persuasive in a way your hectoring is not. Guy (help!) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't cited any press releases. I cited a number of secondary sources in major, reliable news outlets. It's pretty obvious that this material belongs in the article. It's an appeal by a large group of some of the most prominent people in Germany, which has gotten significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources.

There really is no reason for this much argument about such a straightforward addition to the article. The vehemence with which you and SPECIFICO have opposed it is really puzzling. Just as puzzling are the nonsensical objections being made. SPECIFICO has been pretending not to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. You've been comparing the former foreign minister of Germany to disgruntled nobodies who write letters to the local newspaper. I'm starting to get the impression that perhaps neither of you is interested in whether or not the material is DUE, well-sourced, relevant to the biography, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, see churnalism. Find sources from after the initial PR blitz. Lasting coverage would establish significance, in a way that the constant blitz of news noise around Assange does not. Guy (help!) 19:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: churnalism talks about "pre-packaged material" like "press releases [and] stories provided by news agencies" being substituted for original writing and reporting. Have you read the sources I cited? Two are original articles (Süddeutsche Zeitung Tagesschau), one is a news wire (Deutsche Welle). Other newspapers that have written original articles on the subject:

• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
• Die Tageszeitung
• Heise
• Bayerischer Rundfunk
• Der Tagesspiegel
• Deutsche Welle
• Evening Standard

The charge of "churnalism" doesn't hold. I'm seeing lots of original articles being written on the appeal. That's not surprising, given that some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany have signed on to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I fail to see how this development is so prominent that it needs to go into an biographical encyclopedia entry, or is due weight. I also see that there is clearly no consensus here favoring inclusion. I think Jack Upland is right that "we need to find a way to deal with these expressions of a support in a succinct way," and that this text is not that. Neutrality^talk 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's simple: 130 of the most prominent figures in Germany issued a public appeal for Assange to be freed. That appeal has been covered by numerous high-quality reliable sources. Assange is the subject of this article, so this event is obviously relevant to this article.

Since you've voiced a concern that the text is not succinct enough, perhaps you or Jack Upland can propose a more succinct wording. I'm sure we can find an agreeable wording for such a straightforward, well-sourced, obviously DUE addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your syllogism is not correct. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article." Neutrality^talk 19:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

But wide coverage of an appeal by 130 of the most prominent people in Germany does guarantee inclusion - and this will obviously be included in the article. Do you have any suggestions on how to make the wording more concise? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I disagree that the sources offered "guarantee inclusion." The fact is that Assange is a very famous figure, whom very many people have commented upon. Not everyone's opinions, appeals, statements, etc., must be included in this article, even if a newspaper happens to report them. If this particular appeal is actually biographically significant, then this will be borne out by some enduring coverage. This has not happened, and indeed I understand that this statement was made literally yesterday. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The appeal was made six days ago, not yesterday. I agree that not everyone's opinion on Assange is guaranteed to be included in the article, but a public appeal by over 130 of the most prominent people in a country of 80 million, which receives widespread news coverage, is guaranteed to be included.

You've expressed concern that the two sentences I wrote were too verbose. Can you propose a more concise wording before the text goes back in the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors are telling you that this bit is WP:UNDUE for this article. Don't pretend this is a different discussion -- about finding better wording. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like wording like: "After the medical report, prominent figures in Germany, Australia, and Swaziland called for his release". I don't think we have to go into a great deal of detail about everyone who makes a supporting comment about Assange, unless that comment actually leads to something, like him being released! Regarding the suggestion of including quotes from people attacking Assange, I don't think that's the way we want to go. We should document the state of play, not what the commentators say.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then what about 6 members of some football team or 23 members of the Pipefitters Union? The whole thing is UNDUE with no verification that it is relevant to the bio of Assange. It's like tweaking the wording on the flat earth or finding a succinct way to discuss dowsing in the climate change article. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Given the prominence of the various groups and individuals that have supported Assange's release from prison or opposed his extradition to the US, I think more than one sentence is DUE. Statements by UN Special Rapporteur for Torture Nils Melzer, for example, have generated a large amount of press coverage, and they should be given weight proportionate to that coverage. The same goes for other appeals on Assange's behalf, such as the Wallraff Appeal (by 130 prominent Germans). I'm open to thinking about how to better structure coverage of these statements in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Further on this point, I've already shown above that our article gives disproportionate attention to the US 2016 election, relative to coverage. I don't think the concern for concision is being applied equally across the article, since that portion of the article has expanded into something like 10 paragraphs, in a totally unwarranted fashion considering greater coverage of Assange prior to those elections, and current discussions about his extradition case.

It'd be reasonable to add at least one sentence on the German petition, in the section on UK and European reactions. I think we should also have a sentence on Corbyn [36]. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no support for putting this in the article. Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion. It's not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There are three editors supporting inclusion and 6 opposing. That means there's no consensus for inclusion, not "no support." The talk page is the place for discussion. It's also the place to bring specific sources, as I have done in my comment immediately above yours. Did you read the source I referenced? Why are you arguing I have no right to suggest the article note that Corbyn has opposed extradition? -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You really need to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Darouet, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion, but you're not allowed to argue for inclusion here, because there's NO SUPPORT. Is that clear?

But to be serious, there hasn't been any policy-based objection to the material I'm proposing, other than Jack Upland's concern that there is too much coverage, in general, of statements of support for Assange. Looking at the balance of coverage in the article, I don't agree with that assessment. We can discuss how to balance the article better, but in the meantime, it's inappropriate to block inclusion of a major event relating to Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, Assange's content is ok to add. We just need to deal with the way the sentence about the 130 people said something, sounds like a weight issue to me. Also this statement by Corbyn is certainly good to add. Darouet, please do a better job of summarizing and make things more neutral, I think you are just giving the POV editors ammunition to do a quick revert "so what" type of revert. These AP2 articles appear to be minefields, and the POV pushing on this article through WP:CIRCUS to exclude content from statement of Assange's supports is a sad POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Four editors commenting here want to add this information in some form, and six editors are opposed. That, and many reliable articles, certainly warrant discussion. Efforts to obstruct discussion or presentation of sources and proposal of text are unproductive and, I find, oddly disinterested in the topic at hand. -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it in this diff and reorged the words a bit to de-weight. If we can't find consensus here, I guess we need to do an RfC and maybe more editors will have a look. What is the issue with Corbyn? Is that content also blocked? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see three editors claiming that discussion is being obstructed but have seen no such obstruction. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

O3000, SPECIFICO asked me to stop writing about this topic twice in the last 24 hours, and less than 48 hours after discussion began:

[37] "Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion."

[38] "The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive."

Objective, you don't see this as a request, if not a threat, that this discussion should be terminated? -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, this entire discussion is getting bogged down in muck, the farther we stray from specific presentation and discussion of sourcing and text. If editors want to have larger metadiscussions about DUE WEIGHT and so forth, that's fine, but those discussions also need to be grounded in empirical evaluations of sources. Arguing about arguing is a monumental waste of time. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I see no "threat". I do see a suggestion that it's odd to discuss the text to be included when there is no consensus for inclusion of any text related to this thread. O3000 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Please don't start... time to move on" these are just suggestions? And the linking of WP:IDHT is not an accusation, with the potential for blocks or sanctions? If you're not sufficiently interested in the text or content to discuss its details, but will oppose its inclusion in any form on the basis of W:DUE, just write that. But don't ask other editors not to discuss it. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Is linking to WP:CIRCUS an accusation? O3000 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is. -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there's been sufficient discussion and presentation of sources to warrant an RfC, and have created one. -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Corbyn comments Feb 2020

Added this about Corybn's comments. I recall there was a second source, but I forgot to save it. I self reverted since I am unclear if this content has been challenged or not (seems like everything gets challenged here). Also used twitter a source for Corbyn's comment today, is WP:SELF ok WP:RS for a notable politician if it comes from his verified twitter account? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a sentence about Corbyn. What about just adding one more recent reference (I'd suggest either this [39] or this [40]) at the end of this sentence? If a reader is particularly interested in the topic they can read both references. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, found that other comment Added here and dropped the twitter quote, as there are already similar quotes. I did input the additional sentence in that it is required for Boris' response, and it seems Boris hasn't been mentioned yet here on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent?

The infobox states his political party is "Independent" which links to Independent politician. I'm not sure how meaningful this is. Independent politicians have a wide range of views. Has Assange backed anyone in particular? Do we need to mention his party allegiance in the infobox anyway? The Wikileaks Party was just a failure (or perhaps a stunt). This article doesn't mention what happened to it, which is another problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks Party says it was deregistered in 2015 "for the party's failure to respond to a notice under s.137(1)". I am not aware of Assange ever having any formal connection with any other party. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I meant to say that the article doesn't mention what happened with his bid for the Australian Senate. I have now rectified this. I don't think it's necessary to go into more detail about the party here, though the fact that he had his own party amply justifies the first sentence calling him an "activist". My question was really about "Independent".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And what is the wikileaks political party in the inbox as well... Probably both should be axed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, arguably, the fact that he set up his own political party is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is. It might be appropriate to have a small annotation indicating that the party no longer exists. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added some text about the fate of the party. I don't think we need a note.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed my mind and think the party info should also be included. Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looking into it, the party wasn't just a stunt. It garnered the support of some slightly prominent Australians. Assange was not just a candidate; he was on the National Council, as well as his father John Shipton and some of his friends. Even after his defeat, he was still arguing the party had a future. This is part of his life that this article has neglected.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

DW Documentary

DW (German public tv) has a documentary out today

Melzer content:

what we saw was that mr. assange was showing all the symptoms a person normally displays when subjected to psychological torture over a long period of time. -Melzer [41]

You can hear the quotes starting around 23:20 in the video. Obvious top shelf WP:RS that lends creedence to inclusion of the Meltzer content in the article, that is often justified to exclude. This documentary shows the view is picked up by mainstream press and given significant weight.

Also gives a lot of time to content about surveillance by the Spanish security firm UC Global and bugging of Assange's room. Notes that broadcasters NDR and WDR are in possession of internal documents from UC Global that details the surveillance. Asserts that this information was handed over to US intelligence.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What does this add we do not already know he thinks?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read justification above for excluding the Melzer content is that it is fringe or too german. This neutralizes those objections. I believe there is also other content that is useful as well that is not related to Melzer, such as the surveillance content. Nice to have a high quality mainstream english source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Err its still German, so no it does not nullify the objection this is not really all that relevant as Germany is not party to this case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DW english is mainstream enough. Is there a policy that states that German public TV is not an RS in this case? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, but that was not your argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a top shelf mainstream source that has some good biographic info on the article's subject, as well as the Melzer issue (the Melzer content doesn't seem to be the subject of the documentary). You can watch it if you are curious and then we can discuss the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Or you can tell me what it adds we do not already know? It does not matter if its the Pope (its that good a source), what matter is why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pope might be a primary source. It tells us that Melzer's view is getting mainstream coverage in high quality RS. Nothing groundbreaking here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, Melzer is Swiss, not German, but we have a lot of his comments in the article already. This adds nothing to what we already have. We also already have a section about the surveillance.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle is just one of many major news organizations that has reported on Melzer's assessment of Assange's health and his accusation that Assange is being persecuted for political reasons. Just in the last week, the following news organizations have reported on Melzer's views:

• Newsweek: [42]
• USA Today: [43]
• Al Jazeera: [44] [45]
• The Guardian: [46] [47]
• Deutsche Welle: [48]
• Norddeutscher Rundfunk: [49]
• Deutschlandfunk: [50] [51]

Note that these are just in the last week. If you go back longer than that, you find numerous articles in the New York Times, Le Monde, and many other papers. The articles over the past week show enduring coverage of Melzer's views. Given that enduring coverage, there should be once sentence in the lede about Melzer's views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. We have already included Melzer's views in the article. Last year we had a RfC which failed to get consensus to include his views in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we please stop strawmaning this, Melzer's views are in the article, and at some length. This is about the TV documentary, not Melzer's views.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Good sources that deserve use here

Is there any particular reason why these informative articles aren't used as sources?

• What the Latest Mueller Indictment Reveals About WikiLeaks' Ties to Russia—and What It Doesn't
• Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12 cyberoperatives for Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate for the General Staff (GRU) suggests that Assange was, at best, an unwitting accomplice to the GRU’s campaign to sway the U.S. presidential election in 2016, and allegedly even solicited the stolen Democratic correspondence from Russia’s military intelligence agency, which was masquerading as Guccifer 2.0. "

BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Structure again

The structure continues to be problematic. Assange's campaign to be elected to the Australian Senate in 2013 is in the "WikiLeaks" section, subsection "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". It isn't clear he was holed up in the embassy in London at that time. There is a huge chronological overlap between the "WikiLeaks" section and the sections relating to his time in the embassy. It seems arbitrary whether information is placed in the "Wikileaks" section or the embassy-related sections (for example, Assange's comments on Reality Winner). I don't think anyone would expect to find information about Assange's Senate bid under "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". Obviously a lot of Assange's notability is related to WikiLeaks, including his current imprisonment, but including it all in one section would create a huge and pointless section. I can see two options for improvement. Firstly, my preferred option, get rid of the "WikiLeaks" section, and concentrate on Assange's life, mentioning WikiLeaks when appropriate. Secondly, make the "WikiLeaks" section into an overview of the information published by WikiLeaks, and moving personal information about Assange elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree Jack, this info needs to be moved to wikileaks and we focus on the biography here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: we have been discussing this issue in general here. My position is that the entire wikileaks focus on this article needs a radical chop. The POV that Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks is assange is not supported in fact. I recall i saw this issued raised in the past on this talk page (maybe by me). What are the thoughts on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: My view is that Assange and WikiLeaks are very tightly connected. Assange founded WikiLeaks, and almost everything he is known for is bound up in some way with WikiLeaks. For that reason, it is appropriate for this article to focus heavily on WikiLeaks. As for how best to structure the article, I'll have to think about it further before making any proposals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions the indictment of his accomplices? SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Strike your comments about "accomplices" or I'll have to seek administrative action. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your problem with "accomplices"? Did Assange act alone? --Calton | Talk 08:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to my point above, see the Manual of style for biographies: In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Also, if Assange and Wikileaks are "very tightly connected", which I agree with, then it makes no sense to have a "WikiLeaks" section here. It's almost like having a "Julian Assange" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to move the article into a very rough chronological order, with regards to his time in the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Speaking about chronology, can editors avoid sentences like, "In 2019, Gotham Times revealed that Assange had met Pamela Anderson in 2014 and voiced his support for Scottish independence"? The date that a story is broken is rarely important and gets less and less important as time goes by. This is an article about Assange, not about media coverage of Assange. It is completely illogical to organise an article based on the date of the publication of the information we are cited. Please stop it!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Craig Murray sources

I think there is some relevant sources about USA extradition request cause on Mr. Craig Murray website, that need to be read, and rightly implemented in the article:

www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/

www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/

they are quoted on other internet place:

www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/24/pers-o24.html

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/british-state-destroying-assange

consortiumnews.com/2020/02/25/assange-extradition-your-man-in-the-public-gallery-day-no-1/

www.legrandsoir.info/compte-rendu-du-proces-assange-1er-jour.html

--5.171.0.17 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

not neutral. What does he say that is new?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

...the true? --5.171.0.17 (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean "the truth", if that is the case as the source admits Assange is his friend it would violate wp:primary. In addition it might well violate wp:undue (why is this mans opinion worthy of inclusion?). Also its not "the Truth" its his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

i'm sure you can quote more and more wikirules to oppose the sources here above. I quote you only one in reply: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
Maybe is new and relevant the strange location of the debatement, instead than Westminster, explained by Murray. There is a lot of fact new and relevant, in the Murray sources. So you have to say to yourself: "the problem is the wikiroules that I love a lot, if there is new relevant facts or not in Murray sources, or that i'm against Assange?" --5.171.0.17 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK give an example on one new fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note that no one need (or have a duty) to help you on open your eyes, or reply your questions. If you can't find by yourself new relevant fact in the 2 above sources from the Murray website, fact not reported at now in the Assange wikipedia article, try to read them all again. --5.171.0.108 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually yes you do, if I cannot verify what you claim to have seen you have to prove the source says it with quotes. What I have seen is him saying stuff other people have said, all that is new is him saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Craig Murray writes a blog, so it's not a good source to use here (despite the fact that it is the clearest daily account of the extradition hearing). Most of the major points from his blog that one might consider including in this article, however, are covered by regular news sources. The issue about Assange being separated from his lawyers during the proceedings, for example, has been covered by both Reuters ([52]) and The Guardian ([53]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue about Assange being separated from his lawyers during the proceedings, is not the major trouble. Who else talk about the abnormal court place, near the terrorists-jail instead that in Westminster, keep focus on how this is a "new rule" just for the "public enemy number one", the nerd-like Assange?
And what other source - what media - talk about the very incredible James Lewis declaration that sound like "any journalist and any publication that printed the official secret would therefore also be committing an offence, no matter how they had obtained it, and no matter if it did or did not name informants"? (this is from Murray "hearing-day-1" report, url here above); What the media "remember" from Lewis talk is only that they need not worry, as the Assange charges could never be applied to them (...);
...and about all this, I see that nothing appear on the "free encyclopedia" that wikipedia claim to be, because *now* is regulated (WP:don't-do-this, WP:don't-do-that, WP:say-nothing) to be a fake free-place, but is in really a "consensus factory", a mass media and mainstream resonance box, a perfect establishment-protector device --5.170.44.202 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum, so its hard to address this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Consortium News and Le Grand Soir pieces were written by Murray. The material looks good, but Murray's articles appear to qualify as primary sources because they are first-hand accounts not written by journalists from reliable publications. The best approach for including the information is to find reliable secondary sources that contain the same information in non-opinion pieces. They may have gotten the information from Murray's first-hand accounts, but that is OK because it will have gone through a filter checking the truthfulness of the information Murray provided. Websurfer2 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of these pop-up issues fail DUE WEIGHT and are forgotten by all but the partisan Assange fans. Typical of such situations, it's possible to point to RECENTISM and coverage in the press outlets, but they lack ongoing coverage or commentary to establish anything more than passing interest. News media report on events. It's not their job to make real-time evaluations of long-term significance such as would establish weight in an encyclopedia. Flash in the pan stories about minor events -- this one or the 150 Germans or the UN health guy -- are par for the course, but without anything to suggest they're DUE for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Talking about pop-up issues, what's happened to the Trump pardon story?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The information about the August 2017 meeting between Assange and Republican representative Dana Rohrabacher was provided by the defence in Assange’s extradition hearing. At that meeting, Trump reportedly said he’d offer Assange a pardon if he provided evidence that Russia did not hack the DNC emails. Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson subsequently confirmed the story and Hrafnsson explained that Assange rejected the offer. When Trump denied making the offer, Assange's defence barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC said “in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies [witness at the Stephen Ward trial]: ‘Well he would, wouldn’t he?’. Fitzgerald also said that this whole pardon business shows that, just as the prosecution was initiated in December 2017 for political purposes, so too the Trump administration [was] prepared to use the threat of prosecution as a means of extortion to obtain personal political advantage from Mr. Assange.

The information hasn’t disappeared and is before the court. It will be considered by the judge as part of her decision. Burrobert (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

On February 19, 2020, numerous sources revealed that lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates' Court that Trump had Dana Rohrabacher visit Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London on Aug. 16, 2017. There, he made a quid pro quo offer of a presidential pardon to Assange, in exchange for Assange covering up Russian involvement by declaring that "Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks": "[Lawyer] Edward Fitzgerald...said he had evidence that a quid pro quo was put to Assange by Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin's favorite congressman."

The RS describe how Trump wanted a public denial from Assange as part of a cover-up in exchange for a pardon, described by RS as a quid pro quo. (About as classic a quid pro quo as possible.) Assange actually did his part by denying very publically, but the pardon....? Maybe it'll come later. Part of the cover-up was Assange and Trump pushing the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RSF monitoring mission for Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing from 24-27 February 2020

Other on-site source on Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing from 24-27 February 2020, by RSF/Reporters Without Borders:

rsf.org/en/news/uk-legal-arguments-during-first-week-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-highlight-lack-us-evidence

--5.170.44.129 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to the article. It covers some of the same ground as Craig Murray's excellent daily reporting from the hearing and has some good insights such as:

The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 48th out of 180 countries on RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

(RSF) was concerned by the clear lack of evidence from the US for its charges against Assange. RSF also remains concerned about Assange’s wellbeing and inability to participate properly in his hearing, following reports of mistreatment at Belmarsh prison and the judge’s rejection of his application to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom.

In the course of the prosecution’s argument, it became clear that the US still has no evidence for its claim that Assange had put sources at “serious and imminent risk,” but are pursuing the charges based on the risks that he is accused of knowingly causing.

They outlined that Wikileaks had worked for months with a partnership of professional media organisations to redact the leaked documents. The defence explained that as redaction was in progress, one of the media partners had published a book containing the password to the unredacted dataset, which led to its access and publication by other parties. The defence outlined how Assange had attempted to mitigate any risk to sensitive sources by notifying the White House and State Department that publication outside of Wikileaks’ control was potentially forthcoming, imploring them to take action to protect the named individuals.

On day two, Assange’s lawyer reported that he had been mistreated at Belmarsh prison; after the first day of the hearing, he was strip-searched twice, handcuffed 11 times, moved holding cells five times, and had his legally privileged documents confiscated on entering and exiting the prison. The judge stated it was not a matter within her jurisdiction. On day four, she rejected his application to be allowed to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom when evidence is given in May, despite the fact that the prosecution did not object to the request.

Burrobert (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Other about this from Il Fatto Quotidiano :
www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/03/02/julian-assange-is-the-defendant-journalism-is-under-trial/5722796/
--5.170.44.254 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of RS content based on believing Trump's "fake news" claims

Jtbobwaysf just deleted content with one of the most bizarre edit summaries I've seen in a long time: " i think King Trump often refers to "obtained exclusively by CNN" as a fake news. regardless it is not reliable without more sources."

Trump is probably the least RS known, and CNN is definitely a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You have previously been warned on your talk page, and yet you've violated the DS sanctions again with this deletion. That content was "contested". Read the warning at the top of this talk page. I suggest you immediately self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This relates to the following:

On 15 July 2019, CNN obtained documents from an Ecuadorian intelligence official which confirmed that Assange continued to publish Wikileaks material while in the Ecuadorian embassy. The documents also revealed that during the 2016 election in the United States, Assange met with dozens of people within the Ecuadorian embassy. These included employees from RT, for which Assange regularly produced media content, and two German hackers.

I removed it because it doesn't tell us anything. We know that Assange was publishing for WikiLeaks. In fact, we devote considerable space to document this. Secondly we know that Assange met with people in the embassy. I'm sure that something useful could be dredged from this source, but these platitudes are worthless.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence deleted is uncited and uncited content can be challenged and deleted by any editor. A single source making inflammatory statements, even if it is CNN or King Trump, doesn't make it well enough sourced for controversial content. The sourcing policy should be obvious as should my making light of Trump (who is not a king as far as I know) should be pretty obvious. Maybe it would be better if we had a criticisms of Assange article to allow greater coverage. Then content like this could be added without much objection I suppose as it would be on topic. I'll create a section below to focus on the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You still violated the DS sanctions with your edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwayssf, there's no such exemption. Perhaps you're confusing that with a BLP violation, which is not pertinent to this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has now received an appropriate 36-hour Arbitration enforcement block for this refusal to self-revert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI I made the offending edit at 06:36 finished another edit on a different and unrelated article one minute later at 06:37 and went to sleep. I did not refuse to self revert. My edit was already reverted by Websurfer2 at 08:30. The next edit I made at 15:07 long after my edit had already been reverted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: after you blocked Jtbobwaysf for reinstating challenged material, @Calton: did the very same thing, adding back a block of opinion text to the article [54] that was only just added that day [55], but had been contested by reversion [56]. The text Calton restored has also been challenged on the talk page [57], and they have not attempted to defend it there. The added text is particularly egregious from a content perspective because it expands an already bloated article section with a block quote from an opinion piece that doesn't even receive in-text attribution (though there is a reference). As far as consensus and conduct are concerned however, Calton's addition goes against the sanctions on this page.

I asked Calton here on talk to self-revert [58] based on page sanctions, and they were also asked to do so on their talk page [59]. Calton continues to edit [60] and has ignored their DS violation. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus user actions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: is this addressed to me, or to other editors discussing conduct above? -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Its adressed to everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a continuing situation here where editors revert and fail to engage in a discussion on the talk page, or maybe they provide some nonsensical explanation on talk (such as I was making light of in my King Trump comment that got me a 36 hour ban). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Then take it to ANI, this is not the place to discuss user conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an ANI thread related to this article

There is currently a discussion at ANI relating to this article.See here. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)