Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

RfC about German appeal

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.

---

Recently, newspapers have described an appeal by 130 prominent figures in Germany for Assange to be released, citing their concern for a free press and the rule of law. Should we include this information in the article in some form?

• Option 1 Include two sentences in the article body, in the section Reactions to the US indictment. The proposed text is,

In February 2020, over 130 prominent German politicians, journalists and artists issued an appeal calling for Assange's release from prison, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health.(refs 1-5) Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff stated that the appeal aimed to defend whistleblowers and freedom of the press; former foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel argued that for Assange, the rule of law had been set aside for political reasons.(refs 3,5)

The references are 12345

• Option 2 Exclude this information from any location within Assange's biography.

Please present your views below. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 A briefer mention of this, for example:

In February 2020, over 130 German politicians, journalists and artists called for Assange's release, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health.

Per Jack Upland. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Option 1, two sentences in the article body, or as a second choice, Option 3 per Jack Upland. This appeal has received a lot of attention in the German press, and press coverage suggests that the appeal is WP:NOTABLE and highly relevant to Assange's case (and therefore, our biography).

For example, the Deutsche Welle, one of Germany's most important national and international papers, writes [1] 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."

The Evening Standard writes [2] 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 [3] that

The conditions under which the 48-year-old is being held in the Belmarsh maximum security prison have long been criticized... 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 SZ and FAZ are arguably Germany's biggest papers. I think that given these statements and this coverage, a modest two sentences in the article would be highly appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: reasons as previously discussed. Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 3 because clearly notable content AND clearly encyclopedic as relates to the subject of a BLP who is most notable for his incarceration. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Option 3: a briefer mention of this, such as "In February 2020, over 130 German politicians, journalists and artists called for Assange's release, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: the discussion below makes me think that this is much more complicated than the proposed text suggests. To explain it fully would require a larger slab of text, and I think that would be undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Guy (help!) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or second choice Option 3. Per JzG, after some basic research I could find little mention or discussion of this letter. It seems to be a passing mention that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Germany is not particularly relevant to the Assange situation. If it is to be mentioned at all, one brief sentence would do. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. There has been a large amount of coverage of this appeal in the German press. All the major newspapers (the FAZ [4], Süddeutsche Zeitung [5], Die Zeit [6], Die Tageszeitung [7], Tagesspiegel [8]) have written articles on it, and it's been covered by the major news channels (Tagesschau [9], ZDF [10], Phoenix [11] and Deutsche Welle [12]). A quick look at who has signed on to the letter shows some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany. Günter Wallraff is probably Germany's best-known investigative journalist. Sigmar Gabriel was, up until two years ago, arguably the second most important person in German politics, as Vice Chancellor, Foreign Minister and leader of the second largest political party (the Social Democrats). Calling these people "Assange cultists" or "useful idiots" is just unseemly, and shows a lack of seriousness (WP:NOTHERE). This sort of event warrants one or two sentences in Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. per Thucydides411 Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or second choice Option 3 - My original comment, what does this have to do with Germany, has not been answered. WP:DUE O3000 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I have no doubts that any given 130 German MP's hold views on many subjects. That does not make those views relevant or pertinent. Eddy the eagle Edwards is notable, that does not mean we take notice of everything he says on every subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per User:JzG. ——SN54129 13:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Omit. WP:UNDUE. This seems to be German-centric fanboy stuff in a biography that has nothing else to do with Germany. There is no wide media coverage or discussion of this that would suggest it is significant for an encyclopedia article. These celebrity petitions are a dime a dozen, and absent other indications of significance, Wikipedia does not get all hot and bothered over them. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or second choice 2 – The long version is undue. We should strive for concision. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Omit as undue weight. The sources do not establish that the sending of this open letter (which just happened a few days ago) is biographically significant to the subject. There's no indication whatever that it will have any meaningful effect on the subject's life. Assange is a famous figure and so there are naturally be many opinions on the criminal charges against him. That does not mean that every opinion must be referenced in the article. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Thucydides411. In addition to reporting by all top tier RS in Germany and some in UK, among the signatories of that letter are the current vice president of Germany's parliament, 10 former ministers of Germany's government, several current members of parliament, Nobel Price winners and a writers' association. [13] [14] Xenagoras (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 – This is merely an appeal by an informal group that has no legal standing and whose influence on public opinion is yet to be determined (I myself haven't heard of this appeal except by having this article on my watchlist). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 3. There is notable coverage for this bit of information. The third option is more concise and upon reading the comments, I think that Websurfer2 made a valid case against Option 1. However, should this be written next to the parts detailing Melzer's report such as in the last paragraph of the Imprisonment in the United Kingdom section? It seems the appeal primarily stemmed from Melzer's report and his incarceration in the UK. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Very pertinent and well-documented.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or failing that Option 3. Certainly notable enough for inclusion and other good points made above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 2 - the long version is clearly undue, that said I would be okay with the shorter version at "Other reactions" subsection.--Staberinde (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 at most - the long version is clearly monstrously undue, and peacocky, even the sources do not refer to these 130 as 'prominent' - what exactly does that mean anyway? Two former ministers and a left-wing MEP? As others have said, the subject has no connection to Germany - if the German Govt, or even German party leaders commented, it might be worth a line or two. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: It received sufficient press coverage to establish it as a notable historic event, but is not notable enough by itself to warrant the verbosity of Option 1 in the context of this article. The RS citations are sufficient for people who want more details. Frankly, his whole embassy ordeal and subsequent imprisonment look lengthy enough to split into a separate article where Option 1 would be appropriate after scrubbing it for WP:NPOV as pointed out by others. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – This appeal is one of the most-covered reactions to Assange's imprisonment to date. Deserves a full paragraph per WP:DUE. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Most covered??" After the first week there has been no ongoing reporting or commentary on this. You'll need to document your assertion with fact. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - include in DUE Weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Totally, due to the mentioned reasons by the users above (concerning option 1) Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 1 Both contain relevant information. ~ HAL333 02:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 i think it makes more sense. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Striking comment of blocked sockpuppet. Neutrality^talk 02:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Quite undue weight, per others. Note to eventual closer, the above account "ImUglyButPrettyUgly" is as of this writing, 10 hours old. ValarianB (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 UNDUE weight. Geogene (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Darouet. This is well-sourced, extensively covered and appropriate. How is this undue weight? I would ask the closer to only weight the arguments made by editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. per Thucydides411 & Darouet. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• Please relocate your extended commentary to the discussion section. That's the reason for a discussion section. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe he is allowed to explain his vote. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion is for subsequent comments and arguments.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Small thing, was "had being" supposed to be "was being" or "had been"? To all: has the original FAZ article been published online? I couldn't find it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: thanks, fixed that! -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, for what it's worth, Lenin never used to term "useful idiots" — see our article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• RE: "What does this have to do with Germany?" The fact is that a large group containing some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany have signed an appeal on Assange's behalf, calling on the German government to act. All the major news publications in Germany are discussing this public appeal, which is why it is WP:DUE. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so the fact that this appeal occurred not in the US or UK, but in Germany, does not mean it does not require due weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that many of the Option 2 votes call the signers of the petition things like "celebrities," "fanboy[s]," "useful idiots" or "Assange cultists," compare them to Eddie the Eagle, and otherwise play them off as irrelevant nobodies. Keep in mind that we're talking about a long-time Vice Chancellor of Germany, one of the most famous investigative journalists in Germany, alongside many members of the German parliament, the European parliament, and journalism/media establishment in Germany. The closer should discount votes that make these sorts of uninformed and unserious comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thucydides411, no, I am not calling them any of those things. I am saying that the Assange cult has promoted this letter of concern, but that it is just one letter of concern, a single incident in the news blizzard around Assange that is driven by an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more. There's no actual evidence that Assange was treated any differently form anyone similarly situated. England is not one of those countries that tortures prisoners or jails people for criticising the establishment, so the fact that Assange's case was blown out of proportion, picked up by some people who were almost certainly operating on half-truths from the Assange cult, and got covered on the day but pretty much not since, suggests it can be ignored, as roughly 90% of news coverage related to Assange should be. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help!) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, I hope you realize you are making classical logical fallacies in your arguments. First above Thucydides411 points to the half a dozen pick-ups in German press. Thus these arguments bantered above (not by you) of not covering Eddie the Eagle is strawman. And now you are arguing to exclude because Assange is a bad person. We have whole articles on allegedly bad people such as Charles Manson, Hitler, Harvey Weinstien, etc. This is wikipedia, we are not curators of the pristine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, virtually every major German newspaper, television and radio news channel has reported on this public appeal - some of them with multiple articles. Are they all members of the "Assange clult"? The Bundespressekonferenz (BPK) invited the organizers of the public appeal to give a press conference. Are the organizers of the BPK "useful idiots"? Looking through the list of sources I gave in my vote, I don't see any "MRAs," "conspiracy theorists," "fanboys" or "cultists." I do see nearly every single major German newspaper and news channel.

  Your above comment shows deep personal and political animus towards Assange, as well as those in the media who have covered this public appeal on his behalf. I think you lack the necessary detachment to edit this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I don't understand your animus to "off-wiki" activity concerning Assange and referenced in your vote. All of life is "off-wiki," including statements opposing Assange's prosecution by the NYT editorial board [15], and pieces published by the Freedom of the Press Foundation [16] the Columbia Journalism Review [17], the Committee to Protect Journalists [18], the Electronic Frontier Foundation [19], and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [20], among many other "off-wiki" groups (ACLU, HRW, etc). -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I think unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists is a somewhat fair characterization, but I'm not sure I would go that far. Is the fact that journalists stick up for other people they perceive to be journalists enough to invalidate sources we would rely on otherwise? To me, yes, a source's COI does call it into question on a particular topic but I'm not aware of this being applied across Wikipedia. It seems like there are many cases where activist sources are allowed, sometimes without attribution. As an aside, I think Wikipedia itself has been attacked by MRAs and other manosphere activity and it does need to be kept in check. They really seem to be crawling out of the woodwork. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I haven't seen a single news article mentioning anything about MRA and Assange, haven't seen anyone propose adding one, and don't see a reference anywhere in the article. Where are you and Guy getting this? Would you mind linking some sources? -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I said "as an aside, I think Wikipedia itself has been attacked by MRAs and other manosphere activity." Not sure where you are getting "news article mentioning anything about MRA and Assange" from that. Also, if you want to address whether news articles have linked the questioning of allegedly false rape accusations in the context of Assange try: [21][22][23] for starters. It seems obvious that this topic is linked to men's rights premises to the point that I feel that it may be disingenuous to ask for sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What does MRA mean and is it justification to exclude content? I googled it an cant find anything. Is it a wikipedia term? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was similarly confused. I think they mean "men's rights activists". I haven't seen any sign of this in the arguments we've had on this site since I came here last year. However, I agree with DIYeditor about journalists sticking up for others in the industry.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No I wonder if these arguments intentionally drawn off into the fray of lunacy? I edit the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations sometimes and I have never once seen an "MRA" strawman like this raised (and it easily could be if there really is such MRA advocacy). I did google MRA before posting my previous comment and assumed I must be wrong as how could mens rights possibly be related to this article ;-) JzG did you introduce MRA (meaning mens rights advocates) as a strawman into this discussion? Or is MRA some other abbreviation I am missing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you have been very noisy in opposition in the discussoin prior to this RfC and now you argued "German-centric fanboy stuff in a biography that has nothing else to do with Germany." Can you please evidence for this claim? Are you saying if we removed the "German" from the text you would support it? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The word is "vocal" please, not noisy. Several editors have made the same point. "German" has nothing to do with Assange. Search the article text. No need to repeat, if the repetition offends you, but the point is valid. Maybe re-read the entire thread? SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looked through your responses again and didn't see anything relating to this, unless you are referring to your pipefitters union response. Please point me to the response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I'd like to correct a few things you say in your explanation of your vote:

• even the sources do not refer to these 130 as 'prominent': The very first source is titled, "More than 100 prominent Germans appeal for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's release from prison." The second source is titled, "Prominent Germans appeal for Julian Assange's release." The third source begins, "Eine Reihe Prominenter, darunter Sigmar Gabriel, Ex-Innenminister Gerhart Baum und Günter Wallraff, fordern die sofortige Freilassung von Julian Assange." The fourth source contains this subheading: "Viele prominente Unterzeichner." The fifth source is the only source that does not contain the word "prominent." Did you look at the sources before voting?
• Two former ministers and a left-wing MEP A former Vice-Chancellor of Germany and former head of the 2nd largest party (the #2 figure in German politics until two years ago), a former interior minister, the most famous investigative reporter in Germany, a former Vice President of the European Commission, a Nobel Prize laureate in Literature, a former President of the Bundestag (parliament), alongside 10 members of the Bundestag and 3 members of the European Parliament. There are lots of other important figures from German politics, journalism and culture on the list, such as about a dozen former government ministers and well-known journalists.
• clearly monstrously undue: Virtually every major newspaper and news program in Germany has covered this appeal. A large number of very prominent German politicians and journalists have signed it. How can two short sentences be undue?
• if the German Govt, or even German party leaders commented, it might be worth a line or two: The German government was asked about it repeatedly in one of their recent press conferences, and refused to take an official position on it. By making a German government comment the threshold for inclusion, you're setting up a political test for inclusion, because the German government's refusal to comment on the appeal is likely driven by political considerations (i.e., their relationship with the US and UK). However, the former Vice Chancellor of Germany and head of the 2nd largest party (until 2 years ago) is one of the signatories, and another signatory is one of the leading figures in the Left Party (Gysi).

Given these corrections - particularly on the word "prominent," the identities of the signatories and the extensive media coverage of the appeal - I hope you will reconsider your vote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• No más! SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the text, not the titles, where the word prominent was not used. Why would 130 Germans be relevant to a British judicial decision, relevant to UK, Australia, Sweden and US? You could probably find 130 Brits (or Australians?) who would take a similar stance - and an equal number taking the contrary - so what? He is a hugely divisive figure, and why would people from an uninvolved country be relevant? Your comments about the German govt precisely make the point that this stance is costing these individuals nothing. Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the very first source is, "A petition calling for WikiLeaks​ founder Julian Assange to be released from prison has been signed by more than 130 prominent figures from the world of art, politics and media in Germany" (emphasis added). 130 Germans are relevant because they wrote a public appeal that received coverage in virtually every major newspaper and news show in Germany. "Your comments about the German govt precisely make the point that this stance is costing these individuals nothing." Do you mean they suffer no personal cost? Why is that relevant? 130 highly prominent people have made a public appeal, which has received widespread coverage. That's really all that matters. "You could probably find 130 Brits (or Australians?) who would take a similar stance": maybe, but I'm not aware that 130 of the most prominent people in Britain or Australia have issued an analogous appeal. If they have, and if it's received as widespread of coverage as the German appeal, then it obviously should go in the article.

As WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." A view expressed by 130 of the most prominent people in Germany, covered by virtually all the German news outlets, requires at least some mention in this article. Not mentioning the appeal - particularly based on individual editors' opinions about whether the appeal will have any effect or whether Assange is a "very naughty boy" - would violate our neutrality requirement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Best to stick to policy-based reasons for omission. Arguments about which countries are relevant and the divisiveness of the central figure, taken to their logical conclusion, would mean not being able to mention the efforts of humanitarian bodies on behalf of, say, dissidents.     ←   ZScarpia   14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We also have WP:BALASP, now (OK) some (and not all the signatories are) significant, but what percentage of them? Moreover whilst this has received a lot of coverage in Germany, Germany is not an involved party (and thus this carries no weight). So (it seems to me) this rest on just how significant is this, and thre or 4 major figures is not a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• From what I've read, it's unclear what the petition is asking for. Is it saying that Assange should be released on bail, pending extradition hearings? Or is it saying that he should simply be released and the extradition request be denied without being heard?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The petition asks for Julian Assange to be immediately released from prison, both for medical reasons and so that he can properly prepare a legal defense against his extradition. They argue that his ability to prepare a defense has been severely restricted (this is based on reports about limited access to lawyers, documents and a computer). Beyond the text of the appeal, some of the most prominent signatories have argued that an example is being made of Assange (in order to frighten anyone else who might want to publish leaked government documents) and Assange's legal rights have been violated for political reasons.

The text I wrote (Option 1) explains these aspects of the appeal in two sentences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack, you are attempting to create ambiguity that doesnt exist in the text. They only ask for him to be released, obviously they are deferring to the British government to decide what to do with him after that. He is incarcerated in England without any charges, right (only excuse is pending extradition)? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me. Assange skipped bail and was a fugitive for seven years. He has just served a sentence for skipping bail. He and his supporters say he skipped bail because he feared a US indictment. He is now facing extradition for a US indictment. Are the prominent Germans saying he now has a "right" to bail? I think most people would say he is a flight risk. It would be different if they were calling for the US indictment to be dropped. I think this needs to be clarified. If it is important, it is important to get it right. However, I think this would take up too much time, so I now oppose including this.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You're making this sound much more complicated than it is. Option 1 precisely explains the content of the appeal in one sentence. The second sentence of Option 1 reports what two of the most prominent signers said when they presented the appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think you're oversimplifying. There are so many issues. Who is going to put up the bail money this time?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The appeal says nothing about bail money. I'm not oversimplifying. I'm just saying that you're making this overly complicated by raising your own personal objections to the appeal - objections that are not discussed in reliable sources. We just need to concisely describe what the news sources have reported about the appeal, which can be done in two sentences. We don't need to think of our own arguments against the content of the appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's vague. And that's a reason not to include it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not vague, release means release. We dont need to argue over a definition. Your explanation of your WP:OP of Assanges's potential for flight risk has no bearing on the word release in the statement. If someone notable (not an involved wikipedia editor) has something to say about the flight risk in response to the letter, we could include that, but your OR not. And your OR is not justification to exclude it either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Believe me, I haven't done any research, plagiarised or otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but the reason you're giving for excluding the appeal from the article is that you personally have objections to it (it doesn't recommend bail conditions for Assange). That's not a valid reason for excluding the appeal from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I didnt say you plagiarized something, did someone else? Regarding your statement I guess it is WP:JDLI explained by your idea that the German's should consider Assange a flight risk. But I dont see that we can include that POV in the article as that would be OR, even you are free to have your own opinion of course. Dont like it, your opinion, and/or OR none of those are valid reasons to exclude content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Release on bail is a lot different from release. The editors of this article have a history of glossing over practical issues and reproducing rhetoric instead. The German appeal seems inconsequential. They appear to be recommending release on bail, which will continue until the extradition is decided, which could be in a few weeks. Jtbobwaysf has said they are "deferring" to the British government on extradition. But it appears they want to overturn the decision of a British court denying him bail. If this happened, it would be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, it's wishy-washy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Again you are attempting to create vagueness. It just says "release." It didnt say release on bail. Maybe you dont like it that the germans didnt suggest bail and you have now added some new OR that the extradition might end in a couple of weeks and so we should wait. That is an appeal to authority fallacy. You continue with the logical fallacies to oppose inclusion of cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You continue to elaborate your own personal argument about why the appeal is faulty. You're free to argue about the merits of the appeal outside of Wikipedia, but here, our job is to figure out whether the appeal has garnered sufficient media attention to fulfill WP:DUE. Your opinion that the appeal is "wishy-washy" has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included. Given that the appeal has been covered by virtually every major German news source, it manifestly fulfills the requirements of WP:DUE and merits inclusion.-Thucydides411 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the point is the appeal is inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Some comments on remarks made by Guy (User:JzG) when stating his RFC preference at 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC) above:

- It's not a great look to start referring to cults and cult leaders, particularly in a BLP, unless the topic is something such as the Peoples Temple and Jim Jones, or is about figures with notorious personality cults such as Mao, Stalin or Hitler. If, say, in the UK context, an editor started banging on about the cult of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, it would not look contstructive, it would just indicate that the editor had strong opinions or prejudices about the subject. And strong opinions or prejudices tend to hinder neutral editing and give rise to the temptation to soapbox. Perhaps they also tend to give rise to double-standard behaviour, such as making quips (for example, "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!") about subjects disapproved of, then getting very upset when the same is done on ones in which there is an investment.

- It's always possible that opinions about which side the cultists and the useful idiots are on may be mistaken.

- As remarked on above, it's uncertain who coined the term 'useful idiots'. See the Origin section of the Useful Idiot article: "The phrase "useful idiot" has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin,[3] but he is not documented as ever having used the phrase." Also see the Usage section, for attributions of the phrase to Lenin, and the following: [24], [25].

Well, enough preaching!     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) The closer of this RfC will discount the unsupported !votes, the ones based on assertions of personal opinion, and the ones from Assangist and anti-U.S. Single Purpose Accounts. The reasoned contributions do not favor any inclusion of this. What is the ongoing coverage even weeks after the petition? None. WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 is brief and concise enough. Idealigic (talk) 21:16, 26 March 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.

Continuing coverage of German Appeal

The German appeal for Assange's release from prison (published on 6 February) has continued to receive coverage:

• Stern, 12 February 2020
• Stern, 24 February 2020
• Deutschlandfunk Kultur, 24 February 2020
• Deutschlandfunk, 24 February 2020
• Heise, 14 March 2020
• Stern, 25 March 2020, interview with signer about her support for Assange.

It was covered by virtually every major German-language news outlet in early February, and coverage continues in major media. One of the objections in the RfC above was that this appeal could not be considered DUE until later coverage showed lasting attention. The coverage above demonstrates continuing attention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Err at least one of these seems to be talking about a new appeal, not the 6th one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Which source? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The second one seems to only be talking about one left wing politician.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In the second source on the list, Stern, 24 February 2020, the final paragraph is 2020 Anfang Februar fordern mehr als 130 Politiker, Künstler und Medienschaffende die Freilassung von Assange. Das Schreiben geht auf eine Initiative des Journalisten Günter Wallraff zurück und wird auch vom ehemaligen Außenminister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) unterstützt. I think that may be the coverage Thuc is referring to. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, that's a reference to the 6 February appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is just a chronology.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Which shows continued interest in the appeal. One of the basic arguments against mentioning the appeal was that everyone would just forget about it, but this shows that that's not the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it shoes continuing interest in the case, as I said its a Chronology.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Der Stern calls this chronology "An overview of the most important events" ("Ein Überblick über die wichtigsten Ereignisse"). They chose to put the appeal by prominent figures in Germany down as one of the most significant events in the chronology of the case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it shows that a newspaper article that purports to present a "history of [Julian Assange] the whistleblower" considers the 2020 appeal by "more than 130 politicians, artists and media workers... journalist Günter Wallraff and... former Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel" to be the most relevant item in that history for this year. It doesn't make sense to focus on just one source out of all those others presented, and then ignore what the source even indicates. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We are focusing on it because it is the only one in the list that mentions it. Also it is from the beginning of the year (and the same month as the letter was publioshed).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The first source describes it 25 seconds into the broadcast. The second source lists it as the only significant event from the year 2020. The third source describes it in the first paragraph as the premise for the interview. The fourth source also describes it in the first paragraph as the premise for the interview. The fifth article lists it as the final event in the Assange chronology. Thucydides411 I see no mention in the sixth source. -Darouet (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And all but one of these are from February the month of the letter. Of the two sources that are not only one may be talking about it (it actually does not say anything about an appeal or a letter just that "A number of celebrities recently called for Assange's release, including former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and journalist Günter Wallraff.", its not exactly coverage of the letter. But (and again I have to say this) this is still all irrelevant and undue as what Germans think has no relevance on a British court of law.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Two of the sources are from March. These sources go from a week after the appeal through a week-and-a-half ago. Is there a rule on Wikipedia that material is UNDUE unless it's been covered continuously for more than two months? I already showed before that the appeal was covered by virtually every German-speaking news outlet in early February, and now, I've shown that it has continued to receive coverage in major news media over the subsequent two months.

The Wikipedia article "Julian Assange" can include information that has no relevance in a British court of law. We're not a British court. We're Wikipedians, and when there's widespread media coverage of statements made by extremely well-known public figures about Assange, that should be reflected in the article, Julian Assange.

I just don't understand the intense blockade of clearly relevant, well-sourced material here. What's the problem with mentioning this appeal in one sentence? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, we get it, you are going to bomb this page with every single new mention you find until you get what you want or we all die of boredom. Guy (help!) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy, please focus on content, not people. I've provided a list of sources, which addresses one of the primary objections to inclusion voiced in the above RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

These additional sources are helpful Thucydides411, thank you. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

others supporting Assange against torture and human rights violations

March 07, 2020 - "The Lancet" calls for Julian Assange's "torture" and "medical neglect" to be brought to an end are now supported by 186 physicians from around the world:

sputniknews.com/uk/202003111078537803-186-physicians-now-back-demands-to-end-julian-assanges-torture-and-medical-neglect/

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext

March 10, 2020 - "IBAHRI" condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020, and urges the government of the United Kingdom to take action to protect him

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/rights-body-turns-its-sights-on-uk-over-assange/5103407.article

www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750

--5.171.0.169 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

sputniknews?Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the lancet did not call for anything it published something called "CORRESPONDENCE".Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the lancet letter (which bemoans the fast they have been ignored, thus I would argue its not significant) is from "117 doctors", not 186.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page comments and article content need to be grounded in reliable sources, with links

While I'm not going to argue for the moment that this letter [26] should go into the article, the letter received significant global news coverage. Because of this, it's reasonable for IP to argue for its inclusion, and this discussion should not be collapsed as if it's so obvious that inclusion is inappropriate.

Did you even check to see if the letter received coverage in the news?

Also, "Correspondence" in The Lancet does not mean "not notable." If you're unsure whether the Lancet would publish your correspondence to written to the most prestigious medical journal in the world, let me save you some time: they wouldn't.

Here's a partial list of major papers that carried the story, after all of a couple minutes looking online:

• The Australian [27], A group of 117 doctors, who haven’t seen Assange, are sufficiently concerned about Melzer’s report to have had a letter published in the medical journal The Lancet this week calling for an end to the medical neglect of Assange and questioning his fitness for the legal proceedings.

• The Guardian [28], The Australian MPs’ appearance in London before the start of an extradition hearing next week came as a letter by a group of doctors representing 117 physicians and psychologists from 18 nations called for an end to what they described as “the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”. The letter, which was published in the medical journal the Lancet and has also been sent to the Australian foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, expresses concern over Assange’s fitness to take part in the legal proceedings.

• The South China Morning Post [29], republishing a piece written by the Agence France-Presse. More than 100 doctors on Monday called on Britain to end Julian Assange’s “torture” in prison pending his extradition on espionage charges to the United States... A group of 117 physicians and psychologists from 18 nations wrote in a letter to The Lancet medical journal that Assange was being subjected to “torture” in prison.

• The AFP report was also carried by the The Taipei Times [30], and what appear to be dozens of regional Australian papers.

• Deutsche Welle [31], Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is facing a controversial hearing which could result in his extradition to the US. The Lancet medical journal has published a letter signed by more than 100 medical professionals. It accused Britain of denying proper health care to Assange.

• The Evening Standard [32], A 117-strong group doctors and psychologists has called for an end to what it calls the “psychological torture” and “medical neglect” of Julian Assange. In a 1,200-word letter published in the medical journal The Lancet, the Doctors For Assange group expresses concern over his fitness for the legal proceedings.

• Sky News [33], A group of 117 doctors and psychologists has called for an end to what it calls "the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange".

• In at least some cases large news outlets appear to be reposting from PA Media, a major UK broadcasting company. For example, the Belfast Telegraph [34], A group of 117 doctors and psychologists has called for an end to what it calls “the psychological torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”.

It's extraordinary to me how in this talk page section, and in some sections above, editors are actively calling upon us to exclude material from the article without even bothering to look and see if that material has received significant coverage in the news... or sometimes, editors are actually arguing we should ignore news coverage. Needless to say this wholly contrary to policy and is a terrible formula for writing a biography or any other article on wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lancet is not RS for political rants. Usually OK on medical research. Your 117 comrades -- have they examined Assange or are they repeating that UN factotum we rejected months ago? SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, your comment contains zero links, just your political opinion. This isn't helpful. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a link to where it says posts without links are not permitted. BTW you misrepresented policy in this section. That's more serious. I suggest you drop it. This is going nowhere, which is why I collapsed it. We know there's an army of off-Wiki Assangists watching, but nobody versed in WP is supporting any of your POV stuff here. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"SPECIFICO" have to stop to fight "german ghosts", and other ideological war. The Lancet is already RS, here (Julian_Assange#cite_note-426 "End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange". The Lancet. 17 February 2020.") and on other article (Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights#cite_note-14 " The Lancet, 12 February 2020. “End torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange”"); also, here another RS: newmatilda.com/2020/03/12/assange-show-trial/
--5.171.0.169 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC) (ah, are IBAHRI sources good for you now?)

• I don't really understand why any of this is here, when there is a main article for Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. And yet this article contains around 3,000 words on the matter anyway, despite the fact that it's already 60kB longer than the article on Abraham Lincoln and 10kB longer than the article for World War II. Just a reminder that WP:LENGTH recommends 30 kB to 50 kB for most articles. This article is currently 240 kB, nearly five times the recommended maximum.

So if we want to add substantive new content, you probably need to first look to spin off sections into stand alone articles and work over there instead. GMG^talk 20:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You point to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange as the right place for the arguments of the above new sources? you're wrong, or the Article is bad structurated: at now, Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange is quoted as main article for the Julian_Assange#Indictment_in_the_United_States section, but the source above are related to other section, the Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_in_the_United_Kingdom and/or Julian_Assange#Extradition_hearings. --5.171.0.169 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't really understand why those other sections are level two headers instead of level three, given that they are directly related and subordinate in scope. This article doesn't need to be expanded; it needs around half of the content either removed and more concisely summarized if appropriate, or moved to a different sub-article. GMG^talk 21:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

If you see the topic above, you see that there is a proposal in this way, new section for all the worldwide support to Assange, that will be short, with a new related article. But this will so include even source that "someone" really don't want as present (the german petition), and can show a massive view of all the worldwide support to Assange: maybe this is not what someone else want, the someone that in a bad Court - surely not really ruled by the Queen - need to paint Assange as the public enemy number one. --5.171.0.169 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really give a damn about Assange or the Queen. I'm in the encyclopedia business. GMG^talk 23:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, is better you start to care about Assange and the Queen before to do an encyclopedia Article about Assange (which is a Commonwealth citizen), especially if you want to do it with a lot of people that you don't know who they really are, what they really want; or they will fool you for get their objectives (that is not to do encyclopedias for *fun*). --5.170.45.89 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There is massive global appreciation of spotted dick and haggis, but those articles don't have fanclub sections. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in the same way as a lot of people can read, but not everybody understand the meaning of what they read. --5.170.45.89 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, this is supposed to be about Assaange, not his trial, not his imprisonment. This whole issue takes up far too much space.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's fine to make mention of the fact that some think his imprisonment is problematic. But, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. O3000 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's by this point pretty much Jimbo's First Law of Contemporary Politics: left to their own devices, Wikipedia editors will persist on a political topic until they have successfully written a book. There is a reason Wikibooks is yonder, and Wikipedia is hither. GMG^talk 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I and other editors have pointed out the balance issues in the article. I think there can be significant rebalancing of the article around what reliable sources have given more coverage to, without increasing the length of the article. For example, Google Trends indicates that Assange is best known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (of documents relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables) and his ongoing legal battles, in that order. If we begin with the lede, however, we see that significantly more space is devoted to the 2016 DNC/Podesta emails than to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. There are problems like this throughout the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

IBAHRI (more) RS

• www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/iba-slates-assange-mistreatment
• www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/27699-michael-kirby-throws-support-behind-julian-assange
• www.lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/latest-news/news/iba-condemns-british-treatment-of-julian-assange-in-extradition-trial
• dailytimes.com.pk/574781/human-rights-body-condemns-alleged-mistreatment-of-julian-assange/
• irishlegal.com/article/human-rights-body-condemns-alleged-mistreatment-of-julian-assange

--5.171.0.169 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. One of our editors is keeping a record of Assange related articles on their talk page. Burrobert (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, but please keep your <redacted> opinions to yourself. Acroterion (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

« Si Julian Assange est extradé, c’est la fin de l’État de droit en Occident »
Eva Joly (Interview) 5 avril 2020
mrmondialisation.org/si-julian-assange-est-extrade-cest-la-fin-de-letat-de-droit-en-occident-eva-joly-interview/
--5.170.45.251 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The interview to Eva Joly is also available in English:
www.pressenza.com/2020/04/if-julian-assange-is-extradited-its-the-end-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-eva-joly-interview/
--5.170.46.250 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

anew?

The article reads:

"On 20 February 2020, Rohrabacher confirmed that conversation anew."

How about "again"? 85.193.250.200 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

correction need on "Imprisonment in the United Kingdom"

correction need on "Julian Assange#Imprisonment in the United Kingdom"

concerns the bail option that Assange's lawyer does not request on September 13, 2019

According to the source Julian_Assange#cite_note-guardian140919-421, the request for freedom on bail was explicitly proposed to Assange's lawyer by Judge Vanessa Baraitser: "Therefore I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so, perhaps not surprisingly in light of your history of absconding in these proceedings.".

This is relevant, also because a few months later, this month, the same Judge Vanessa Baraitser refuses to allow a request for release on bail for risk of Assange's escape for the U.S.A. extradition request (and nothing has changed on this months about Assange's potential willingness to break the bail about this)

--5.170.47.152 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

What change to the article are you proposing?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't understand if you agree that something is wrong, meaningfully omissive, in the phrase "On 13 September, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange would not be released on 22 September when his prison term ended, because he was a flight risk and his lawyer had not applied for bail." --5.170.47.219 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, is it wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

So instead of making this sentence more neutral, you removed Baraitser's recent refusal to release on bail from the introduction; yes, eliminate everything that can show that there is something wrong with the way the judges operate: eliminate the whole article. --5.170.45.214 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Please rad wp:lede it is a summery of the article, as the refusal to grant appeal is not a major part of the article it has no place in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that you, and many other users who have conditioned and still conditionate this encyclopedic article on Julian Assange, should devote yourself to things only about people who have died for a few centuries.
Realize that you are dealing with the reputation of a living, on danger, person whose fate, being tied to a political decision (that of the United Kingdom Government to consent to extradition to the USA) depends on public opinion.
I repeat: do something else, play video games, take care of botany articles, but please do something else. --5.170.46.118 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I think you should do something else. This is an encyclopedic article, not a political pamphlet. If you want to campaign for Assange or anybody else, do so elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You act as the most awarded author of the most renowned encyclopedia in the world, preciously present in all universities; realize that you are only one who as a hobby plays with people's biography (and with Assange it seems you enjoy being a bloodthirsty judge).
If I were Julian Assange, if I could do it, because of hostile contributions / removals like yours I would denounce wikipedia for damage to image and existential damage; I truly hope Assange is freed, and equally that he looks after you appropriately to how you are dealing with him. --5.170.47.24 (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconded what is the issue?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps reading what's on the links below can help you understand what's wrong:

• www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/07/11/assa-j11.html
  (Judge Emma Arbuthnot refuses to recuse herself in show trial of Julian Assange)
• James Arbuthnot
• www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-11-14-julian-assanges-judge-and-her-husbands-links-to-the-british-military-establishment-exposed-by-wikileaks/
  (Julian Assange’s judge and her husband’s links to the British military establishment exposed by WikiLeak)
• www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-11-15-conflicts-of-interest-judge-in-julian-assange-case-fails-to-declare-sons-links-to-uk-and-us-intelligence/
  (The son of Julian Assange’s judge is linked to an anti-data leak company created by the UK intelligence establishment)
• www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/22/judg-f22.html
  (New conflict of interest evidence against UK judge in charge of Assange extradition process)

--5.171.0.145 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are articles which suggest that Emma Arbuthnot has a conflict of interest. The World Socialist Website is run by a tiny Trotskyist group, known as the Socialist Equality Party in many countries, which is hardly representative of any consensus. As far as I can see, Emma Arbuthnot is not involved in the extradition proceedings against Assange. The judge is Vanessa Baraitser. I don't see anything here that should be added to the article. If Assange's defence team asked a judge to recuse herself (or himself), that would be worth including.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a judge involved in the Assange case who refused to recuse herself despite requests from Assange’s defence team. For some reason she has slipped through the cracks. The judge who presided over a February 2018 application by Assange to cancel his arrest warrant and over the first part of the pre-extradition hearings was Arbuthnot who reportedly has “family links to the defence industry, to a vocal critic of whistleblower Edward Snowden, and to a former head of MI6 who oversaw the ‘sexed-up’ dossier that led to the Iraq War”. There have been reports that Arbuthnot’s husband, a former British defence minister, “has financial links to the British military establishment, including institutions and individuals exposed by WikiLeaks” and that Arbuthnot herself had received gifts “including from a military and cybersecurity company exposed by WikiLeaks.”

Jen Robinson said "There was some controversy about her sitting on the case”. She stopped presiding directly on Assange’s case during 2019 but there has been suggestions that Baraitser still reports to her. “Arbuthnot has recently appointed a district judge to rule on Assange’s extradition case, but remains the supervising legal figure in the process. According to the UK courts service, the chief magistrate is ‘responsible for… supporting and guiding district judge colleagues.”

Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced and UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't mention the February 2018 case or Arbuthnot in the article at all. Assange has since been convicted of skipping bail. I don't see that it was ever realistic to believe he wouldn't be convicted. The accusation of bias seems to be grasping at straws. Once again, what is proposed as an improvement to the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because you said “If Assange's defence team asked a judge to recuse herself (or himself), that would be worth including”. I thought you may be interested. Burrobert (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that any legal proceeding involving Assange is worth including. But if we included the request for Judge Arbuthnot to recuse herself, we would also need to include the case which she was presiding over, which so far we haven't. I think the reason we haven't included the February 2018 case is that it didn't lead anywhere. It just reaffirmed that the arrest warrant was in place. It doesn't seem like there have been any appeal against Judge Arbuthnot because of her supposed bias. It seems to me like a dead issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. Don't forget that not only must Justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. It seems clear that Arbuthnot shouldn't be involved in the case at any level and at the moment her involvement is unclear. However we can't include anything about that until it is reported and I haven't seen anything definitive. Regarding her past actions, when someone writes a proper history of the case I am sure it will warrant a few words. Burrobert (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Emma Arbuthnot is still involved in the extradition proceedings against Assange:

www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/judges/chief-magistrate/
"Chief Magistrate - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"
"Who is the Chief Magistrate? The current Chief Magistrate is Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot."
"The Chief Magistrate is responsible for: hearing many of the most sensitive or complex cases in the magistrates’ courts and in particular extradition and special jurisdiction cases."

Look also (from The Canary (website)):

www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/06/17/assange-judge-refuses-to-step-down-despite-evidence-of-intelligence-and-defence-links/

www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/01/26/evidence-mounts-of-irregularities-in-uk-court-procedures-in-assange-extradition-case/

and, from the Order of Australia member Alison Broinowski, this:

ahtribune.com/world/wikileaks/3661-which-law-is-assange-above.html

www.themonthly.com.au/blog/alison-broinowski/2020/01/2020/1585700885/viral-injustice

--5.170.47.24 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'll have a look. Do we have enough to cover Arbuthnot's connection, both past and ongoing, to the case? A few sentences perhaps would suffice. Burrobert (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Not strong enough sourcing, at least not for any statements in Wikipedia's voice. Using the judiciary.uk stuff is WP:OR, the Canary at a minimum would need to have any statements sourced to them attributed, and Alison Broinowski is certainly not an independent source as she is a member of the WikiLeaks Party and thus would also at a minimum require attribution for anything sourced to her. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a courtroom in which the evidence against one's client, or one's thesis, is recused whit all the possible excuses; relevant facts of which there is evidence, or high probability, must be reported with neutrality (even and especially if the main stream media ignores them on incredible way: remember censure, intimidation to journalists, corruption), if necessary specifying when a source does not have clear evidence, or is of doubtful reliability, using the hypothetical form or conditional when appropriate (example: according to newspaper X this and that would have happened ..) --5.170.47.216 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is not, but it still has rules wp:v wp:rs wp:undue wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means; rules, not pretexts. --5.170.47.216 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is not a blank cheque to do as you please.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Canary articles seem to offer some information that we could include. I don't think we need to go into the long list of reasons why Arbuthnot is considered tainted for Assange's case. Something along the lines of the this quote may be sufficient with appropriate attribution.

UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer told US journalist Chris Hedges that Lady Arbuthnot “has a strong conflict of interest” and that “her husband had been exposed by WikiLeaks”. Hedges adds that Assange’s lawyers have asked the judge “to recuse herself”, but that “she has refused”.

Burrobert (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's important what Melzer said to Chris Hedges. I think this needs to be tied to a particular court case.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps something like: “Assange’s lawyers asked Arbuthnot to recuse herself from his extradition case due to a conflict of interest, but she refused. Burrobert (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

22:22, 24 April 2020‎ Bodney talk contribs‎ 241,798 bytes +1,017‎ Undid revision 952945171 by JzG (talk) Per previous discussions at WP:RSN no actual decision was made regarding the The Canary , and its not listed on WP:RSP as a problem
--5.171.0.218 (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

When no "actual decision" is made regarding a source, it does not default to reliable. The previous discussion at absolute best puts it as WP:MREL, meaning it may or may not be appropriate as a source depending on the context, and any statements sourced to it should be attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. However, I would say there was a pretty overwhelming majority saying that it is not reliable. Nine people said it was not reliable, five said it could be usable for attributed opinions but not reliable for unattributed facts, and only one person argued that it was generally reliable and their argument was based entirely on what the Canary says about their own reliability. Even the proposer stated "There is no need to use them for the facts of significant events, as that is available from more mainstream sources. Nor would their opinions carry much weight." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What this article is about

Julian Assange, not his trial, not his extradition. Him. Now we can and should cover all relevant material (such as the trial and extradition, as well as what he has done (or accused of having done). But we do not need every view of his trial or extradition (as this is not what the article is about. Material should only be here is it helps us understand what is happening, not peoples reaction to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: While I recognize you may be trying to give this article focus, the distinction you suggest above isn't helpful. Why do you propose that of all things related to Assange's life, his incarceration for the last 10 years, and pending extradition and prosecution on the basis of the Espionage Act of 1917 for his publication of secret documents, is that least relevant to his life? What should take the place of the material (and abundant media coverage) you wish to exclude? Surely not Assange's height, weight [35][36], psychological condition [37], or health [38][39][40]? Can you be more specific in what you're proposing? -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that, I am saying that is what we should have, not peoples opinion of it. This is about him and his life, and yes his "crimes".Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

He has not yet been found guilty of violating the espionage act, and major newspapers and human rights organizations are calling his detention, extradition, and planned prosecution both extralegal and an assault on the first amendment globally. This is all abundantly documented in reliable sources. Again, what are you specifically proposing? -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is we have enough already about support for him (and maybe a bit too much, we must not turn this into International support for Julian Assange. We already cover this at some length, and it tells us nothing about him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw. If a large number of organizations and prominent figures believe that the espionage charges against Assange are an assault on journalism and freedom of speech (and many do), then surely that viewpoint should be discussed in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It is, we just should not give it too much coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are proposing. You seem to be hinting that you want more space for his hacking and breach of bail convictions. Is that right? Btw I think you need more practice with brackets. You opened three but only closed one. Burrobert (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I have said what I want, and I think it may now be time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you also support removal of the excessive wikileaks content, such as the US elections? Or are you just trying to limit coverage of his trial? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Errr the Wikileaks content is bout what he (or his organisation) did, not what people think about Him. A Led to B B led to C ect, Nor A led to B and some unrelated person said this about Assange. THis is about him and his actions, not what people think about him, it really is not that hard.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Errrr" Do you realize that Assange is in jail only and precisely for what some powerful and above all domineering people "think about Him"? Some think he is a criminal, who has done things that are viewed as crime in America (not in the UK, not in Australia, not in Sweden .. not in most of the world), and Assange is in prison in the UK for this. Not because of what he has done or has not done (to demonstrate when there is disagreement), but because of what some people think about him. --5.171.1.39 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Very true, so that would be Assange did A thus led person B to accuse him of C which led to D. The point is cause and effect, its about what he did and the results of it. It is not about what people think of him. We cannot discus his jailing without discussing why (the accusations), we can discuss all of that and leave out the Battley towns women's guild reenactment of it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Several people have asked you where you want to go with this topic, and also for the past proposals of union between this article and that of wikileaks, or for having increased the speed with which to archive the discussions of this page, or for what is removed / censored shamelessly, or for what is not reported in the article, I have clear what you (o others near/above you) want: to make this article more one-sided against Assange. --5.171.1.39 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you AGF I have no said anything of the kind, what I have said is this is about him and the accusations against him. We have materiel, that offers a counter point. Adding more does not give us any more information about him, his actions or his trial.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is measured by WP:DUE. You assert that opinions of others are UNDUE, but inclusion of the subject's organization is DUE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes because it is part of what he did Wikileaks did something the US are extraditing him overt it. Again A did this B did this C is the result. In order to understand why you have to know how, what Someone thinks about it tells us very little about the why or how.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A,B,C is classic WP:SYNTH argument. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No its not, if I say Mr A committed burglary and he is now being prosecuted that is not synthesis, its a chronology. So lets put it another way, what are all these people commenting on?Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that coverage of Assanges legal issues are necessary for this article. In fact they are probably the most important thing on the article, along with his biographical info. What is not needed is a re-hash of events that is covered in full detail on other articles, such as wikileaks, the US elections article, etc. People's opinions of BLP subjects are measured with DUE as I have said above. In general some people comment that Assange is a good bad person, and others that he is a political prisoner and hero...I think that summarizes the full range of it, and those comments that meet WP:DUE get included. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Except we need those details (in summery) for context, why is he being prosecuted what for and why do people think its important. What we should not have is over much material on personal opinions, a few, but no more than that. If possible restricted to those who actually have some ability to affect the outcome. As WP:PROPORTION says "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Material should only be included that is actually significant to what is happening, that enables us to understand these vents. It does not matter if it is verifiable, what matters is does it increase our understanding.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, as long as it doesnt dominate the article. If we are talking about something that is not covered elsewhere then for sure it is needed. But these Assange issues often have whole other articles (such as the election things), so a sentence or two would be fine. In some cases here we have multiple subsections and it is way too much. Would be a more elegant article if it focused on Assange and there would be more space to include these 3rd party opinions of Assange that various editors want to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, this is just an argument to not add more stuff, and then maybe discus what can be trimmed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This section Julian_Assange#2016_U.S._presidential_election sound be trimmed greatly, reduced by 50% at least. Most of these can simply link to the other main wikipedia articles for further reading with a sentence or two of summary. Where Assange did something extraordinary outside of his role of the head of wikileaks, then we can include that. I think this would be a good place to start. I would also suggest the lede be trimmed back a bit as well, its jammed full of statements that every editor thinks is the 'most important must have nonsense,' sadly typical of one of these controversial articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets deal with one issue at a time. This is not International reactions to Julian Assange, so lets try and stop adding every bit of support he gets. He have more than enough about that already. When we stop trying to add material we can start to discuss removing it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support creating the article you suggested. Then we can offload some of that support content to a sub-article. Will help readability and also serve to allow editors to add it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I support or oppose such an article (I certainly did not propose it), what I said is do not turn this article into it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

In general I support including content as long as it is not duplicated elsewhere (assuming it meets related wikipedia policy). I think the best solution is probably to create the article that you didnt suggest, so then I guess I suggest it :-) It will solve the problem in the ways that I described above, and is often a good solution to deal with editors are pushing for additional coverage of an issue, that creates weight problems on the main article. For example this article Cryptocurrency bubble was created to allow editors a place to add the bubble content without overdoing it on the Bitcoin article. The solution worked fine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Without weighing in on too much, I would just like to point out that, when dealing with opinions about Assange, "some people comment that Assange is a good person, and others that he is a political prisoner and hero...I think that summarizes the full range of it" is a statement that I must disagree with. He is not universally viewed as either a good person or a hero, so those two viewpoints certainly don't summarize the full range of opinions on him. There are plenty of people who feel quite the opposite. Whether or not anyone's opinion of him is WP:DUE is another matter entirely, but to say that the entire range of opinions about him only spans from good person to political prisoner and hero is just categorically incorrect. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with you, that was a typo. I have corrected it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with somehow trimming down some of this article - Either by starting new articles to take out the weight of some sections, or by trimming out unnecessary information that is already covered in other articles. For a more quantifiable example, the section on his U.S. indictment has 2,057 words while the article on it has 3,302 words (not including the lead). I'm not speaking to how necessary (or not) everything is in that section, but just that sections that have separate articles don't seem to be very succinct (so it could be worthwhile to trim further or migrate more text to their connected articles). - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The "US indictment" section has a long section called "Reactions to the US indictment" which documents reactions around the world. Maybe this could be moved to the "US indictment" article, with a summary left here.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please start to move this content and we summarize on this article. I believe this will allow a greater range of content inclusion on the sub-articles which we can later easily easily summarize on this main article. As James points out above, sometimes there is nearly as much content on this article as there is on the other article. This also needs to be reigned in. I support this content removal where it is a duplicate, as primarily we should be linking to the primary article per policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest to avoid edit wars do not move any content without first discussing it. So make a suggestion in a new thread, and then we can decide if it needs moving or trimming.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Section headings

Really? Some of those are just stupidly Verbose.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have shortened many of them. I think it is important to note that when he took asylum in the embassy he also breached bail and when asylum was withdrawn he was convicted for breaching bail. Otherwise the story becomes incoherent and not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what the text or sub headings are for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have shortened those headings to what I consider is factual and neutral. I remain confident that people are going to be confused.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Walkley on 2019 renew prize reason and ask for freedom

about 2011 Walkley_Awards

www.walkleys.com/board-statement-4-16/
16 April 2019, Sydney

--5.171.8.181 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

p.s. please check this below for relevant/relevant for tuning the article:
newmatilda.com/2020/03/12/assange-show-trial/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

What's his current status?

He was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison on 1 May 2019. That's 54 weeks ago. Is he still in prison pending extradition hearings? Someone Not Awful (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, Assange is still in prison. More details here.
• Yes, his extradition hearing is still pending. More details here.

I guess it's expecting too much to hope that users will actually read the article space and navigate with its TOC. NedFausa (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead says he's in prison.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably, according to Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, currently Assange is under seizure by the UK; according to the UN referent on torture, he is also under torture.
Note that while in Italy organized crime bosses have been released from prison for the danger of health infections, in the United Kingdom an award-winning investigative journalist from another country is held in jail, accused of nothing by his country and the United Kingdom himself;
strange that such barbarism takes place in the United Kingdom, and stranger still that the people of the United Kingdom consent to this shame.
--5.171.9.5 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We cover this issue under "Imprisonment in the UK".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments

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.

---

There is a discussion about due weight in the lede, which contains this paragraph WikiLeaks' role in the 2016 US Presidential election:

During the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted emails sent or received by candidate Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. The U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as a Special Counsel investigation, concluded that the Russian government carried out a hacking campaign as part of broader efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States elections. In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charged the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread stolen documents. Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks, and accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria".

(emphasis added)

Should the bolded sentence be removed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove as undue weight. The lede discusses the 2016 US Presidential election, as it should, but this aspect of Assange's biography receives undue weight. Internationally, Julian Assange is best known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (of US diplomatic cables and documents relating to the Iraq and Afghan Wars) and the legal battles which have resulted from those publications (including Assange's political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2012-2019, and the ongoing extradition proceedings in the UK). This is evidenced, for example, by Google Trends, which shows the largest spikes of interest in Assange occurring in 2010 and 2019 (when he was arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy). The US indictment of Russian intelligence officers is only tangentially related to Assange (indeed, Assange is not even mentioned in the CNN article that is cited in the body of the article to support this sentence: [41]), and the level of detail given is unwarranted. Why it is important to Assange's biography that precisely 12 officers were indicted, as opposed to 11 or 13? The reader can understand the basic context of 2016 without the sentence about GRU agents: WikiLeaks published emails from the DNC/Podesta, the US intelligence community concluded that Russia hacked the emails, Assange denies this. In fact, the issue of the 2016 US Presidential election receives more space in the lede than WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. This level of detail unduly focuses the article on one issue that is of particular interest in the United States, but which does not reflect broader international interest in the subject of this article. The subject of this article is, after all, Julian Assange, and not specifically the 2016 US Presidential election. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove uncited content in which the sentence refers to wikileaks, makes no mention of Assange. Additionally article has problems with excess US weight, and this is a solution to getting started on this. No reason to believe that Assange is most known for wikileaks alleged relation to GRU. Quite a WP:SYNTH stretch to jam into the lede here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It is one of the main accusations against him that he was a Russian stooge. Nor am I sure what he is most noted for, but certainly the election is one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is a straight choice between what we have and nothing, then what we have is an absolute must - this is why Assange is being extradited, it is the primary driver for the current controversy, and to include his denial without the principal facts he is denying would not only violate WP:NPOV, it would be very weird. Guy (help!) 13:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The principal facts are already mentioned in the other three sentences in that paragraph. The sentence about indictments of GRU agents is not necessary in a short overview (which is what the lede is), and the connection with Assange is very tenuous. The RfC is not about removing the entire paragraph, but rather only about removing one sentence with limited relevance to Assange (and which is sourced to an article that does not even mention Assange: [42]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, in your opinion. In mine, the GRU connection is vital because it establishes the link to ongoing criminal proceedings and adds specificity to the jeopardy Assange faces if and when extradited. Guy (help!) 13:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I have to correct one extremely important fact that you've gotten wrong twice above. The current extradition proceedings against Assange have absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 US Presidential election. They're related entirely to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, and Assange's interactions with Chelsea Manning. Does this information change your view on the relevance of the GRU indictments? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your loud assertions do not constitute importance, or indeed corrections or, for that matter fact. I don't give a rat's ass about Assange, but you clearly very much do. Guy (help!) 20:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not an "assertion" - it's a fact that the indictment against Assange is related entirely to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, not its 2016 publications. But don't take my word for it. Take it from the BBC.

You grounded your vote with a false statement of fact. After I pointed your factual error out to you, you didn't correct yourself, and have instead chosen to go after me. Others can make of that what they will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So you keep saying. But you are a WP:SPA so I am entitled to ignore you. Guy (help!) 22:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to ignore me, but not reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Zinger! Not. The problem is simple, we don't base articles on POVs from primary, fringe, and UNDUE references. We do ignore fringe, primary, cherrypicked distortions. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you calling the BBC's factual reporting "POVs from primary, fringe, and UNDUE references"? It is a fact that the indictment against Assange is for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, not WikiLeaks' 2016 publications. The BBC article I referenced explains this, as do countless other news articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as entitlement goes, it doesn't extend to: making personal comments such as referring to an editor as an SPA; ditto for not assuming good faith; being uncivil.     ←   ZScarpia   03:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"not assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Looks lie you left an important bit out. --Calton | Talk 09:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. ... Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I very much doubt that there is clear evidence that T411 has malign intentions which conflict with building a good encyclopaedia.     ←   ZScarpia   12:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, please comment on article improvement on the article talk page. Other comments can go on your talk page or a noticeboard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Articles are helped when all editors respect each other, reminding us all of WP:AGF is no bad thing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Assange's complicity in the Russian interference in the US election is the most consequential action of his life. He initially became famous for earlier deeds, but the tangible and ongoing effects of this collaboration are currently the most notable fact about Julian Assange. Denials from Assange and Russia are empty and must be contextualized with the facts of the matter accepted, reported and discussed by independent RS worldwide. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep of course. This is the centerpiece of the involvement of Assange in US elections, and it is about one of the defining moments of his biography. It tells about his de facto GRU connections, something that was claimed in a variety of sources, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I do not see any real argument for removal. I would only remove "accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria"". That is a propaganda by Assange. It is enough to say that he denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove: it is undue weight and is not directly connected with Assange. The indictment against Assange relates to Manning, not Russia and the 2016 election.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed related to the indictment against Assange (so it is about Assange) and to the GRU (as citation tells). This is something really important I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: no, the indictment of the GRU agents has nothing whatsoever to do with the indictment against Assange. Assange has been indicted in the US for charges related to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (sources: [43] [44]). The CNN article that's used to source the statement about GRU agents does not even mention Assange (go to [45] and Ctrl+f "Assange"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to mix issues here. The preceding paragraph in the lead is about the significant 2010 issues, and the one under discussion is about Assange's cooperation with GRU agents in the 2016 Russian interference. This is also significant enough for mention in the lead. As I've stated, I'm not satisfied with the current wording, but the content should not be removed. Instead, it should be improved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I agree that we should not mix issues. That's why it's concerning that two editors have now incorrectly stated that the indictment against Assange is somehow related to the indictment against the GRU agents. This is just flat-out false. Assange has been indicted in relation to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications, and not for anything related to 2016. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The GRU agents were not involved in the 2010 incidents, but they are in the current subject of this discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

In light of the abundant sourcing about Assange's collaboration with GRU and his complicity in their interference in the American elections, this "remove" is not credible. Are you relying on the "Assange is not Wikileaks" thing? If so, let's merge the articles. It's less pain than going through a straw man every time we discuss the crowning achievement of Assange's career. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. This is biographically significant, abundantly well-sourced, and hugely consequential in terms of Assange's notability. Best regards, Neutrality^talk 00:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's going to mention that Wikileaks and Assange interfered in the 2016 election with material stolen by Russian intel officers, then it's clearly DUE to note the Special Counsel investigation concluded that, despite Assange's claims otherwise, the Russian government disseminated the materials to Wikileaks, and led to the indictment of 12 Russian intel officers. The unredacted parts of volume I of the Mueller report mention Assange at least 44 times by name. These mentions include how Assange willfully misled the public into believing that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, was behind the leaked material (when Assange knew it could not have been so), thus putting fuel on the fire of Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. While I'm not totally satisfied with the wording, as it doesn't present the chronological narrative properly or completely, this has enough weight for mention in the lead. As such it should remain, and attempts to improve the wording can continue. There is no question this is about Assange himself, regardless of whether some source mentions his name or WikiLeaks. RS mention both in this connection, and this was all happening at the embassy where Assange was located. During this period Assange=WikiLeaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Assange's ties to Russia and their collective manipulating of the 2016 American election is well-sourced and an important aspect of his biography. Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Not in the leading section. Maybe in the body as background on the events. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Only indirectly involves Assange and is too descriptive for lede. ~ HAL333 03:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as undue weight, and not appropriate in lede per WP:LEAD. Mentioning the event makes sense in the Assange bio, and the two other lines do that. Going down into details of counting the strangers to him and their life events makes no sense for the Assange bio. These details are only mentioned once at a low level -- middle of 9.3 -- and it's just not a big part of the article and makes no difference to the Life of Assange or even to the events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, at least in substance, because it is a historic event that the press has written about extensively in which Assange was notably involved. Whether the coverage was U.S.-centric or Euro-centric is irrelevant. However, I do agree that it should probably be rewritten to make it as much Assange-centric as possible. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Partial keep, in substance, but present text could be reduced, the substantive point is the allegation of Wikileaks complicity in the release of illegally obtained emails. I fail to understand how the Manning-provided material can be considered relevant, but alleged involvement in attempts to affect US Presidential election is too 'local'/US-only! These are the two main reasons Assange is well known and controversial. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The proposal is not to remove the paragraph about the 2016 US Presidential elections. The proposal is only to remove one sentence from that paragraph that has little relevance to Assange. The lede currently spends more time discussing details of indictments against GRU agents than it does discussing Manning, which is completely out of line with RS coverage on Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, most of the bolded sentence and even some of the previous one could go as being off-topic/unnec detail, but "working with WikiLeaks … to spread stolen documents" is crucial IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the bolded sentence and replace with another noting that a US court ruled Assange committed no crime in publishing these documents, per the ruling that threw allegations against Assange out of court [46]:

The ruling terminated the DNC’s claims against... the document disclosure group WikiLeaks and its leader Julian Assange for releasing material stolen by the Russian hackers. [Judge] Koetl said the Constitution’s First Amendment protects those defendants from such a civil legal claim, just as it protects “press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained, so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.” Koetl dismissed the lawsuit, which was filed in April 2018, “with prejudice,” which bars the DNS from bringing the same claims against the defendants in another suit.

It is inappropriate to insinuate that the subject has committed a crime, when the law has explicitly ruled otherwise. -Darouet (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, that's a different topic than the one under discussion. What you're describing might be added, but has no bearing on this discussion. We are not talking about any allegations of criminal activity by Assange, but about his coordination with GRU agents and then lying about it. Assange not only lied about it, he tried to frame Seth Rich, a dead man who was totally innocent. Those false accusations have caused great grief to his family, and they are suing Fox News for spreading those lies. -- Valjean (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: thanks for your comment. The topic of this RfC is what is suitable for the lead of this article. As I've shown repeatedly on this talk page, Assange's 2016 DNC publications are given coverage here far beyond what is WP:DUE given coverage by reliable sources. The mention of the GRU indictment in the lead is an example of gross misuse of a BLP to effectively slander its subject. This is particularly egregious since Assange's publication of those documents was found to be wholly legal and in the public interest in a US court of law. -Darouet (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the RfC is about one sentence. You're introducing another subject, which I do consider a legitimate subject, but not here. Also, there is far more 2010 content than 2016 content, so your "undue" argument doesn't carry much weight. Pun intended. -- Valjean (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: thanks for your pun. The RfC subject is: should we remove the lead sentence about GRU agents? I answered yes. The US court's exoneration of Assange for his publication of 2016 DNC documents is not mentioned in the RfC, but I think it's relevant, since that publication is the topic of the paragraph under discussion. Seth Rich is also not mentioned in the RfC, but in your comment above you imply it is in fact somehow a part of this RfC's subject. I think a neutral observer would agree with me that a court deciding in Assange's favor for his 2016 publications, in a paragraph about his 2016 publications, is more relevant than Seth Rich. -Darouet (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in total sympathy with your desire to include that content. I really am. It is currently in the small "DNC lawsuit" section, and maybe that should be mentioned in the lead. I don't know.

I just don't think that's the topic of this RfC, and I also think we can do both things, so start a different thread about that topic. That's all.

That I apparently mentioned other things is because, since our discussions had been dragging on for weeks without getting anywhere, I did what I often do, and that is to step back and look at the bigger picture and then make a concrete suggested improvement. That way we can work on improving it and hopefully break the deadlock. I saw that the whole paragraph was a fucking mess and was missing important points. I wasn't looking at that one sentence anymore, so I started a whole new section where we all could work. -- Valjean (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: OK, well that's reasonable. I'll think about it and write you outside this thread. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

These statements are a gross misrepresentation of the cited sources and falsely cite a summary judgment in a civil case to infer that there was no criminal act. We may conclude that this misrepresentation was made in good faith, but it is ignorant and incorrect and irrelevant to the text under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't call something "gross misrepresentation" and "ignorant and incorrect" without explaining how. Your comment actually sounds like a WP:PA.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Darouet gave an excellent argument why this should be removed while other editors like this here made totally uncivilised responses without any arguments.SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – Removing the sentence leaves a disconnect in the logic of the paragraph. Inclusion is needed for the ending of the paragraph to remain DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Like Specifico said, The problem is simple, we don't base articles on POVs from primary, fringe, and UNDUE references. We do ignore fringe, primary, cherrypicked distortions, no matter how much the obvious POV pushers want to rewrite reality. --Calton | Talk 09:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Remove As per users Thucydides411, Jtbobwaysf and others, it is undue weight and is not directly connected with Assange. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Absolutely due, clear connection to Assange and his notability. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. Paragraph relates to an indictment concerning Russians and their alleged connection to Wikileaks, not Assange himself. Inappropriate for lede paragraph. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• @Slatersteven: Why are you voting to include uncited content? Can you point us to where this content is cited. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not uncited, the lede does not need to be cited if its cited in the body, it appears to be.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, found in the article. Are you referring to these two citations in the article body? Quote from the source is below.

• "An unnamed organization, later indirectly identified in the indictment as WikiLeaks"
• "an entity known as Organization 1, which appears to be Wikileaks"

I am wondering why the lede is summarizing the article body, when one source in the body refers to an unamed organzation and the other refers to something that "appears to be wikileaks." Sure isn't very decisive text to be summarizing in the lede. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The sentence about GRU agents in sourced in the body to this CNN article: [47]. It's worth noting that the CNN article does not even mention Assange, which underlines my point: this material is only tangentially related to Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:lede it is supposed to be a summery of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That doesnt allow the lede to summarize poorly sourced content in the body to synth a new position. As Thucydides points out, there is no mention of Assange in relation to this GRU issue in either source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash the same arguments above and allow other users to chip in?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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.