Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

podesta

first mention of podesta emails assumes you know who podesta is or what his emails are and no link that would clarify it's not until 7 sections later you can finally say "oh that's what they were talking about" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4002:5490:94C7:E61C:910:2363 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The leading section mentions Podesta without explaining who he is or the significance of his emails. Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have summarised this. There is no reason to name so many people in one short paragraph in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing any mention of what the significance of the emails, while retaining the tangential material about the Mueller investigation (which is only marginally relevant to Assange's biography), unbalances the lede. If we're going to shorten this passage, we have to do it in a balanced manner. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I agree with Thucydides411 and Burrobert. When the DNC's lawsuit against Assange was dismissed "with prejudice" by a Federal Judge [1], the judge explained that the First Amendment 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.”

The phrase "public interest" is particularly relevant here: the judge is ruling that the contents of the leaked material are important enough that they define the legal status of those who publish it (in this case, Assange). Mentioning the leak without mentioning its contents actively misleads readers, as does failing to note that the case was thrown from court on First Amendment grounds. This is not unrelated to last month's dispute about the Obama Administration's view of the First Amendment protections for Assange's actions. -Darouet (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reduced it to a one sentence statement. Perhaps we could rebuild from there. Or return to the long established version and discuss on talk. Burrobert (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a longer statement by the judge from the same ruling [2]:

“If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet,” the opinion states. “But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”

The judge specifically references the value, in his eyes at least, of the information Assange published for the election and for the public. This determined the outcome of the DNC case against Assange and is therefore notable in his biography when the case is mentioned. -Darouet (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I remind editors again that there was an RfC on Mueller being in the lead earlier this year. I was among those against including it in the lead, but the consensus was the opposite, and I think we should respect that. My previous edit removed mention of Podesta, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Sanders, and Wasserman. I continue to think that was too much detail for one short paragraph in the introduction. The original point was correct. If we mention Podesta we should say who he is. But that's a reason not to mention him in the lead. The lead is not the place to introduce minor players.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. That trumps editors' amateur legal posturing. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"amateur legal posturing" is, at best, an unprofessional comment: I'm directly quoting from a Federal judge who has ruled on this issue. SPECIFICO you were recently sanctioned for your editing on this page and I'd like to politely request that you keep things civil.

Regarding this content - [3] - when was this added to the article? While we might dispute which specific names appear here, I agree with the principle that failing to note the contents of the leaks obscures their importance as determined by a US court of law. If this case is mentioned in the lead, we should also note that the case was dismissed with prejudice. -Darouet (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please cite expert legal commentary where relevant and not your personal ruminations. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is a Federal Judge not a legal expert, or what are you talking about? -Darouet (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The judge is a primary source, and your use of it is WP:OR SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How so? -Darouet (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this line of argument. We note the case in the article. However, this doesn't trump the fact there is a consensus to mention Mueller in the lead. What we have to do here is find a way of summarising the important points, including Mueller, in a way that is easy to understand for people all round the world who aren't familiar with the minor players of American politics.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aren't minor players in American politics. The basic gist of the email releases and their political importance in the 2016 campaign should be mentioned, especially if tangentially related, minor details about the Mueller investigation are going to be included. By the way, the description of the contents of the emails is longstanding content, so there is implicit consensus for its inclusion. The re-removal of the material by SPECIFICO, without a consensus to remove it, was inappropriate (and is precisely the type of behavior for which SPECIFICO was recently topic-banned from this article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the RfC. I will revert my deletion. Burrobert (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What about returning to the long-standing version and discuss changes from there? Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert that we should return to the longstanding version, and then discuss how to trim the paragraph in a balanced manner. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders is a minor player in Assange's life story, and in 10 years' time he might be largely forgotten even in Las Vegas. Name-dropping all these people is unnecessary, and we would need to include introductions for all of them. Unfortunately, the RfC says the sentence of Mueller with its minor details has to be in he lead. I don't think this is a justification to include other tangential information in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV requires a balance between different aspects of the story. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are central to the DNC email leak, and you can't explain its importance without mentioning both of them. Leaving out what the leak was actually about, but including tangential information about the Mueller investigation, is unbalanced. If the RfC requires inclusion of minor details about the Mueller investigation, that commits us to at least a basic explanation of why the emails generated controversy. In any case, this is longstanding material with implicit consensus, so I would appreciate if you would restore it while we discuss how to trim the passage in a balanced manner. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We do not have to explain the email leak in the lead. That is what the body is for. And matching tangent for tangent is not balanced: it's completely off the rails. I don't think the "longstanding material" argument is relevant, but if you or anyone else wants to restore it, go ahead.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not "matching tangent for tangent" - it's basic adherence to NPOV. if you or anyone else wants to restore it, go ahead: I think it's best you restore it. It's clear that there's no consensus for removal of this longstanding material, but the rules are in such a state of uncertainty here that I don't feel comfortable reverting (even on your invitation). I'm willing to discuss reductions in the text afterwards. For example, we probably don't have to mention Podesta in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a possible first sentence of the paragraph in question that I would consider relatively complete:

During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party favoured Hillary Clinton's campaign and had tried to undercut Bernie Sanders.

Thoughts? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, let's be clear. Any change to the text Burrobert has restored -- decided by an arduous RfC -- would require a new RfC. Not just discussion and agreement among the dwindlinig group of editors who remain here after all the exhausting talk page tangles of the past 4 years. Thank you Burrobert for restoring the status quo consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We cant override the Mueller RFC here on this talk page without another RFC, see WP:CONLEVEL. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Also to be clear, the RfC [4] was about one sentence. We're discussing other aspects of the paragraph as well. Perhaps we will come to the conclusion that another RfC is necessary to determine how the rest of the paragraph is written, though since we've just begun discussion here, I don't know if that's necessary yet. -Darouet (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

the sentence proposed by Thucydides would work as a first sentence. Burrobert (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

apologies, i thought it was being proposed to remove the RFC content. Please add the full revised content so we can understand. Maybe add a diff. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

They did remove it, only they got caught. So now they would like to change its meaning by adding to it. That doesn't work. If there is to be a change, including an addition, there will need to be a new RfC. We're not in a hurry here, so it's time to gather up the pings for all the editors who participated in the RfC and prepare to launch your proposal. If you must. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Who are "they"? Vague accusations of bad faith are not helpful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: My above proposed text would replace (or rather expand) the first sentence of the paragraph in question. It's not a proposal to remove the subsequent sentences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"They got caught". Guilty your honour. The only time in my life I have ever tried to do something illegal and Jack was too sharp. I won't do it again. Suspended sentence for a first offence? Burrobert (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is about whether restore the lead to what it was until Jack deleted the description of what the emails were about. Thucydides has suggested a reduced version of what was previously the first sentence in that section of the lead. His suggestion is that the first sentence should be: "During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party favoured Hillary Clinton's campaign and had tried to undercut Bernie Sanders". I think we need to give a description of the nature of the emails and either of the two choices above are fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. For the lede, in general my preference is less.

During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party favored Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Sometimes too much detail in the lede is not helpful. Anyhow, I am not of a strong opinion on this, just my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to say the Democratic National Committee, not "the party". And unfortunately if we say that they favoured Clinton, we have to say over Sanders, because of course they favoured Clinton in the election because she was their candidate against Trump. We also should explain who Clinton and Sanders were at that point, rivals in the primary. The problem is that the situation is complicated, and it's hard to explain briefly, and it's going to be harder in time to come, when people have forgotten the dramas of 2016.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This should explain those issues succinctly:

During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee had tried to undercut Bernie Sanders and favoured Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

The Wikilinks will allow any reader to easily understand any terms they're unfamiliar with. In any case, Clinton and Sanders have enough name recognition that I don't imagine many readers will be fully unaware of who they are. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No. For reasons already explained above. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: who knows what a future article would look like, but I'd imagine that in the highly unlikely chance any of this specific text still existed in 20 years, "the more radical candidate Bernie Sanders" would probably replace "Bernie Sanders" to give context to readers. -Darouet (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the word "undercut:" it doesn't feel conventional. What about "undermine" instead? Or even more simply, "...showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries." ? -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RS tell us that, in respect of Assange, the significant fact is his misdeeds. You can discuss the DNC or your political POV elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here is an updated draft:

During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

I think this gives some context, while still being concise. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Readers glancing the lead to learn about Assange will not have the slightest understanding of DNCs role, governance, and operations. Please don't make the article worse than it already is. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like we're converging on a reasonable text. Thoughts on it? Should we put it in? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think first. -Darouet (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There are no others here. If that's your best shot, launch the RfC and we'll see how it goes. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The above proposed sentence is a few words longer than your proposal, but I still think it's fairly succinct. Suggestions are welcome though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I support Thucydides's updated draft. I think that this does explain at a glance what happened, without having assumed knowledge.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm very flattered that you call it my draft. It's the work of many hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me. Full steam ahead. Burrobert (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this looks good. Short summary that provides the correct context. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have amended the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I support this change. As has been explained clearly by multiple editors here, the previous RfC addressed the question of the inclusion of the Mueller sentence, and does not prevent editors from proposing, discussing, or accepting other sentences in the lead. At this point we have six editors supporting the proposed sentence and one opposing, claiming that we must launch an RfC and ping every participant in a previous RfC to make this change. I can see no reason, from policy or reliable sources, why that would be true. -Darouet (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be a waste of everybody's time to have an RfC over every change.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I also support this Thucydides update draft. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Change to RfC consensus

As has been discussed on talk in the Podesta section above, any change to a consensus arising from an RfC should be ratified by a new RfC. If anyone objected to this obvious policy-based protocol, the time to raise that objection would have been before removing the consensus text. This article has lost nearly all its active editors over the past year due to the unsurmountable difficulties of article improvement in the presense of a small group of editors with a non-mainstream view of Assange and of WP policies and guidelines for editing in difficult circumstances.

Darouet and Upland Jack, please propose your new text at an RfC which will verify that you have arrived at a new and better version of the article text. If indeed your new version is better, it will soon be endorsed by a larger group of editors and your version will endure, with only a slight initial delay. I am not going to get into an edit war or lengthy repetition of the problems I have identified with your new version. We can do that with a larger and presumably neutral group of editors in the context of the RfC.

Pinging others who may or may not be interested, @Awilley, JzG, El C, Bishonen, Slatersteven, Snooganssnoogans, and Objective2000: SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Admins pinged here: please review SPECIFICO’s behavior in the above section, compared to all other editors. -Darouet (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this comply with WP:CANVASS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, this seems to be blatant canvassing. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It's so frustrating. Seems every time something (well sourced) is put into any bio that puts the Democratic party in a dark light? there's a hassle. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree it is very frustrating to edit these articles. I am not even versed enough in US politics to understand if Podesta was democratic or republican edit. But I can spot CANVASS when I see it ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hawkins

I have removed references to "Hawkins" being Assange's birth name from the lead sentence and from the infobox. I raised this issue a year ago, with no response. According to MOS:CHANGEDNAME, inclusion of the birth name in the lead is optional. We have no evidence that Assange was known as "Hawkins" for any length on time. Yes, his original birth name should be noted, but I can't see any reason for it to be displayed so prominently.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - given all the other prominent information that could be mentioned, that seems fair. -Darouet (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Postumously published book by attorney Michael Ratner: "Moving the Bar, My Life as a Radical Lawyer"

Michael Ratner, who died in 2016, started acting for Julian Assange after WikiLeaks released the “Iraq War Logs” in October 2010.

OR Books is in the process of releasing an autobiography which includes details of Ratner's involvement with Assange: Moving the Bar: My Life as a Radical Lawyer, Michael Ratner, OR Books, 2021. ISBN 978-1-68219-309-9

An article by Chris Hedges discussing what Ratner wrote about his involvement has just been published: Scheepost - Chris Hedges: The Empire is Not Done with Julian Assange, 04 January 2021. The article has been republished by Consortium News here.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP issues with going into detail about Assange's family?

I don't feel strongly about this, but I'm curious. In regards to the Family/Children section of this article, are we allowed to talk so much about Assange's family and children, and are we allowed to mention their names? I've seen heavy censorship of the non-notable family members of fugitives on Wikipedia before, and WP:BLP is invoked to justify it. For example, at the article Derek Chauvin. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the argument would be Assange is rather more notable than for just being a fugitive. But there maybe a case for not naming his children, however, if family members have stuck their oar in I think they are fair game.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, no reason to name the kids. But naming his wife who is quite involved in all of his release efforts, as well as his mother and father, they should be named in the article. They are not hiding and nobody is ashamed to be associated with the hero. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Assange is clearly covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. He is not a fugitive and even when he was a fugitive lived his life in the public gaze. His children have been repeatedly mentioned by reliable sources. Assange, Moris, and others have repeatedly raised the issue of his children as a reason for prosecution and imprisonment to stop. Daniel has given an interview. Most biographical articles mention the names of the subject children. There is no reason to censor the names of the children. This would only lead to more confusion on this topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland, what we have now is good with the possible exception of "and became a software designer. Daniel has had little contact with his father since 2007.” Name the children and partners but theres no need to include details about their lives that don’t directly relate to the subject of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and I guess I'd want to know if we have any guidance beyond WP:PUBLICFIGURE (which doesn't say much). I feel ambivalent about this and so will hear what others have to say. While Assange isn't a "fugitive," the soon-to-be president of the US has called him a "hi-tech terrorist [5]," and witnesses state that operatives discussed kidnapping and/or poisoning him [6]. If revealing the names of his children placed them at risk, we should consider that. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME offers "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The names are already widely reported. If their surname is "Assange" they will be easy to find anyway. To remove their names is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Clearly his children have a "significant" relationship to him. I don't see any reason given here for not including their names. The advantage of naming his children (3 have been named so far) is to avoid confusion. If we are referring to the children born when he was in the embassy we can refer to him by name. With regard to Daniel being a software designer, I guess the journalists were suggesting he was following in his father's footsteps. With regard to the little contact he had with his father, I think this is relevant to this article. Assange's private relationships are a valid topic and played a part in his current predicament by way of the Swedish incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: it seems to me that policy concerning the use of family names allows us some discretion here, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (thanks for the reference Horse Eye's Back). As to "little contact," my concern is that the articles we cited both date from 2010, and describe a period from 2007-2010 (note that my edit summary was incorrect, the articles were not written in 2007). For that reason, unless we can find a newer source, the phrase "little contact since 2007" does not accurately reflect the sources we cite — though it might still be true. -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: We could address this by writing something like, "in a 2010 interview, Daniel said he had little contact with his father following the launch of Wikileaks." -Darouet (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be giving the issue too much weight. I seem to remember there was a source which said that Daniel had visited Julian in London, and that was the first time that they had meet since 2007, but I can't find. On reflection this is fairly trivial, given that Julian was holed up in the embassy since 2012 and has been imprisoned since 2019. I will also remove the reference to Daniel's occupation as it is not relevant here.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I guess that all sounds reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Structure

Novem Linguae has made an valiant effort to reduce the number of Level 1 headings. I suspect their abundance is due to the page size. However, I think there are a number of problems with this new structure. Firstly the heading, "Initial legal troubles". This ignores the fact that he had already been convicted of hacking and undergone a harrowing divorce. I also think it is misleading — and possibly biased — to link together two investigations that could be completely unrelated. And the US criminal investigation is in fact the "legal trouble" that currently confronts him. Not really initial. Secondly, the "2016 U.S. presidential election" is given a Level 1 heading after the section with the Level 1 heading Ecuadorian Embassy, even though the 2016 election occurred when he was in the embassy. Previously I had created sections for "Activities in the embassy" and "Later years in the embassy", with the 2016 election in the middle. If the current structure remains, there is no valid reason to divide these two sections. I have just moved the "Arrest in the embassy" section past the 2016 election section in order to prevent the erroneous suggestion that Assange was arrested before the 2016 election. My questions to other editors are as follows:

1. Does the number of Level 1 headings matter? Would it be better to go back to the previous structure?
2. Can anyone think of a better heading than "Initial legal troubles"?
3. Should the 2016 election be given a Level 1 heading when none of the other WikiLeaks controversies are?
4. Should the 2016 election be placed out of chronological order?
5. If Assange's embassy time is subdivided, how should it be subdivided?

Any response to any of these questions would be appreciated.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I had just taken this page off my watchlist.

I think the new headings are imperfect, and your concerns are valid. It might be one of those situations where "it's not perfect, but it's slightly better". Happy to hear what others think.

I think you make a good point about the 2016 election section. There could be a WP:WEIGHT issue there. Maybe that content should be trimmed, or moved to an article about WikiLeaks, or converted into a summary section about all WikiLeaks content (with {{main|WikiLeaks}}). –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the 2016 US election has been given what you call a level 1 section to itself. The current arrangement should be changed. As has been mentioned often on this page, the 2016 US election section should be trimmed to balance with other parts of the story. Its previous location as a subsection of the Embassy section seemed fine and maintains chronology. Otherwise, collect all of Wikileaks work into a Level 1 section - collateral murder etc. "Initial legal troubles" is an odd title. Do US criminal investigation and Swedish sexual assault allegations need to be under a Level 1 section. Is there an issue with making them Level 1 sections? Burrobert (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We know that some people consider the 2016 election is important, so as a compromise I have moved the section in its entirety into the Embassy section. I have also changed "Initial legal troubles" to "Criminal investigations". I don't see the problem with having multiple Level 1 headings personally, but if we are going to make the change we have to try to be consistent...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A decision by Obama administration not to prosecute?

We recently had a discussion on this However, in the recent decision on extradition, Judge Baraitser concluded: "I am satisfied that no decision was made under the Obama administration, whether to prosecute or not to prosecute Mr. Assange. After Ms. Manning was convicted and sentenced in 2013 for her role in disclosing the information, the investigation against Mr. Assange continued until charges were brought in December 2017." (p 56). Commenting on a 2013 Washington Post article by Sari Horowitz, Baraitser said: "Ms. Horwitz relied upon unnamed 'justice officials', unnamed 'U.S. officials' and a former spokesman for the Department. In fact, Mr. Miller had left the DOJ two years earlier and official sources declined to provide a comment... In his comments to Ms. Horwitz, Mr. Miller did no more than confirm DOJ policy that it did not prosecute journalists for publishing classified information" (pp 56-7). This article is one of the sources used in this article. It seems very questionable to say there was a decision not to prosecute. If the statement — "In 2013, US officials said that it was unlikely that the Justice Department would indict Assange for publishing classified documents because it would also have to prosecute the news organisations and writers who published classified material" — is sourced to Miller I think it would be better to leave this out.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, include the source of the original comment and add in Baraitser’s comments. Let readers decide how to interpret the various points of view. It is an important point which should remain in the article in some form. Burrobert (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Baraitser's assertion is interesting, and I hadn't seen that in her decision, so thank you for quoting it. I agree that we should add text stating that the judge, Baraitser, has now countered that in her view "no decision was made under the Obama administration, whether to prosecute or not to prosecute Mr. Assange." -Darouet (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this is important.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the attitude of the Obama administration towards prosecuting Assange is not important? Burrobert (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We know that a US investigation had begun by 2010. We know an indictment was issued in 2018 and unsealed as soon as Assange was expelled from the embassy. We know that the extradition attempt ensued. As I said, It's not clear to me why the Obama administration's attitude is important. What difference does it make in the end?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that you don’t think the Obama administration’s attitude to prosecuting Assange is important. Have a look at this article which explains why Assange’s lawyers considered Obama’s attitude important. “Attorneys and experts appearing on his behalf have already told the court that his extradition is a "political prosecution" that was never advanced by the Obama administration but taken up by President Donald Trump”. “It seems very clear to me that the Obama administration made a decision not to prosecute," Durkin said. "I think that's what happened, they decided not to go ahead ... and for Donald Trump's political purposes they decided to reinstate the charges." “If the Obama administration had intended to prosecute Assange, it would be my opinion that they would have corrected those stories in some way," Durkin said. We can assume that Baraitser herself believed it was an important point since she took time to explain why she was not convinced by the defence’s evidence. It might be worth explaining this in the article as well as including Baraitser’s view and Durkin’s testimony. Burrobert (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Durkin's "testimony" is just vague impressions taken from newspaper articles which were themselves based on vague impressions. It's pretty clear from that article that Baraitser was right: Obama's administration hadn't made a decision. In a 132-page judgment, Baraitser devotes less than four pages to this argument. As a judge, she is required to give reasons for rejecting arguments. But for this Wikipedia page I don't see why it matters. What difference does it make?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Our role is to document Baraitser’s opinion, not to decide whether she was right or not. The article I linked to explains why the defence, and therefore Assange, considers it an important point and the impact on Assange’s situation if the defence’s argument was accepted. We are writing Assange’s bio. Btw, unrelated to the above, this content has been on the page for quite a while and survived numerous redactions. At what point did it become unimportant? Burrobert (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I raised the question in the hope of being given a reason why this is important. None has been forthcoming, so I'll leave it at that.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's important because of the reported reason why the Obama administration decided not to prosecute Assange: that doing so would undermine freedom of the press. Beyond that, this was an important issue in Assange's extradition hearings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This supposed to be a biography of Assange, not a selection of minor talking points. There appears to be no evidence such a decision was made. It would take a very biased mind to leap from that to any firm conclusion. As I said, Baraitser only devoted a few pages to this feeble argument. My question is: why is this important to a biography of Assange? It would be important if Assange had walked free from the embassy, or if something else had happened, as a result of this supposed decision. By all accounts, this supposed decision — which it appears never happened — had no effect on the subject of this biography. So why include this in the article???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It was widely reported that the Obama administration decided not to prosecute Assange based on the effect that that prosecution would have on freedom of the press. The evidence is that administration officials told newspapers that this was the case, and that charges were never filed while Obama was in office. We can also note that the judge wasn't convinced that the Obama administration didn't make such a decision. I don't see why you consider this a "minor talking point". The freedom of the press angle to Assange's prosection has been heavily reported on, and is one of the most notable aspects in his biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Thucydides. What may be a "minor talking point" for you, sitting in your comfortable lounge chair at home watching the Aussies lose to India in the cricket, is quite important for the rest of us who are stuck in a freezing Belmarsh gaol cell. And we have instructed our lawyers to include it as part of our defence. Let’s come to a compromise. We won’t include the point in your bio if you allow us to have the point included in ours. Your statement that the decision by the Obama administration had "no effect on the subject of this biography" is inaccurate. I went back in my time machine and saw the alternative timeline in which Obama did prosecute Assange - and it is horrific, not just for Assange, but for the rest of us as well. It's impossible to have a civilised discussion with a Morlock. Burrobert (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, in the extradition hearings, Assange's defence failed to produce evidence that the decision occurred. The key article seems the one written by Sari Horwitz.[7] However, Horwitz states, "The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made". She also quotes WikiLeaks saying it is sceptical is skeptical " 'short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the U.S. government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks' " Do you have evidence that a formal decision was made? Or that an announcement was made? Or is this just a rumour that a few media outlets have echoed?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What's a "formal" decision? Multiple Obama administration officials have said that a decision was made not to prosecute Assange. There was no announcement that there wouldn't be a prosection, but there was also no indictment. The Obama administration had years to issue one, but they didn't do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the sealed indictment was for computer hacking, but did not contain charges for publishing classified information: those were leveled later, after he was arrested by the British government. I would think it's so obvious it doesn't even need mentioning, but Baraitser is a primary source for this article: her views should be recorded, but should not determine the content here, particularly when contradicted by secondary sources. -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Assange was in the embassy at this point. There was no practical way the Obama administration could have prosecuted him. We have here a gigantic contradiction. Assange, WikiLeaks, and Assange's supporters on this page have said repeatedly that he couldn't leave the embassy because of the threat of prosecution by the US government. However, they also claim that the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute. And they took this argument to the extradition hearings. So which is it???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsensical and is going off into the weeds. We dont include your timeline of where assange was and what is your opinion on why the Obama administration did or didnt prosecute. If the judge stated it, it is WP:DUE and as Thucidiyes states above, it is core to the whole press-vs spy concept (the very core of the article subject). The proposed content should be included without a bunch of extra analysis from editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Appeal?

The article notes twice that the US government has 14 days to appeal. That time is now up. Is there any further news on this?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Good question. I don't see anything in the news. I put my filter on one week. It's all pardon rumors. [8] –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Great question. There are only a few articles out today on Assange that I can find. Here's one [9] from the Byline Times (I hadn't heard of this news source; discussion here [10]). The article mentions the likelihood of an appeal. Two weeks ago, Bloomberg [11] wrote that the US government "is appealing," while Reuters and Al Jazeera wrote they "will appeal" [12][13]. So I don't know the answer. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the references to 14 days, as that is out of date, and put the references to appeal together with the references to Assange being denied bail. It is not uncommon, unfortunately, for the media to gloss over detail of Assange's legal troubles. I am sure we will hear about the appeal in due course, if there is one.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. What about the lead? "He was found guilty of breaching the Bail Act and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison"; wouldn't it be nice to have the date there, to clarify that he has served the sentence at this point? Lead is already long. I hesitate to add anything unless something else is deleted. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To make matters more complicated, he only served 25 weeks of his sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As it turns out, the 14-day deadline was correct. "Washington’s British lawyers’ filed papers with the High Court in London on the final day of a 14-day deadline, a spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed to Britain’s Press Association." [14] Vagabond nanoda (talk)

I don't think anyone was suggesting the 14 days was not correct, but I don't think we need to note this.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed historical that washington attorneys let him sit for 14 days before responding. Shows the continued delay tactics (if the reader reads it like i do, but we editors dont say that). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you read the source given, it was a mistake to say that the lawyers waited 14 days. In any case, this is a trivial detail, and not a major delay in the case.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange's involvement in the Microchipping conspiracy

More information needs to be added about his involvement about the micro chipping conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.1.129 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

“Murder of Seth Rich” section

Regarding the NBC News article (by Alex Seitz-Wald) which is cited in the “Murder of Seth Rich” section – it seems to me that Mr Seitz-Wald was overstretching a point when he says “Assange, in an interview with a Dutch news program... implied Rich was the source of the email and was killed for working with his group” Assange did not go that far - he is very cagy - and only acknowledges the possibility that Rich may have been killed for reasons other than those mentioned in the official police report. Acknowledging the possibility that someone was killed for sinister reasons is not quite the same as implying that they actually where. I also note that Assange does not specify what information Rich may (or may not) have given to Wikileaks. Seems to me the article would benefit from using Assange’s own words rather than quoting Seitz-Wald’s interpretation. I therefore suggest the article is altered perhaps changing:

“In a July 2016 interview, Assange implied that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result”

To

“In a July 2016 interview, which touched on the killing of DNC staffer Seth Rich, Julian Assange said: “Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks,” and, unprompted, went on to say that Rich was killed “for unknown reasons.”. These words where later interpreted by conspiracy theorists as support for their view that Rich was the source of the DNC emails and that Rich had been killed as a result.”

Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We probably don't need to change that much. I would remove the opinion provided by a non-notable pro-Clinton reporter, but leave in the attributed opinion of the Mueller report that "Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source." TFD (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

TFD there remains the question of whether an entire section should be devoted to these comments. -Darouet (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Muller report is of course not an infallible source - some of its findings are contested.(for instance the report says: “In November 2015, Assange wrote to other members and associates of WikiLeaks that “[w]e believe it would be much better for GOP to win"” – In fact the statement in question is quoted from the Wikileaks Twitter account which was posted to by more than one Wikileaks staffer (a fact which the Muller report omits to mention) and Assange has denied being the author of that particular Tweet.)

The Muller report has the following to say regarding the subject in hand:

“Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”180 Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter…that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”

The central assertions here – as with the Seitz-Wald – seem to me problematic i.e. the Muller report says that: “[Assange] implied falsely that [Rich] had been the source of the stolen DNC emails”. However, the information and quotes offered do not back up the “implied falsely...”statement. Here again are the Assange/Wikileaks statements which Muller uses to justify his “[Assange] implied falsely...” assertion.

“WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”

“We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.”

”If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter…that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”

Yes, Assange is publicly airing concerns about the circumstances surrounding Rich’s death and, it seems to me, his words may fairly be considered tantamount to him saying “foul play is a real possibility here”, it is also fair to say that Assange implies that Rich gave information to Wikileaks. However he nowhere mentions the Clinton DNC leaks and his remarks only ever express doubts and unknowns about the case and never positively affirm conclusions – seem to me that Muller, like Seitz-Wald, has stepped beyond what it is reasonable to infer from Assange’s actual words. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

He is not "airing concerns." He is falsely insinuating Rich was his source, promoting a conspiracy theory to the advantage of the Russians. Mueller conducted a legal investigation. It's nonsense to compare his conclusions to words of any single journalist. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to change anything in that section, this was widely reported on. For example, Facing accusations from high-profile members of the Democratic Party — including Hillary Clinton — that Russians helped WikiLeaks acquire the emails, Assange suggested Rich may have been the source of the leaks in August 2016, USA TODAY reported. His suggestion launched several conspiracy theories. [15]. Geogene (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

To SPECIFICO -To say that “He [Assange] is falsely insinuating Rich was his source, promoting a conspiracy theory to the advantage of the Russians” seems to me to be a conspiracy theory itself. I’ve seen no proof for this assertion. I would add that the Muller report may well be “a legal investigation” (or whatever you wish to call it), but it not free of flaws, and should not be treated as such –in this instance one of its conclusions does not appear to accord with the evidence offered.

To Geogene – It seems to me that just because something is “widely reported” does not mean it is true. Inclusion in the article should also depend on assertions marrying with evidence which is reliable and consistent. Seems to me the link you include here has a wording which improves on what is in the article i.e. “Assange suggested Rich MAY [my emphasis] have been the source of the leaks in August 2016” I still think this over-stretches what Assange actually said, but it’s better than what we currently have. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

True, but for Wikipedia's purposes, the procedure is to give the most WP:WEIGHT to the most significant viewpoint. And this is a fairly ubiquitous viewpoint, for example that NPR piece I just mentioned contains this As you notice, Assange doesn't quite say that Seth Rich was his source for the DNC emails. He's suggesting it....But Assange was cleverly and quite cynically trying to throw people off from where he got the emails and pointing to this dead guy in Washington, D.C., who was killed in a botched robbery. [16]. Geogene (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, since some are partially quoting Assange's interview transcript, it should be pointed out that it was Assange that brought Rich up. Here's another part of the interview, from NPR [17].

• JULIAN ASSANGE: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There was a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back - murdered - just two weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So...
• UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: That was just a robbery I believe, wasn't it?
• ASSANGE: No. There's no finding. So that's the sort of...
• ASSANGE: I'm suggesting that our sources take risks, and they are - they become concerned to see things occurring like that.
• UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But was he one of your sources then? I mean...
• ASSANGE: We don't comment on who our sources are.

Geogene (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Geogene - I believe I have already dealt with Assange’s remarks in the interview to which you refer (please see the first four paragraphs in this section). Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Prune, please don't clutter the page with your personal theories about why the investigators and RS are mistakenn. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: your response to Prunesqualor misinterprets their comment in an outrageous and insulting manner — and you've already been topic banned at this page, recently, for your behavior. Please stop degrading the environment on this page. -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We should stick to RS language and we should not obfuscate what Assange did. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualor is raising a legitimate objection that Assange's comments on the topic are being misrepresented on his own bio. There's the further problem that the "Seth Rich" comments are given far greater weight than they deserve: indeed the introduction of a whole section on the topic has been contested since you, Snoogans, first added it. -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That is nonsense on its face. Why would a fugitive in another country opine on a random random street crime in DC? SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not "nonsense on its face" to introduce the qualifier "may", as some reliable sources do this as well. It's important that we accurately convey what Assange said: this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If anything, we should consider clarifying Assange's fame for promoting this kind of conspiracy theory. The article currently waxes over this. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Google Trends page for the "Julian Assange" search query show that interest in Assange and the Seth Rich conspiracy theories are closely linked. [18]. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A public perception which links the comments of Julian Assange and conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Seth Rich are undoubtedly exasperated by the kind of reporting that we have included in this article. Assange aired the possibility that Rich’s death may have had darker motives (wanting further investigation) and implied Rich had links to Wikileaks – no more, no less. People are entitled to view even such a limited aspersion as outrageous - however his words should be reported accurately and interpreted fairly in the article. As things stand we have “Assange implied that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails”. That’s an interpretation which, has assumed an undue solidity by being repeated over and over – but it remains an interpretation/opinion. If we really must include such interpretations/opinions we should at least inform the readers of what we are dealing by prefixing the assertion “in the opinion of some/many...” Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the characterization of what Assange said is a bit too definitive. I also think that this does not merit its own subsection, or more than two sentences, for that matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I concur. The contents of the “Murder of Seth Rich” section is largely based on conjecture/speculation and should be dropped – the few uncontested facts contained in the section – eg that “WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about [Rich’s] murder” can easily be moved within another section if considered sufficiently noteworthy. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Let's be clear. The Seth Rich paragraph is a subsection under "2016 U.S. presidential election", which is a subsection of "Ecuadorian Embassy". That is clearly where the information about Rich belongs and it clearly shouldn't be moved elsewhere. The only question is how much information do we need here, and whether this needs its own subheading. Please don't confuse the issue or mess up the article (further).--Jack Upland (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Muller report is a primary source and should be give DUE weight, it is certainly not a reliable secondary source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"long standing" counts for nothing in content disputes

"Long standing" is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if content has been on wikipedia for 1 minute or 20 years, if it's inappropriate then it's inappropriate. The documentation for Template:Infobox criminal is very clear that it should only be used for serious criminals such as murderers and gangsters. Assange's convictions are for the relatively minor matters of hacking and breech of bail, and are not the primary reasons for his notability. Some consider him a criminal for his leaking of US intelligence information, but this is a matter of POV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No that's not how it goes. Longstanding content in an article that is widely watched and edited is presumed to have WP:consensus. You can convince us otherwise, but at any rate your edit has been reverted and the ball's in your court. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Silence is the weakest form of "consensus". In any case you no longer have consensus. Inappropriate use of that template is a BLP violation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Reading the description at Template:Infobox criminal, I agree with MaxBrowne2 completely. This is the description given at bold at the top of the template:

Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.

The emphasis is in the original.

If you search for pages where the infobox is used, you'll find just murderers and gangsters.

Whatever you think about Assange, Julian Assange#Honours and awards, and statements by the United Nations [19][20][21][22], Human Rights Watch [23], the American Civil Liberties Union [24], and legal experts [25][26] support the Wikipedia template warning, and demonstrate that it shouldn't be used for Assange. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Odd then that over half the article is about just that, his convictions, fleeing justice, and extradition.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The infobox guidelines are clear that it is reserved for extremely serious crimes, such as murder and rape. Assange's convictions are for a minor hacking charge as a teenager and for skipping bail. I think this is pretty obviously a BLP violation, and I think we should be able to agree to change to a different infobox. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that we were using Infobox criminal. The infobox clearly states that it is only to be used for notorious criminals convicted of serious crimes like murder and rape. A minor hacking conviction from when he was a teenager and and skipping bail are not anywhere near that category. This is obviously a BLP violation, and should be removed. And for the umpteenth time, an RfC is not needed for every edit.

@SPECIFICO: I've lost track of the times you've changed your opinion on silent consensus. You were topic banned from this page just a few months ago ([27]) for gaming the system ([28]), by flipping between opposite interpretations of the "consensus required" restriction. But regardless, this is clearly a BLP violation, so your personal opinion about Assange being the criminal of the century notwithstanding, we actually have to remove the infobox in order to comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be civil and address policy and sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @Awilley:.

I've been civil and I've addressed two policy issues: WP:BLP and WP:GAMING. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unsure why I was pinged. Yes, it's always better to focus on the content and sourcing rather than other editors. Also, MaxBrowne, Darouet, and Thucydides are clearly correct here: per the infobox instructions, using the Infobox criminal template here is a BLP violation. Despite the number of words dedicated to discussing Assange's legal woes, his primary notability is as an activist. ~Awilley (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that this article to a great degree concerns Assange's tangles with the criminal justice systems of multiple countries. As such, the criminal infobox is probably appropriate. I also don't think 24 counts of hacking should be described as a "minor conviction". He pleaded guilty and was evidently treated leniently by the Australian judge. But 24 counts is a LOT of crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If the above arguments are valid and he is not primarily known for his various brushes with the law, this article is a massive violation of undue as we give far too much space over to what he is not in fact noted for. Which (in itself) would asl be a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Awilley, and Jack Upland: some editors might agree that this bio is not neutral, but that is absolutely not required to recognize that infobox criminal is inappropriate here. As the infobox states, the infobox is for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals, and should be used "judiciously." It's not for people who've been given political asylum, for people who've won many international journalism awards, or for people whom the United Nations has declared are arbitrarily detained for political reasons. -Darouet (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Err, it says Generally reserved, not exclusively reserved. Moreover, it can be argued he was (and as he is fight8ing extradition might still be) a fugitive.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally reserved is pretty close to exclusively reserved. There has to be a very good reason for putting someone in a category intended for murderers, rapists and the like.

Fighting extradition does not make one a criminal, nor does being charged with a crime. As it says in the infobox, the infobox is for people who have been convicted of the most serious types of crimes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say "serious," that's your interpretation. It says "notorious," which is basically "well known," but with a negative connotation. Further, whether a crime is serious or not is a matter of editor POV. Geogene (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Serious" is what I gather from the list of crimes the infobox gives, all of which are extremely serious. It does not matter what an editor's POV is - no reasonable POV places skipping bail on the same level as murder. The template further states that it is rarely used when the subject is not primarily known for their conviction, and Assange is quite clearly not primarily known for his bail-skipping conviction. This is just a very basic question of whether or not we're going to respect BLP policy on this page, or whether we're instead going to attach a label intended for murderers and rapists to the subject of the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also (and again) half our article (at least) is about his crimes, flights from justice and extradition hearing, that to me means that he is pretty notorious for his crimes, at least as much as for...his hacking (a crime?). And a lot less than for his "activism" (whatever that actually is outside of WikiLeaks).Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, this needs an RfC. Who will do the honors? SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no RfC needed here. This is a straightforward BLP violation that should be speedily resolved. Just step back and consider whether Assange's bail-skipping conviction warrants an infobox reserved for serious criminals, such as murderers and rapists. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well others disagree, on all of the above. So we have an impass.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You agree that Assange hasn't been convicted of the types of serious crimes the infobox is generally reserved for, right? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to call a convicted criminal a criminal. C'mon. Also, don't misrepresent the infobox criteria that have been quoted on this very page RE: Notorious criminal. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

How have I misrepresented the infobox criteria? And how could incorrectly putting someone in a category reserved for the most notorious of criminals not be a BLP violation? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This should make the infobox discussion moot. Template:Infobox person has sufficient parameters to handle the material that was in Template:Infobox criminal. I just moved the content over to Infobox person. The difference in the actual article is basically that it now says "Criminal penalty" instead of "Conviction" which is probably clearer anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ok it doesn't make a lot of difference to the displayed content. Not convinced hacking conviction belongs in the infobox, that's more of a footnote for which he got a slap on the wrist due to lack of malicious intent (as determined by the court). It should also be mentioned why he is still in prison despite comnpleting his 1 year sentence (a maximum sentence for breeching bail). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is absurd, I ran an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

He only served half his sentence for breaching bail. As previously discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that not only should we not use Template:Infobox criminal for him, we should not mention the hacking convictions or the bail conviction in the infobox. Those are true facts about him, yes, but they're not at all what he's known for, and they're confusing when put next to one of the sources of his actual notability (namely, the ongoing criminal case against him). We can cover his prior convictions in the article; not everything in the article needs to go in the infobox. Loki (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It definitely looks like WP:UNDUE to include a light sentence for hacking at age 20 in the Infobox. Whether or not to include the sentence for breech of bail is more contentious and I have left it for now. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Assange is primarily known for leaking confidential government documents - and is being sought by the US government on espionage charges for those leaks - I agree that these minor charges are undue for the infobox. It is, after all, the place in the article where information is naturally at a premium. -Darouet (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The US government seeks lots of people, and second also has a presumption of innocence. That doesn't equate to criminal. There is a modified RFC below on this. This is a highly politicized issue, probably easier to just resolve by RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The objection to the current situation is that the "criminal status" parameter only applies to convictions, not accusations. Prisoners on remand awaiting a court process are *not* convicted criminals. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I presume you're aware that he has a longstanding criminal history aside from the ultimate adjudication of current charges? He is one of the most notorious criminals of the 21st century. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Notorious criminal" is obviously POV, given the minor nature of the charges he has actually been convicted of. Does Paul McCartney get "criminal" tags in his Infobox because of his cannabis convictions? Tiger Woods for his dangerous driving conviction? What you are doing here amounts to WP:STONEWALLING. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC Criminal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin close. Consensus was to not use Infobox criminal. The issue of the criminal_status line of Infobox person was less clear, but a consensus was still present. There is consensus that his past hacking charges should not be included. There is also consensus that bail jumping does not make one a criminal. The infobox person documentation makes it clear that the criminality parameters should only be used for convicted criminals. So the criminality parameters should not be used as he has not been convicted of any more serious crimes. I looked to the RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes where it was pointed out in the rational these "things we don't include in infoboxes that are matters which may be nuanced, complex, and frequently controversial." That RfC makes it clear that things that require context should not be listed in the infobox. There is consensus here that the state of the charges need to be treated with context and the infobox should not be used in anyway to slap a criminal label on Assange. No compelling standard was supplied by dissenters to override consensus. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Do we continue to keep criminal content in infobox regarding the article subject? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Original RfC statement: Do we use continue to use criminal infobox (Template:Infobox criminal) for this article? Y/N Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC modified due to comments by Awilley (talk · contribs). (No others have voted on the RFC prior to revision).

Survey

• No Assange is not primarily known as a criminal, and referring to as criminal in infobox is not neutral. In fact my recollection is his prior convictions are quite minimal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as that is much of the focus of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The hacking conviction from 1996 and the conviction for skipping bail are not by any stretch of the imagination the focus of the article. By my count, they make up 3 paragraphs, out of about 130 paragraphs in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No The current arrangement of having a "Criminal status" field which mentions he is on awaiting extradition is sufficient. Previous convictions are minor. A look at List of computer criminals indicates that it is unusual to list hacking convictions in the infobox. Burrobert (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It is an important part of his life. It was because of fear of being arrested that he stayed in the embassy for seven years. He was then imprisoned for skipping bail. According to the court, his history of skipping bail is the reason he is still behind bars. He is well known as a hacker. A book and a TV mini series have featured his life as a hacker.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fear of being arrested does not make one a criminal. We're discussing whether or not to list Assange's conviction for breaching bail in the infobox, not whether or not to discuss his fear of prosecution by the US government for publishing leaked documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• No: Assange is best known for founding and running WikiLeaks, and for the US government's attempts to prosecute him over publishing leaked documents. His criminal convictions (a hacking charge in 1996 for which he served no prison time, and skipping bail) are not what he is primarily known for. In this entire article, they make up 3 of approximately 130 paragraphs, by my count. On the other hand, there are dozens of paragraphs about WikiLeaks, dozens of paragraphs about Assange's political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, and dozens more about the US government's attempts to prosecute him over the publication of the state department cables. In short, Assange's criminal convictions are not what he is primarily, secondarily, tertiarily, quaternarily, quinarily (you get the point) known for. From MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of infoboxes is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article [...] The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Moreover, prominently listing the convictions in the infobox gives them undue weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Assange is one of the most notorious criminals in the world today, and he does not shy from the publicity and trolling the media, the political establishment, and law enforcement. Millions of kids are more or less innocuous hackers from their basement playrooms and peek at emails, photos, or whatnot. Assange is not one of those. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  Do any RSs say he is "one of the most notorious criminals"? I could think of far more notorious criminals than him.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• No per Thucydides411. ~ HAL333 19:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• No He has not been convicted of any major crime. This would be like including Paul McCartney's marijuana convictions in his infobox, or Tiger Woods' dangerous driving convictions. Calling him a "notorious criminal" is obviously hyperbole. Even the "criminal status" field should be blanked. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  What's he famous for? His fashion sense? If you say Assange to the woman in the street, she will say criminal. That's the context in which he is discussed in the media, in official circles, and in public discourse. We certainly do put Al Capone's tax evasion up front, even though that is hardly an unusual crime. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• No - Assange is most famous for the Iraq War documents leak, Cablegate, and the video Collateral murder, for which he won numerous journalistic awards. The infobox is the second most prominent space in a biography. In that context, using it to prominently display a minor hacking conviction from his youth, and a conviction for bail jumping, is absurd.

Just how serious of a crime is skipping bail? Apparently bail jumping is sometimes the state of Wisconsin's most committed "crime" [29]. In the UK alone over 13,000 people are "on the run" having skipped bail [30].

Our bio doesn't give Assange's conviction for skipping bail much weight, and neither should the infobox. In 2016 the United Nations determined that Assange's detention in the UK was and remains arbitrary and that he should, by international law, be released [31]. The UN wrote that "a bail violation in the UK [is], objectively, a minor offense"[32]. Assange is being held in order to face espionage charges in the US for publishing classified documents, and the UN's rapporteur on torture has concluded that this was always the purpose of Assange's detention: "There is only a single explanation for everything... They wanted to apprehend him so they could extradite him to the U.S."[33].

For these reasons, highlighting the bail charge, or the hacking conviction from his youth, distorts the biography. We should rectify the distortion by omitting these from the infobox. -Darouet (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to misrepresent facts here RE: Meltzer etc. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My representation is wholly accurate, as anyone can see who follows the links I've provided. You just compared Assange, a living person, to the perpetrator of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, without offering a single link or piece of evidence to support the comparison. You're once again walking on thin ice on this page. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The UN bit is false. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Which "UN bit is false" ? I've provided multiple links and quotes to the UN, and I don't know which part(s) you object to, nor which sources you dispute. -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• No he not most known for being a criminal he most known for publishing leaks and founding Wikileaks.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Wikileaks", if such a thing exists separate from Assange's personal activities and proclivities, is an outlaw organization. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Do any RSs decribe Wikileaks as an "outlaw organization"?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Why, yes indeed. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a current events commentary show on the radio. There's no transcript, but from the short description of the program, there's no indication that they report that WikiLeaks is an "outlaw organization." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a respected tertiary mainstream source. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is absurd, are you going to bludgeon every no vote? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That was a direct response to our colleague's concert about the source. SPECIFICO talk 03:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a commentary program on the radio. I can't even verify that it says what you claim it says, because you haven't linked to a transcript. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

See that little yellow box labeled "listen"? Just click on that and you can hear the entire file. That's an audio transcription, so please don't falsely claim it's not verified. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've listened to the radio segment, and it doesn't support your claim that WikiLeaks is an "outlaw organization." It's a talk radio segment in which various politicians' and listeners' statements - some supportive of WikiLeaks, some opposed to it - are played back, and in which the host chats with a playwright about his opinion (the host and playwright agree that the story would make a great stage drama). None of this supports your contention that reliable sources describe WikiLeaks as an "outlaw organization." -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well now that you've failed to disqualify the source, other editors can listen and join the discussion on the same regular basis that we evaluate all sources. I think many will find your interpretation as invalid as your deprecation of this RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I listened to the audio file and concur with Thucydides411's assessment.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I listened as well, and I also concur with the assessment. And this is not about whether the source is reliable, because it is, this is about your claim that the source supports the description of Wikileaks as an "outlaw organization". The source does not support your claim. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, but this RfC is not about "outlaw organization". It's simply whether to inform our readers of Assange's criminal history in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct about the scope of the RfC, so one has to wonder why you brought the subject up of outlaw organization in the first place, and then made the false claim that a RS described Wikileaks as an "outlaw organization", and then continue to bludgeon this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• No We only include criminal history in info-boxes of people who are career criminals, that is people whose notability mostly derives from their criminal activity. In particular, if the crimes would not have established the notability of the subject, they should be excluded. For example, George W. Bush's impaired driving conviction is not included in his info-box, although it is mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• No That parameter in the infobox is being misused, he hasn't been convicted of espionage charges, and the minor convictions that he does have, are just that, minor. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• No, per what others stated above. - Daveout(talk) 09:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

This Rfc is unnecessary. I propose closing it and going back to resolving any outstanding issues normally. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The issue seems to have been resolved.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there an agreement to remove the criminal infobox? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The criminal infobox was removed 2 days ago and the content merged into the parent Template:Infobox person. See my comment above. This particular RfC isn't needed. You might need one for the content itself though. ~Awilley (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have modified RFC per your comments. If you or anyone else believe I have failed RFC protocol in my edit (noting no others have voted at time of my edit) then let me know and I will pull the RFC and run a new one. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I have no opinion on whether or not an RfC is needed, but on a housekeeping note assuming that the RfC is kept open, you should move the old struck RfC statement below the new one so that it is correctly transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All and other centralization pages. As it stands, the transclusion just picks up your struck comment because it is the first signed comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, thanks for the tip, I didnt know that. Redrose64 did it before I saw your message. :-) Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I saw the discussion ongoing above along largely political lines and understood that no consensus would be reached to keep or remove the criminal content from the infobox...excess weight in my opinion, as I recall his only conviction was decades ago. Assange is primarily known for this legal issues, but until now all of the legal issues he is known from have never resulted in any conviction, and wikipeida is not a court, there is existing policy on subject of attempting to convict people in 'the court of wikipedia'. After all we editors are all very important judges right? ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You've forgotten his conviction for skipping bail.Jack Upland (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Was there a separate conviction for that. The article says he "breached" bail and forfeited bail money but doesn't mention a trial or conviction on account of that. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I also see a 50 week sentencing for that but dont see a conviction in my google search. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A quick search of "assange" "breach of bail" "conviction" finds many articles that refer to a conviction for the criminal offense of breaching bail, although I couldn't find a source that looks like an official record of a conviction. [34] Does the UK government publish the proceeding of criminal prosecutions? Rks13 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rks13: I'm not sure if even Assange's legal team contests that he breached bail. Probably the more relevant issue was that he did so in order to receive political asylum (which was granted), and the United Nations ruled his detention in the UK to be unlawful. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the conviction now. If this is his only recent conviction and there is consensus to use it in the lede (I am not convinced it DUE regardless) then all the allegations needs to be cleaned out as currently we are arguing a POV in the lede that he has been convicted of terrorism, spying, etc (all absurd frankly, but thats my OR). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone should do some research on Assange and come back when they actually know some basic facts.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Either provide RS for "UN ruled..." or stop repeating this misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 08:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I too didnt see the word ruled when I did a quick search. I do see "arbitrarily detained", with plenty of other RS picking up the statement (guardian, BBC, wired, etc) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I already provided sources above [35][36][37][38], which you appear not to have read. Here's more on the topic.

• UN News, 15 February, 2016 [39]:

A United Nations human rights expert today called on the United Kingdom and Sweden to promptly accept a UN working group's ruling that Julian Assange, founder of the WikiLeaks website, is being arbitrarily detained and must be allowed freedom of movement.

• NPR, 5 February, 2016 [40]:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been "arbitrarily detained" by Sweden and the U.K., a U.N. panel has ruled, adding that Assange should be freed and compensated for his treatment.

• Sydney Morning Herald, 5 February, 2015 [41]:

UN rules in favour of Julian Assange... A United Nations human rights panel has concluded that Julian Assange is being arbitrarily detained in London in violation of international law.

The UN Rapporteur on Torture went so far as to describe the UK's actions as effectively "lawless" [42]. There is no doubt as to the UN's position in this case: their statements and rulings have been consistent across a number of bodies. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The so-called "rapporteur" opinion is not a determination of the UN. That is nonsense that was refuted months ago. Please do no keep repeating it. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 7 March 2021 (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.

RFC result

I see that "Criminal status" is still in the infobox.[43] Per the RfC close above, shouldn't that be removed? Richard-of-Earth states: "... the criminality parameters should not be used as he has not been convicted of any more serious crimes." See Template:Infobox person#Parameters. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've now removed the "criminal status" parameter from the infobox: [44]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Update

It appears as thought the US regime is going to continue its "treatment" of Assange. It is not surprising given Biden's previous views on Assange and efforts to stop Ecuador from granting asylum to Snowden. Perhaps we should add a sentence or so around the moves asking the new regime to drop the case and the decision not to drop it. Burrobert (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, I think a sentence on the Biden administration's decision to continue to pursue extradition is warranted. -Darouet (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

:I think we should have a whole para, solidly written with footnotes. The song remains the same though the river has been crossed. You write it.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This will put the lie to the "Assange is a journalist" narrative that was falsely attributed to the Obama Administration's reluctance to extradite. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It will dispel any illusions anyone may have had about the nature of the Biden regime. There is very little support for the ongoing treatment of Assange by the US and its client states outside the US state apparatus. On the other hand it is impossible to ignore the huge swell of support for Assange from professional journalist groups, civil rights groups and others. Burrobert (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to note this down long term. It really goes without saying.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lets not soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Arbuthnot

I have removed this:

The judge presiding over the extradition case in London was initially Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot. In a court appearance, Assange and his lawyers accused her of not disclosing a conflict of interest related to the fact that her husband is former defence minister James Arbuthnot who was named in several disclosures by WikiLeaks. Primary oversight of the case was transferred to District Judge Vanessa Baraitser with Arbuthnot remaining involved in an advisory role. Reports that her son has worked for or invested in the cyber security companies Darktrace, Rightly and Symantec led to further allegations of bias against Arbuthnot.

The sources do not say Arbuthnot was initially presiding over the extradition case. They indicate Arbuthnot was involved in the bail case, prior to 2 May 2019. They do not say that Assange and his lawyers accused her of not disclosing a conflict of interest. They do not say primary oversight of the case was transferred to Baraitser. They do not say Arbuthnot is an advisory role. As far as I can see, the claims about her son were not made in court, and I don't think they should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave her son out of the discussion. No claims were made about him in court or as far as I know by Assange's lawyers. The revelations about him come from the Daily Maverick investigation. As far as the earlier points go they can be found in the Times of India article mentioned other articles as described below:

• "Walker said an application had been made twice before Westminster Magistrates’ Court claiming there was no public interest in pursuing Assange for skipping bail, but chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot had upheld his arrest warrant".
• "He then went on to make an astonishing claim against Arbuthnot, who is also overseeing Nirav Modi’s extradition, saying: “The district judge Emma Arbuthnot should have recused herself on the basis of bias as WikiLeaks impacted Lord Arbuthnot her husband. We would like her to recuse herself from all further hearings ... ".
• "Defending Assange, Liam Walker claimed that chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot, who previously dealt with the case, was biased against him. Her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks, Walker alleged".
• "Presiding over the UK legal case is Alexander Arbuthnot’s mother, Lady Arbuthnot, who as a judge has herself previously made rulings on Assange and now oversees the junior judge, Vanessa Baraitser".
• "Westminster chief magistrate Lady Emma Arbuthnot made two key legal rulings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in February 2018, which ensured he would not be able to take up his asylum in Ecuador. On 6 February 2018, Lady Arbuthnot dismissed the request by Assange’s lawyers to have his arrest warrant for skipping bail withdrawn, after the Swedish investigation into sexual assault allegations was dropped. If this request had been granted, Assange may have been able to negotiate safe passage to Ecuador to prevent his persecution by the US government. A week later, in a second ruling, Lady Arbuthnot said: "I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable".".
• "Lady Arbuthnot’s rulings were also scathing about Assange’s perceived personal failings. She noted in her 2018 judgment: “He [Assange] appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour.” The judgment added: “Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years. Defendants… come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too".".
• "It has been reported that Arbuthnot stepped aside from directly hearing the case because of a “perception of bias”, but it was not elucidated what this related to. This refusal means Assange’s defence team cannot revisit her previous rulings".
• Private Eye magazine reported that Arbuthnot stood down from the case because Assange's legal team complained about her links to the arms trade and intelligence and that her partner worked for a company headed by a former head of MI6.
• "Lady Arbuthnot became involved in the Assange legal case around September 2017 and presided over the hearing on 7 February 2018, before delivering her judgment a week later".
• "Lady 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".".
• "In a key legal judgment in February 2018, Lady Arbuthnot rejected the argument of Assange’s lawyers that the then warrant for his arrest should be quashed and instead delivered a remarkable ruling. She rejected the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention—a body composed of international legal experts—that Assange was being “arbitrarily detained”, characterised Assange’s stay in the embassy as “voluntary” and concluded Assange’s health and mental state was of minor importance".

Burrobert (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

So her key judgments were in February 2018, more than a year before the US indictment was unsealed. They related to him jumping bail. The accusation of bias was made before Judge Snow in the trial for jumping bail. This does not relate to extradition to the US. Most news outlets have not pursued this story. The exception is The Daily Maverick. The Times of India described the claim of bias as "astonishing". This seems to be undue weight as well as inaccurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Its a bit concerning that you have changed your reason for not wanting this in the article. Burrobert (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have never been completely against including Arbuthnot, and I am reacting to what comes up. As far as I know, this is the first text on Arbuthnot proposed or inserted into the article. Unfortunately, it seems very inaccurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your various reasons for excluding mention of Arbuthnot are on record above and in the archives. I am not interested in detailing all of them. For the information of you and other editors, I will provide a timeline of Arbuthnot's role in Assange's life. Much of this is taken from the notes and references above but I have added some more information and provided the relevant references:

• Arbuthnot became involved in the Assange legal case around September 2017 and presided over the hearing on 7 February 2018, before delivering her judgment a week later. This is the case around Assange skipping bail.
• Arbuthnot made two key legal rulings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in February 2018, which ensured he would not be able to take up his asylum in Ecuador. On 6 February 2018, Lady Arbuthnot dismissed the request by Assange’s lawyers to have his arrest warrant for skipping bail withdrawn, after the Swedish investigation into sexual assault allegations was dropped. If this request had been granted, Assange may have been able to negotiate safe passage to Ecuador to prevent his persecution by the US government. A week later, in a second ruling, Lady Arbuthnot said: "I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable”.
• In her February 2018 judgement, Lady Arbuthnot rejected the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that Assange was being "arbitrarily detained", characterised Assange’s stay in the embassy as "voluntary" and concluded Assange’s health and mental state was of minor importance.
• Arbuthnot noted in her 2018 judgment: "He [Assange] appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour". The judgment added: "Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years. Defendants… come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too".
• In April 2019, at the court hearing into skipping bail, Assange’s barrister, Liam Walker stated "The district judge Emma Arbuthnot should have recused herself on the basis of bias as WikiLeaks impacted Lord Arbuthnot her husband. We would like her to recuse herself from all further hearings ... " and stated that her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks.
• On 2 May 2019, District Judge Michael Snow presided over Assange's first extradition hearing.
• Arbuthnot presided over an extradition hearing on 30 May 2019 at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, where Julian Assange's solicitor Gareth Peirce told her that Assange was too ill to appear by video link from Belmarsh Prison for the hearing in relation to his possible extradition to the US. The date for the next hearing was confirmed as 12 June 2019 and Arbuthnot suggested that it might take place in Belmarsh Prison, where Assange was being held, if convenient for all parties.
• On 14 June 2019, Arbuthnot presided over a procedural hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court when she decided that a full 5-day extradition hearing should begin on 24 February 2020.
• Around December 2019 Private Eye reported that Arbuthnot stepped aside from directly hearing the case because of a "perception of bias", but didn’t say what this related to. Her refusal to recuse herself means Assange’s defence team cannot revisit her previous rulings".
• Around November 2019 Arbuthnot appointed district judge Vanessa Baraitser to rule on Assange’s extradition case, but Arbuthnot 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) 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you've established that she was involved in the extradition hearings, but only to a limited degree. Do you have some text you want to insert?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. You're the sceptic. What do you think? Burrobert (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's really up to you. I don't think there's a strong reason to include anything about her. Her decisions on the bail case merely affirmed his ongoing situation. I've never seen an argument that another judge would have decided differently. I don't believe this is mentioned in the article currently. There were at least three judges presiding over his extradition case, and Arbuthnot doesn't seem to have done anything exceptional. Now, she has stepped aside because of perception of bias, and Baraitser will make the decision. The issue seems to be resolved. Sure, Arbuthnot is Baraitser's and Snow's boss. But this argument implies the whole of the Magistrates' Court is tainted because of her, which seems to me to be a big call...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

After your recent pruning (you may have tip-toed a bit around the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section - understandably given the AJAFC’s views) we have room for all of it and more. However, in the wise words of our Premier, we must take slow, steady and safe steps. Sticking to what we know which, as far as I can tell, is undisputed, we have a judge who:

1. has a partner who was affected by Wikileaks releases

2. has made a number of decisions related to the bail and extradition cases

3. has been asked in court by Assange’s legal team to recuse herself

4. stepped aside from directly hearing the case because of a "perception of bias"

5. appointed Baraitser to rule on Assange’s extradition case

6. continues to supervise the legal process as chief magistrate

My view is that this is noteworthy and warrants some coverage in Assange’s bio. We can come to that conclusion without needing to consider whether her actual judgements were flawed or that the system is tainted. We may not even need to refer to any of her rulings, although a proper full bio would include those as well. The timeline of Arbuthnot’s involvement stretches over a number of sections. We can condense it into one point by giving a summary at the time Baraitser took over the hearings. Here is a first draft:

Arbuthnot was the presiding judge at Assange’s extradition hearings until she stepped aside because of a "perception of bias" and appointed Vanessa Baraitser as the presiding judge around October 2019. As Chief Magistrate, Arbuthnot remained the supervising legal figure "responsible for… supporting and guiding" Baraitser. Arbuthnot had also previously presided over legal proceedings related to Assange’s skipping bail. In April 2019, Assange’s legal team had requested in court that Arbuthnot recuse herself from any further extradition hearings because her partner James Arbuthnot had been impacted by some of Wikileaks' releases.

Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it, Arbuthnot's rulings in February 2018 probably should be included because they are milestones in his case and because they explain why he was jailed for skipping bail years after Sweden had dropped its case. Regarding your draft, I think "the presiding judge" seems overstated. From the sources presented, she presided over a few minor hearings. I don't think the recusal request referred to "any further extradition hearings" because the extradition hearings hadn't started at that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I thought you may say that about "presiding judge" and you are probably correct. Change that to something like "presided at several/some/a number of Assange's extradition hearings". If there is a better description than "extradition hearings" change that too. The source says Assange's legal team said: "We would like her to recuse herself from all further hearings". We can change "any further" to "all further" or just "all". With those changes, have a go at adding the Arbuthnot rulings that you think are appropriate. By the way, in your recent travels did you consider doing away with the cat? Consider breaking the Arbuthnot connection into two parts by inserting the following two paragraphs into the appropriate place in the story:

1. In April 2019, Assange’s legal team had requested in court that Arbuthnot, who had previously presided over legal proceedings related to Assange’s skipping bail, recuse herself from all extradition hearings because her partner, James Arbuthnot, had been impacted by some of Wikileaks' releases.

2. Arbuthnot presided at several of Assange’s extradition hearings until she stepped aside because of a "perception of bias" and appointed Vanessa Baraitser as the presiding judge. Around October 2019, Arbuthnot, who had presided at several of Assange’s extradition hearings, stepped aside because of a "perception of bias" and appointed Vanessa Baraitser as the presiding judge. As Chief Magistrate, Arbuthnot remained the supervising legal figure "responsible for… supporting and guiding" Baraitser.

Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of information about Arbuthnot stepping aside. According to the Daily Maverick: The MOJ ... told Declassified it “does not hold any information” on what date the decision was made for Lady Arbuthnot to step aside from the case. The same questions put to Westminster Magistrates Court also went unanswered. Declassified previously revealed that the MOJ has blocked the release of basic information about the current presiding judge in the case, Vanessa Baraitser, in what appears to be an irregular application of the Freedom of Information Act. Baraitser, who was likely chosen by Lady Arbuthnot.... So we don't even know for sure Arbuthnot appointed Baraitser. And, as far as I can see, we don't know that Arbuthnot ever intended to make the decision on Assange's extradition.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We know that Arbuthnot did step aside because of a "perception of bias" and as Chief Magistrate, remained the supervising legal figure "responsible for… supporting and guiding" Baraitser. That can go into the article. In 2019. Daily Maverick wrote ""Lady Arbuthnot has recently appointed a district judge to rule on Assange’s extradition case". In 2020, it wrote "... Baraitser, who was likely chosen by Lady Arbuthnot". How we describe that is a matter for discussion. As far as I can tell we haven't mentioned or discussed who would be making the final extradition decision so I am not sure why that is relevant. Burrobert (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is easy to jump to conclusions when there is limited information. The circumstances could suggest that Arbuthnot was going to make the decision but stepped aside in favour of Baraitser. I was making the point that we don't actually know that. I think it's a matter of wording the text carefully to avoid implying something that we don't know.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's the theory but we don't always follow it. Why don't you have a go at living up to that ideal? Burrobert (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbuthnot must be doing something right in the opinion of those who hold power. She has been appointed a Justice of the High Court to take effect from 1 February 2021. Perhaps just in time to hear Assange’s appeal?[45] Burrobert (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope the powers that be will also recognise my contribution.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sure they, she and we all appreciate your efforts Jack. Any thoughts on squeezing her into the narrative. She is larger than a cat so it will be harder but I have provide some suggestions above. Burrobert (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, since she is now headed for the High Court, she should have her own page...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now created a page for Emma Arbuthnot. It needs some work.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Given that Baraitser has now found in favour of Assange, all this talk about bias seems irrelevant. But I guess it remains a fact that Arbuthnot stood aside.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

“ Baraitser has now found in favour of Assange”: there is a lot to unpack in that statement. Here are a few points:

• Assange is still in gaol and it is unclear if or when he will be released. Assange completed his sentence for bail jumping a year ago. Meanwhile, COVID is a threat and apparently the prison heating system isn’t working in the deaths of winter.
• Baraitser found in favour of the US on every point but one. She rejected the argument that there was a political angle to the case. She “accepted virtually all of the allegations by the U.S. government as reasonable, which was likely alarming to all press freedom organisations following the case. She even contended a U.S. court would protect Assange’s due process and free speech rights”. Her ruling was apparently prompted by the appalling conditions of US gaols and Assange’s health issues.

Burrobert (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line is that she ruled against his extradition. He is still in jail because the US government intends to appeal.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bottom line for whom? Are you one of these people who would be happy to stay at the "British version of Guantanamo Bay" in the depths of winter, with little heating and covid raging, as long as you were told that at some indeterminate point in the future you may be released? In the words of Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the phrase 'the bias seems irrelevant' that I wasn't previously aware of.
• "He is still in jail because the US government intends to appeal". I don’t think that is the full story. In the Lauri Love case, Love launched a High Court appeal against the decision to extradite him. He was granted bail on condition that he reported regularly to a police station and that his passport remained surrendered. Have a look at Gary McKinnon’s page to see how his extradition was handled.
• Here is what Edward Fitzgerald said: "Throughout the lengthy hearing, the [extradition] request remained the basis of detention, and the basis on which he was refused bail. Now, you have given a considered ruling and you have ordered the discharge of Julian Assange … The natural and logical consequence … of that ruling would be that he regains his liberty, at least conditionally. Really every canon of English law over the centuries is that once there’s been a ruling that someone’s entitled to discharge … that would be a reason for them at least to obtain conditional liberty ".
• WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson said "when you consider her ruling two days ago about Julian’s health, which of course is caused in large part because he is being held in Belmarsh Prison. To send him back there doesn’t make any sense … It’s inhumane, its illogical".

Burrobert (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You're quoting two people on Assange's side. You seem to think bias is defined as not doing what Assange wants. Given that he skipped bail before, it is unlikely that he will be given bail again. He is obviously a flight risk, as the judge said. And that is essentially his fault: it is not part of some clandestine plot against him. The bottom line is that Baraitser ruled against extradition. Realistically, her reasons don't matter that much. If the appeal judges rule the same way, Assange will be out. You previously described Baraitser as a hanging judge, but arguably she is biased towards Assange, refusing to extradite him despite a strong case!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If a QC says "every canon of English law over the centuries is that once there’s been a ruling that someone’s entitled to discharge … that would be a reason for them at least to obtain conditional liberty", then I think we can assume he is accurately summarising legal precedents. Has anyone challenged the accuracy of his statement? The cases of Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon mentioned above support this view.

"that is essentially his fault": "Assange claimed his right to asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid onward extradition to the US, in the context of a vicious assault on WikiLeaks by the Obama administration and a global manhunt of its founder. Not only did he serve a near maximum sentence for these actions in May-September 2019, but they are now being used as a reason to deny bail in precisely the vengeful extradition proceedings which he sought to avoid in 2012--which Baraitser herself has judged to be “oppressive”!"

"not part of some clandestine plot against him": I didn't mention plot. However, have you read Nils Melzer's statements about the actions of the various countries involved? Or our subsection "Surveillance of Assange in the embassy"? Or the section "Role of the Crown Prosecution Service" in the article Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority? Burrobert (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, I think you are the one who is biased. You are obviously not interested in writing a neutral account of Assange's life. Even when he wins a court case you claim it is biased against him. You should follow Arbuthnot's example, and cease involvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Criminal status again

It seems from the above discussions that — regardless of what we do with the infobox — we need to make it clear what Assange's criminal status is in some way. It is alarming to have two experienced editors querying whether Assange was convicted of breaching bail. On the other hand, the argument put forward by Darouet and others suggests that the grant of asylum by Ecuador and the opinion of Nils Melzer somehow minimise the conviction. This cuts against the factual basis of Wikipedia. We report all the relevant facts. We do not balance the facts against each other. In addition Burrobert went on rant back in January about the reason Assange is still in jail. I can't think we can honestly say Assange's criminal status is irrelevant at the moment. I also don't think it is adequate to call him an editor of WikiLeaks at the moment. He has been in British custody since 11 April 2019. Let's deal with reality.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to our discussion about whether Assange's minor criminal convictions should be mentioned in the infobox? If so, I am not sure how the points you mention are relevant. Regarding my "rant", was that where we were discussing the neutrality of the judge? We are all still waiting for Assange to be released while the US appeal is heard. He is still in gaol with COVID raging, freezing conditions and no prospect of release. None of this is of course relevant to the issue of whether Assange's minor criminal convictions should be mentioned in the infobox. Burrobert (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland, there was nearly overwhelming consensus that Assange's bail jumping is too trivial for the infobox. You disagreed that consensus, but most editors' views, unlike those you've expressed, are in accordance with the factual basis of Wikipedia. As described by the news service for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,

“Under international law, pre-trial detention must be only imposed in limited instances. Detention during investigations must be even more limited, especially in the absence of any charge” said the experts. “The Swedish investigations have been closed for over 18 months now, and the only ground remaining for Mr. Assange’s continued deprivation of liberty is a bail violation in the UK, which is, objectively, a minor offense that cannot post facto justify the more than 6 years confinement that he has been subjected to since he sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador. Mr. Assange should be able to exercise his right to freedom of movement in an unhindered manner, in accordance with the human rights conventions the UK has ratified,” the experts further said.

That determination helps reliable sources evaluate the importance of bail, and editors to determine that jumping bail doesn't belong in Assange's infobox. This is a reality I hope you will also recognize. If this is going to devolve into an argument about editors' personal opinions about Melzer or Assange, we should stop now. Concrete proposals should be considered, and I don't think, Jack, that you're proposing to overturn the RfC result? -Darouet (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So why did both of you rehash the RfC??? I made it clear that I wasn't talking about the infobox. With regard to the opinions of people like Melzer, Darouet, I think that proves too much. Melzer (or someone like him) would probably object if Assange was convicted of espionage. Hence what are you saying? Assange could be convicted of espionage, but that doesn't really count??? We have to report the convictions that stand, or report to Fairyland. With regard to the actual issue, I have two possible proposals. Firstly, to make the introduction more factual and straightforward about the legal issues. If something is ambiguous, make it plain, and remove commentary about the legal issues from the introduction as much as possible. Personally, I can't see what is unclear here, but maybe other editors can explain their confusion. Secondly, we could have a separate box about Assange's legal problems, giving up to date information, along the lines of: "Swedish sexual assault allegations: dropped 2019. Bail breach: sentenced to 50 weeks in prison, served 25 weeks (up to 22 September 2019). Extradition to US: currently in custody." Note: I am not suggesting precise wording, just ways to approach this. Alternatively, if you think there is no confusion, PLEASE stop this continual revisiting of the issue, which only muddies the waters.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jack, we're both responding to the section you've opened, which does come across as an attempt to circumvent the RfC result. In response to editors saying that Assange's hacking and bail violations are too minor for the infobox, you're asking us to make a second box wholly dedicated issues of this kind. That would be a reversal of the RfC and I oppose it. -Darouet (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're ignoring the issue, and continuing to harp about the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

About your first suggestion, what concrete changes are you proposing? About your second suggestion, to add another box about Assange's legal status, that also seems to me to be a rehash of the RfC that was just closed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a box about Assange's legal status is a rehash of the RfC. Arguments in the RfC compared Assange to Paul McCartney. But Paul McCartney is not in jail. Assange is. The RfC did not discuss whether there should be a box explaining why Assange is in jail, and didn't address any of the other points. You could leave Assange's conviction for skipping bail out of the box on his legal status, and still have a valid box. With my first suggestion, I made it clear I wasn't proposing concrete changes. I'm asking people who feel Assange's legal status is unclear or confusing, to nominate the parts of the introduction that they find hard to grasp or which aren't clear to them. My third suggestion is to stop raising the issue of his legal status, if in fact it is completely clear. I have no faith that this third suggestion will be followed, even though it is the best suggestion. Therefore, I have offered two other suggestions for other editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Is a box like you suggested used in any other articles? It may be good to foreground his legal status, but I am hesitant to endorse a box. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A special extra criminal status box seems like a rather undue highlight circumventing what has very recently been agreed by an overwhelming consensus that Assange's bail jumping is too trivial for the infobox itself. I think that must apply to any other "information" box. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Who said it was about skipping bail???--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion sounds like a proposed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or if I am confused and it is just idle banter, then it is covered by WP:NOTFORUM. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you clearly are confused. I initiated this conversation in reaction to the obvious confusion about Assange's legal status. However, my attempt to propose solutions to this confusion has only confused things further. I hereby retract any proposal I made or was accused of making in this discussion. My apologies for adding to the confusion. However, I would like to reiterate for any kids reading this: Assange is not like Paul McCartney. Assange is in jail. Paul McCartney isn't. Assange spent seven years in an embassy. Paul McCartney didn't. Assange is facing extradition to the USA. Paul McCartney isn't. Kids, listen to me. You will hear some very well-spoken and knowledgeable people telling you that Julian Assange is no different to Paul McCartney. Kids, I suggest to you that you look these scoundrels in the eye and ask, "Who is Paul McCartney?"--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Assange and McCartney are not the same person. That's why we have separate articles about them. The only McCartney was raised was to point out that convictions for minor crimes do not justify labeling a person a "criminal" in their Wikipedia article, particularly when they are not primarily known for those convictions. McCartney is primarily known for his career as a singer/songwriter. Assange is primarily known for his publishing of leaked documents through WikiLeaks. More recently, the US government's attempts to prosecute him and the issues that raises for freedom of the press have gained prominence - again, this has nothing to do with Assange's convictions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Assange is not a publisher. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well he is according this article's lead sentence, though you are welcome to challenge it similiarly to how the "journalist" mention was done so.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know what this article says. Unfortunately we have lost nearly all the experienced editors who would need to participate in such discussions, so the article is likely to remain in its current condition for the forseeable future. Without broad editor participation, errors and imperfections tend to persist. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well WP:OSE and probably WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT seem to apply here. Maybe take a break from the article for a while. It seemed to me that good turnout for the RFC showed up and while the article is controversial we are able to move through issues using RFCs when needed. What is needed is a bit more WP:AGF and less WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If you will look at the editing 3-5 years ago, you will understand my comment in a context. I, like most others, have already stepped back. This article suffers from narrow participation, not to mention the canvassing noted on this talk page. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I think a lot of articles face the same problem. Wikipedia has become more entrenched and more battle like, with small cliques organizing and coordinating. Much less friendly than years back. These political articles can be awful. I think over time many senior editors step back and leave and new editors are turned off. So many articles are now subject of DS out of pure necessity as we dont have enough neutral disinterested editors in many categories. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)