Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Mini-stroke

There are reliable sources saying Assange is reported to have suffered a mini-stroke on October 27 during the hearing. For instance

Kindred, Alahna (11 December 2021). "Julian Assange has stroke in jail as fiancee blames stress of extradition fight". mirror.

The main source is his fiancee and she says he had an MRI and is on medication for it. Do people think this should rightfully be in his biography or do they agree that "Any medical information should come from a qualified professional who has examined Assange. Any such information, if relevant to the proceeding, would have been introduced in court and covered by RS as noteworthy and significant to the hearing." Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Oppose pointless time-wasting to try to drive editors away. The most reliable sources attribute it to Moris, so we should. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion To be clear, I reverted this content at this edit. The reason was given in my edit summary: Any medical information should come from a qualified professional who has examined Assange. Any such information, if relevant to the proceeding, would have been introduced in court and covered by RS as noteworthy and significant to the hearing. This was apparently not a major health crisis and has had no effect on the court proceedings and no RS has reported any extraordinary measures or care by the Brits. SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Enough sources for this.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose wp:Medrs is clear, we use medical sources for medical information, not family members or lawyers. We certainly should not be using the Daily Mirror in a BLP for this kind of information.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wp:BMI indicates what is already obvious: notable cases do not constitute biomedical information, and Wp:MEDRS is not relevant in any way. It is for information about the medical conditions themselves. Not remotely relevant here. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a claim of a medical condition. Per BMI "Symptoms, causes, prognoses", " blames stress of extradition fight", "Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree", again why he had one had one in the forest place, and the fact it was only minor ("and to what degree") it is a clinical a diagnosis, so yes Medrs is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Even the Daily Mirror is so unsure if this they attribute it to his fiancee, rather than say it's a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence most recently removed contains none of the imaginary content “symptoms, causes, prognoses” or other medical information you write about. So MEDRS remains an irrelevant policy link for a baseless argument. I agree Re: The Mirror, the original citation to the Sydney Morning Herald was sufficient.Cambial — foliar❧ 11:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It also stated it as a fact, and not as his fiances opinion. And which part of "what those effects are" is not a diagnosis? Which part of " when they occur " does not include the fact of when it occurred? As BMI says "Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works.", I would take that to not be a tabloid reporting on what his fiancee has claimed. As I said, all the RS doi nhot say this is a fact, they say it is her claim, so if they are not sure if it's true, why should we include it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I support attribution to Moris (or "his fiancee"). what those effects are does not mean "diagnosis". It's as simple as that. Go and look up diagnosis in a dictionary. What those effects are would be a word like "manifestations" or "symptoms". You are talking about descriptions of a medical condition. This is not a description of a medical condition. Your argument is absurd, arrant nonsense. MEDRS is not relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And that is yet another PA.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If your argument is so poor that you're unable to defend it (and it is), that does not make someone pointing that out a personal attack. If you think it is, report it. But don't post more of your groundless accusations on my talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not attacked you or your opinions, I would ask you to return that courtesy. As you are unable to I will not be responding anymore to your an homonimus and we just say that my opinion has been given, this is undue as it is one (no qaulifed) persons opinion, not backed up by any official statement or medical report, even the RS make that clear.?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You're making things up. You make a personal attack by falsely claiming that I made a personal attack or an homonimus. We've never met, I have no reason to attack you and I've not done so. So stop falsely claiming otherwise. I will continue to describe your argument accurately as ridiculous nonsense. That's a judgement on the quality of the argument you make, not you personally. You've given your opinion. I've pointed out that it has no basis in policy whatsoever. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Does_a_report_on_the_health_of_a_person_need_a_medical_opinion?. Will whatever is said there satisfy you? or have you some other requirements? NadVolum (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well there might be issues of undue, it is one persons claim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

One or two editor's "requirements" are irrelevant. What matters is consensus. See if it develops, if not launch and RfC to gather wider community input. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• MEDRS isn't relevant. We don't require a death certificate to say someone has died and we certainly don't require a medic publication for individuals reporting on their or their relatives health conditions. However, I don't count the Mirror as a reliable source and while The Independent isn't the paper it was, their title is 'Julian Assange ‘had stroke in prison’ due to stress over future, fiancée says' and other outlets take a similar "according to his fiancée" approach. So we can't put this claim in Wikipedia's own voice. WP:UNDUE is concerned with the weight of reliable source publications, not on whether the information has a single origin source (his fiancée). Lots of information about people ultimately only comes from a single origin. Judging the weight of a recent news event is always hard, and best to see if solid reliable news outlets give this the time of day. As time goes on, this fact or claim might become irrelevant and lose weight. -- Colin°^Talk 12:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A claim by a lawyer that he had an MRI scan and is on medication for it? No wonder conspiracy theories proliferate if you think that might be a lie. But actually the particular source I used said 'It has been reported that' so was hard to attribute. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Its not a claim by his lawyer, its a claim by his fiancee.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Has she given up being a lawyer? NadVolum (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with the wait-and-see approach, if this is genuine it will soon be clear. We are not a News paper and do not have to report every claim or story. This is why this article is so blaoted.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum The most reliable sources (WP:RSP#The Guardian, WP:RSP#The Daily Telegraph, WP:RSP#The Sydney Morning Herald, WP:RSP#Al Jazeera, WP:RSP#The Independent, LBC) attribute it to Moris, so we should too.[1][2][3][4][5][6] None of them give the tiniest hint of scepticism as to the statement's accuracy. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly fine wih that. NadVolum (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Other than not saying its a fact, but that it is only her claim. Note the claim was he had it, two months ago. So we go back to there is no evidence this is a major, lasting or even real medical condition. We also go back to , why have his lawyers not raised this, in fact why did they not raise it during the hearing?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't go back to another nonsense argument. We ignore it because it's irrelevant.

Contrary to your statement, none of the sources say it is only her claim. Five of the sources do not use the word claim about Moris at all. One of six sources used the word claim in describing Moris' statement. WP voice would never do so. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It isn't true that "None of them give the tiniest hint of scepticism as to the statement's accuracy." The Guardian has "she said", The Telegraph has "claims fiance", LBC has "fiancée says" and The Independent I've already noted puts the claim in scare quotes in their title. This is standard distancing stuff. This is news about what his fiance is claiming on social media and not directly news about Assange's health. While some outlets have noted this detail in their headings, The Guardian buries it in the middle of an article. -- Colin°^Talk 14:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

None of those are a statement of scepticism. It is objectively true that Moris said this, indeed that she claimed it. It's standard journalistic practice to indicate the source where the newspaper's staff have not directly established something themselves. We attribute for the same reason. The word "said" alone is not an indicator of scepticism, and the scepticism to which you refer is your own unjustified inference - it is not in the source. This does not relate primarily to social media, but is a statement made to a British newspaper that has been picked up on by numerous other British (and international) news organisations. Your characterisation of quotation marks as scare quotes is also your own, and as per Wp:HEADLINES we rely on the body, not the headline, of news articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

None of those papers would have published it if they thought there was any doubt about the basic facts. However she also said a lot of opinion stuff about the strain causing the stroke and that he should be released, and they could not get independent verification of the basic facts because the prison service would not say anything. So they follow the same sort of convention as Wikipedia. Do you really think she might have told a lie? That sort of thing would come out eventually and be very bad for her reputation. She's not Trump. I don't think she lied, but I'm perfectly happy to say "Stella Moris said" to conform with Wikipedia's rules. NadVolum (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I only came her to answer the MEDRS question, and have really no opinion or interest in Assange. Cambial Yellowing seems to be confusing whether that Moris said or wrote something is true and whether what they said or wrote is true. Nobody is doubting that the fiancé made those claims. When the UK yesterday said it had reported 78,610 covid cases, the newspapers didn't put that claim in quotes and write "said Chris Witty". If the newspapers were sure Assange had a mini stroke, they would say so in their own voice, just the same as we do about facts we are sure about. These aren't just "Wikipedai's rules" but standard practice of indicating the authority or lack of about some fact. Cambial says "the newspaper's staff have not directly established something themselves" -- well how do you think they do that? Pay for Assange to get an MRI showing brain damage due to a recent blood clot? There are things people can't establish for oneself, and have to take people's word on it. The paper will have to judge for itself whether it is sure about something, based on who they spoke to and what they said. It is pretty clear that the very very most they are prepared to do here is report that his fiance made a claim about a mini stroke. -- Colin°^Talk 15:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like only the Mail and Mirror mentioned he had had an MRI scan and was on anti-stroke medication. I suppose the other consider that not worth mentioning so I guess it should be left out of the article. As to Chris Whitty the newspapers would be given a document by the government, it isn't just him saying it. NadVolum (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confusing nothing. Your suggestion that I am is based on a misreading of the discussion in this section. I advocated for the attribution to Moris in my first post in this section, and that remains my view. Your analogy rests on a false premise. Newspapers do not rely on Chris Whitty for COVID numbers because they can look at the published data, they do not need to consider every word out of Whitty's mouth unimpeachable truth. The fact these newspapers bothered to report on Moris' statement to another newspaper indicates they consider it newsworthy. If it were their belief that although Moris made this statement, she is likely wrong and basing it on her own guesswork (rather than her communication with prison staff) then a. they likely would not publish it, or at the very least b. they would say so. Newspapers aim to communicate clearly; they write in plain language. They do not write in hidden code of "standard distancing stuff" that can only be deciphered by those who happen to watch the MEDRS talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Are we all agreed at least that this issue is not covered by Wikipedia:Biomedical information or WP:MEDRS? NadVolum (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I would rather wait, but yes we do have an uninvolved opinion it does not cover it. So at this time (and unless other uninvolved editors say otherwise I must accept that. But I am still unsure this does not fail undue (in the sense they are reporting on her Tweet, not on an actual medical finding) and that as this was at the start of the appeal (and had no impact on it at all, not even to request a recess) its all very iffy. I would rather wait until RS puts it in their voice. So beyond hearsay and "she said this" what does it tell us ABOUT Assange? What does this add to our understanding of him or his court case? We need to stop adding something every time a newspaper reports something about him, we should only be adding significant developments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The SMH and LBC are reporting on her tweet, but The Guardian, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, and The Independent are reporting on an interview she gave. She is closest to him and as NOK has communication with prison staff, as she has discussed in prior interviews. This certainly appears to be a significant development. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So serious his defense team have not even mentioned it, not in court, not to ask for a recess (at the time it occurred) or an adjournment while he recovered. Not once over the last two months since the attack? This is why I say it's undue, his own defense team does not seem to consider it significant. So again, it tells us nothing about him, his case or his appeals. I have had my say, I do not see what this adds and so oppose the addition of it, just more heresay.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well what looks like happened was he was excused from the court but he was in Belmarsh on a video link not with his lawyer. And anyway they would have had to do tests on him to confirm what happened. Drama scenarios where the lawyer pops up in court with 'you justice' and produce a fantastic bit of evidence are pretty rare in the real world. And it tells us an awful lot more Assange than those two statements you supported being in the article in #RfC_Should_two_statements_in_the_2016_U.S._presidential_election_section_be_removed which were pure conjecture and speculation by others. It tells us about his state of health when that is an issue in the courts. Nd personally I'd consider such a thing pretty important in my life and this is a biography. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Your personal unjustified inferences from the fact his defense team have not mentioned it are not a reliable source or even a useful guide. There is no reason for them to do so in court, and they are bound not to breach privilege. In court they are only able to raise the points of law brought up in the U.S. appeal. They cannot raise additional points until the cross-appeal. What his defense team have or have not said is of zero relevance.

This tells us that his next-of-kin (who is in a position to know) said in an interview that he has suffered a stroke. That is biographical information. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, you seem determined to make your argument by rubbishing what other people have written (all this "Your personal unjustified inferences" stuff). Further, everyone here seems to be trying to establish the veracity and weight of this by their own judgement (why hasn't his defense team mentioned it, why should she lie, etc). That isn't what we do as editors, play about being journalists. Try to get some distance by just looking at the reports and replacing names with person X and person Y. Person X has made a concerning health claim (that they had a mini stroke) about person Y. The newspapers are not reporting that Person Y has had a concerning health issue. They are reporting the claim. Therefore there remains doubt about it and we should have some caution about even repeating the claim. I am struggling to find mention of this on the BBC News site, which is concerning, as is The Guardian's burring of the claim. Anyway, I'm unwatching. -- Colin°^Talk 16:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Can't blame you if you unwatch! But as to the BBC or Guardian see for instance [7] NadVolum (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Where someone claims that something is in a source, but in fact it is not in the source, but is instead an unjustified inference they drew (or invented) by claiming a simple statement has a hidden meaning, I will continue to point that out and make no apology for it. The same goes for arguments like "the defense team haven't mentioned it so it's unimportant". Logical arguments should be taken into account. Others not so much. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cambial: What privilege? At any rate, per WP:ONUS it is for you to demonstrate that mainstream RS consider Morris' claim to be material to the legal matter. His health has been raised by his supporters many times in court and media, but this instance has received scant attention and no mention as a legal factor. It is UNDUE. Perhaps with wider coverage it might go in a Health section or a Family section. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Privilege. There is zero requirement to demonstrate that mainstream RS consider the stroke to be material to the legal matter. Conditions you just made up are to be ignored, and will be. There is an Wp:ONUS to demonstrate that this is relevant to Assange's biography. That onus is to see the consensus for inclusion, not to meet with your satisfaction. The material is DUE, and the coverage is more than adequate for inclusion. We'll see how things develop and seek wider community input if needs be. We likely will not need to. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cambial: We are all aware of attorney-client privilege, but this was piublished in the tabloids. Moreover attorneys routinely discuss sensitive matters in camera with a magistrate, when it's material to their client's case . SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cambial, you are the one who raised "privilege" -- nobody else.If you're not prepared to explain or defend that issue, please don't introduce it into the discussion. What RS connects Morris' stroke statement to the legal matter? If you have a citation for your assertion, that would be constructive. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion with attribution to the original source of the information. Something like "According to his fiance..." which is the way that reliable sources are reporting this. It's being reported widely, it seems significant, but we also don't need to write it uncritically in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 17:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Will those in support of this content please provide RS that establish that Morris' statement is significant (i.e.DUE content) with respect to Assange's legal hearing, the section of the article in which it was inserted? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Or those in support can opt not to bother wasting their time, given that this is not relevant to determining whether this is appropriate to include in a biography of Assange (i.e. not an article about a court case). Cambial — foliar❧ 18:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. Everyone's time is valued. In order to establish due weight and NPOV article content can't be indiscriminately scattered on the page. Moreover, juxtaposition of a statement about Assange's health with unrelated content about his court appearance would constitute SYNTH and could mislead our readers. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It would not constitute a synthesis, as no conclusion would be being drawn. This event took place in the time frame that the section covers. The notion that therefore everything that is included in the section has to shown to be significant...with respect to Assange's legal hearing is another ridiculous argument. It's a condition you've set up on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so it makes sense to treat it accordingly. By ignoring it. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please review our discussion of SYNTH, which relates to an unstated inference. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Presumably you mean implication. And no, it doesn’t. Making things up in policies won’t work. An implication has to be made in the article text to constitute a synthesis; not imagined by you. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me understand this. You think the article should not have that Assange suffered a mini-stroke during the hearing in case people might make some assumption about it? And you think that thererfore the policy WP:SYNTH says the information should b suppressed? Perhaps we should ask at at WP:ORN, would you accept what they say there? NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've put the question as I see it at WP:ORN#Assange_mini-stroke_possible_synth. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Bear in mind that several editors have stated other policy-based objections as well. This bit clearly does not have consensus for inclusion in the article. The SYNTH and NPOV issues also relate to its placement in the section concerning the legal matter. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Or they would, if they existed. But they don't. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

New input has been requested, so lets stop casing new faces away, and stop?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessments Article

Posted at ANI:

I have a modest proposal. I will boldly create an article entitled Assessments of Julian Assange (when I get the time/patience to do the research). I will recruit Comrade Burrobert to the scheme and try to abstain from trimming the overlong Julian Assange article. I propose "Assessments" because that appears (on reflection) to be the consensus on the page. I will include everyone from Jemima Goldsmith to Julia Gillard, from Michael Head to Stormy Daniels, and even Comrade Pamela Anderson. It will ideally be organised BOTH thematically and chronologically and footnoted up the razu. If anyone has a better title, speak now. I think - nay, hope - that this will take some heat out of the constant bickering and point-scoring and soap-boxing etc that has dogged this page from the outset. I trust that this will meet with your approval.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is not used by others as an excuse to get rid of all “assessments” of Assange on his main article page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Then what function would it serve if it just mirrors the content here? I would have thought the whole point would be to enable us to reduce this content to a paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I see no point to it. The assessments section here isn't all that long. Do we actually have people looking up assessments of Julian Assange or is there articles about something like that? It's not like the sex allegations or the democratic convention or the extradition or other things people do write about or would look up. NadVolum (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What Slatersteven said. The article not only included material from the Assessments section but also the Imprisonments etc... And it is a work in progress...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It fails WP:GNG, and would be deleted, quite rightly, in short order. Wp:POVFORKs are prohibited for good reason. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Whatever its merits, this would not be a POVFORK. POVFORK would be "Criticisms of Assange" or the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the proposal is for a POVFORK. Npov and Content forking are clear: All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article. Does the content fit the criteria of a spin-off? It does not. So separating secondary sourced views from the facts about his treatment by the UK gvt etc would be a POVFORK. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The article has been created & later changed to a 're-direct'. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, at least I tried.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you tried to create a POVFORK of views on Assange, divorcing them from his treatment by the UK gvt and other relevant facts about his biography. You yourself have argued, correctly, on at least three occasions [8][9][10], that we should follow WP:NPOV and weave these into the narrative, rather than have them in a separate section. Having them in a separate article is an even more egregious breach of NPOV, so removing the bulk of them from here is completely inappropriate. The article you created currently consists entirely of duplicated content from this article. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not what is meant by POVFORK. I hope editors will review that link and the other content on that page to read the difference between a POV fork and a CONTENT fork. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly a POVFORK is a particular (unacceptable) example of several kinds of content fork, so your difference between is misleading. While it might be acceptable to fork, say, a detailed description of a specific event or period in a person's life, forking to remove the notable views about an individual in RS, but leaving the events (and implied views of the gvt involved) surrounding his arrest and show trial is a POVFORK. I also encourage other editors to read the content forking guideline where the section of NPOV I quote above –All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article – is repeated for emphasis. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The re-direct has been deleted. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
An assessment article on Wikileaks has been in place for 10 years. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Could we change it to Reception of Assange and WikiLeaks, perchance?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

To what end? Certainly that would not facilitate removing any material from this article. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What about Views of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The article does need to be split. But it appears that the majority of editors oppose all possible splits.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Why? You state this as though it’s a fact. It isn’t a fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SIZESPLIT. The prose size is now 72kB.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors do not appear willing to invest the time and effort to separate the wheat from the chaff here. Even when it involves removing Wikileaks content with no mention of Assange, we see lip service to a detailed review but no reasoned basis for retaining such content. And if the argument were that RS say that the Wikileaks content really is about Assange personally then that would need to be reflected in the article. But we don't see any proposals to do so. There appears to be no path to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If yas wanna split something from this article into its own article, then go for it. Of course, such a 'new' article would likely be nominated for re-merging or deletion. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that every proposal for a split is either directly contrary to policy, like that above, or, as in most instances, by unfortunate coincidence invariably involves removal exclusively of material that might portray Assange as having achieved anything remotely positive or valuable. This despite the numerous awards for journalism (reported in RS) and widespread discussion of the value of his work in academia and journalistic sources. Editors that seek to maintain NPOV naturally oppose any such course of action. Less generous editors than I might see these unfortunate coincidences as forming a pattern, one indicative of a degree of bias affecting editors’ judgement or good intentions. I remain generous and look forward to policy-compliant and even-handed suggestions from all involved parties real soon. That said, I’m not convinced of any pressing need to reduce article length. As has been pointed out before (I think including on this TP) we rarely cut BLP articles for size alone below 100kB. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing, do you have a source about 100kB BLPs?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

a. this is talk space and b. I don't think reliable sources discuss the minutiae of the WP editing community. We're not that important. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing, I just want to know where you got that from.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Observation of many many long and complex BLP articles over the years. I believe someone else made the same point here, somewhere in the 34 pages of archive. I’m not opposed to a split if there’s other reasons (for example, there’s two complex legal cases here, one of which already has its own article. It could be argued the complexity is better elsewhere). But any split has to be NPOV, and needs to be justified beyond merely “the prose is quite long”. Why are you proposing to remove views on Assange when you yourself argued that these should instead be woven into the narrative (multiple times, as I note above)? Those are opposite takes. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Another interesting parallel

Assange's lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, is representing Nirav Modi in an appeal against extradition to India from the UK. The Westminster magistrates court ordered Modi's extradition and Modi appealed on the grounds of mental health. Those who have been following the Assange case will know that Assange has not yet appealed as he won his case in the magistrates court. However, he will most likely soon appeal the recent reversal (see an earlier section). This part of Modi's story is a mirror image of Assange's. However, apparently the Indian government has given assurances - just like the US did with Assange - to allay any fears about Modi's welfare once extradited. The court hearing Modi's appeal said it had been looking at the Assange case, presumably to use it as a precedent in its decision. The court was sceptical of the assurances given by India - an ambulance on hand, specialist medical care, constant access to his lawyers - but said, whether India abides by the assurances or not, it is what it says it will do and "may be the answer to the whole case". Another interesting similarity is that Assange and Modi were arrested within a month of each other and Modi's seven requests for bail have all been rejected. One thing that was missing from Assange's case is that the court expressed concern for the length of time Modi had spent "in very difficult conditions in Wandsworth prison" and said he should either be released from prison or extradited to India. Burrobert (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So what?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, please respect WP:NOTFORUM and note WP:TALK. Article talk pages are for coordination about concrete changes to the article, not for publishing personal observations about "interesting similarities" to off-topic subjects or speculations about what this article's subject "will most likely soon" do. Also be aware that you are already the editor who has added by far the most text to this talk page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We could consider mentioning the way in which the decision in Asange's case may be used as a precedent for other similar cases. The decision in the Modi case is due soon. If the Assange case is mentioned in the ruling then it would be worth noting this. The article that I linked to did draw a comparison between the two cases, which is what we would need in order to make the comparison ourselves. Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I am still dubious about speculation, especially as they have all been different cases in some way. Again we can wait, until it is used as a precedent.11:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jack on this. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The legal process after the recent High Court decision

The purpose of this section is to inform editors of the legal process that will be followed from here. The information comes from Craig Murray, an insider in JA's camp who would have good knowledge of the process. We could discuss whether any of this information is suitable for the article.

• Burnett and Holroyde in the High Court have sent the matter back to Baraitser and instructed her to cancel her previous order, accept the US assurances and rule to extradite JA. Once Baraitser does that, the matter goes to the Home Secretary for final approval.
• JA’s team has until 23 December to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court against Burnett and Holroyde's decision in order to prevent Baraitser acting as instructed by the High Court.
• If JA’s team appeals, the Supreme Court needs to decide whether to hear that appeal.
• Craig says it may take up to 6 months for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. If that appeal is unsuccessful, the matter goes back to Baraitser to order the extradition. At that point, JA’s team can counter-appeal to the High Court on the defence arguments that were rejected by Baraitser in her January 2021 judgement - "no political extradition", "freedom of speech", "the CIA plans to assassinate/kidnap Assange", "the false allegation from Sigurdur Thordarson’s that were used in the US case against JA", "UC Global spying"
• Murray says the process could easily take another 2-3 years.

Burrobert (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure whatever about that will be covered in reliable sources. Personally I don't see why he doesn't just go to America and have done with them, he's just going to spend all his life imprisoned without the basic questions being answered the way he's going. He's doing exactly what they said they wanted to do to him with making his life a hell without having a proper trial. NadVolum (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It is the same for anyone so does not need to be here.10:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Who are you? And what do you mean by "same for anyone"? Do you mean the same for anyone who is is detained in the UK because the US wants to extradite them, wins their extradition hearing on medical grounds, has the win overturned by the High Court but has further grounds for appeal because the US spied on them while they held political asylum and also tried to assassinte/kidnap them? Maybe so, but where would a reader go to find that sort of information? Anyway, my main aim was to inform interested editors of the process from here, since I was not aware of it until hearing Craig Murray. If the information is not suitable for inclusion in the article, then that's fine. Burrobert (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Who am I is no more relevant than who are you (also do not make this about users, it is against policy). As to "the same for everyone" everyone has the same legal rights in this country, and so everyone has the same rights of appeal, this is not something special or unique to Assange. As to where they would go to find out what his grounds for appeal are, when we know what they are (rather than speculation) here. But until then it is just idle speculation. Also, all of this was in fact raised (here) before the last hearing, it had no effect then.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see the point of speculation in an article like this. We should just document the legal process as it unfolds.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We have a policy about this wp:CRYSTALBALL where it is clear that speculation is allowed in some circumstances especially if they come from expert sources. NadVolum (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we can wait to see if he appeals etc. Predicting it doesn't have much point--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And this was also speculated to be the route taken with the last appeal, it was not. So why is it any more valid this time?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I was pointing out the policy rather than people making up their own policy here. I wasn't proposing we actually put in anything at this time. What previous speculation are you talking about and what didn't happen? NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Here [[11]] here [[12]]. It may have been raised (as in the last link) in another thread about Thordarson, and the CIA's plans). Yet in the appeal (the last one) it was not used, none of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read again what Vamos said about Thordarson. "His comments may be cited this week by Assange’s lawyers, though they are much more likely to form a key part of a cross-appeal that has been lodged and which only comes into play if the US is successful this week." This was pointed out before a couple of times. He is an lawyer and expert in these matters and what he said was most probable is what happened. NadVolum (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Baraitser's decision in January favoured the US case on every point except the medical implications of extradition. JA's team raised some of the issues mentioned at the top of this section ("no political extradition", "freedom of speech", "the CIA plans to assassinate/kidnap Assange", "UC Global spying") but Baraitser ruled against each point. Sigurdur Thordarson recanted his testimony after the January hearing so JA's team could not have raised that point at the January hearing. The recent hearing was an appeal by the US against the January decision of Baraitser. The recent hearing was not an appeal by JA's team against baraitser's January decision in regards to "political extradition" etc. The appropriate time for JA's team to appeal against baraitser's January decision is explained at the top of this section. If this is not clear from our article, then we have some work to do. Burrobert (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum is on record as describing Judge Michael Snow as a "jerk". He just cherry picks whatever legal opinion that suits him at the moment. This is a waste of time.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance of that here. Also not everything a judge says is a legal opinion! I'd appreciate it if you're going to trawl my contributions and quote snippets if you'd include a diff to whatever it is so people can check for themselves. NadVolum (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact on a quick search I can't find any statement like that by me though I readily accept I may have felt it about something he said. NadVolum (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsuccessful arguments

In the "Hearings..." and "Appeal..." section, we have about 27 sentences relating to the defence case and only about five relating to the prosecution case. I think this is undue weight. Yes, we need to document what Assange's defence team and supporters have said, but why should the unsuccessful arguments overwhelm the successful?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We are not looking to present Wp:FALSEBALANCE by counting sentences to give an equal number. We’re simply reflecting what’s in RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It is an extradition. The US doesn't have to prove anything. It is up to Assange's defence to show why he should not be extradited. It is not a trial. Plus Wikipedia goes by sources. NadVolum (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Each side's position can be summarized in one or two sentences in this biography. This is an example of content that acutally could be the basis for a standalone sub-article if in fact there's notable and extensive coverage to warrant detailed description. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not true that the US does not have to prove anything, and that is weird coming from NadVolum who has been going on for months about the prosecution case. This is a clear case of cherry picking.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum is correct; in no sense do those acting for the US gvt have to prove anything. Under “dual criminality” they’re required to satisfy the judge that there is sufficient evidence for a trial in both jurisdictions (they rely on the OSA). But in no legal or common sense of the word do they have to prove it - where proof is required in English criminal law that would be determined by jury in a case with such a lengthy potential sentence. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

They have to prove something.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Assange awarded or honoured with "bobbed white hair, leather jacket; Jagger-esque swagger" and an autobiography

Why are these in the "Honours and awards" section?

"In 2021, The Guardian assessed that Assange had played the part of rock star "to perfection: bobbed white hair, leather jacket; Jagger-esque swagger. To many, he was a hero—the pugnacious Aussie who gave America a good hiding by revealing what the US military had really got up to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others regarded him as an egomaniacal information thief."

and

"... received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million".

Burrobert (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is because you and your co-thinkers have adamantly opposed any logical or chronological order in the article. And now you are complaining about things like this. You caused it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No, its only cause is that yesterday an editor deleted it from one section and and added it to honours and awards. Suggesting that other editors caused it through their opposition and, presumably, some kind of voodoo, is prima facie utterly ridiculous.

That said, I'm not sure that we should have a separate "Assesments section at all. WP:STRUCTURE suggests that different views should be folded into the narrative. So perhaps we can discuss whether all these various notable views about Assange and his work should be included in the general narrative (where several already are). Cambial foliage❧ 08:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It should be folded into the narrative.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it is an award, I did not add it I just moved it, as it was part of why he was awarded a pop star award.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Here is the final clause of what you moved from Assessments to Honours and awards: …and received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million. We cite a single source to support "In 2010, Assange was named by the Italian edition of Rolling Stone as 'Rockstar of the year'." It does not mention a book deal. And none of the three references relating to the book deal mention "Rockstar of the year." If, as you infer, the book deal was part of why Assange was awarded a pop star award, we should cite a WP:RS to that effect. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have said above, we need to r4eset the whole section back to a point before all the additions and subtractions. I just moved this bot that was about the award of it contained unrelated material, then you need to ask who added it. As it originally just said " 2010, Assange was named by the Italian edition of Rolling Stone as "Rockstar of the year",[138] was made an honorary member of the Australian trade union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance,[139][140][141] and received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million". We need to go back to the version of "assessments of 12:54, 12 October 2021 .Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Given the recent editorial history of Julian Assange, I oppose resetting any section of that BLP to a point before all its additions and subtractions. Twice previously on this talk page I have protested blind reversions and oblivious restoration of the "last stable version". Such meat-cleaver approaches have nullified hours of my careful, constructive work. Please, I beg you, spare me a repetition of that fate. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Only the one section, which is being discussed and for which there was no consensus for any alterations.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Here is a side-by-side comparison (sans references) of the version you advocate versus the current Assessments section. I believe the current version is self-evidently superior.

12:54, 12 October 2021

Current

Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal", but the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law. Then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and others called him a "terrorist". Prominent American and Canadian politicians and media personalities, including Tom Flanagan, Bob Beckel, Mike Huckabee, and Michael Grunwald, called for his assassination or execution. Support for Assange came from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, British Member of Parliament (and later Labour Party leader) Jeremy Corbyn, Spanish Podemos party leader Pablo Iglesias, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, and Argentina's ambassador to the UK, Alicia Castro. He also garnered support from many leading activists and celebrities, including Tariq Ali, John Perry Barlow, Daniel Ellsberg, Mary Kostakidis, John Pilger, Ai Weiwei, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Vaughan Smith, and Oliver Stone. In 2010, Assange was named by the Italian edition of Rolling Stone as "Rockstar of the year", was made an honorary member of the Australian trade union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and received a deal for his autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million. In 2011, Assange filed for the trademark "Julian Assange" in Europe, which was to be used for "Public speaking services; news reporter services; journalism; publication of texts other than publicity texts; education services; entertainment services".

Opinions of Assange have been divided. Support for Assange has came from politicians, journalists and world leaders. In November 2010, President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev suggested through his office that Assange deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. In December 2010, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then President of Brazil, said "They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression," and Vladimir Putin, then Prime Minister of Russia, asked at a press conference "Why is Mr Assange in prison? Is this democracy?" In April 2012, interviewed on Assange's Russia Today talk show, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa praised WikiLeaks and told his host "Cheer up! Cheer up! Welcome to the club of the persecuted!" In November 2014, Spanish Podemos party leader Pablo Iglesias also gave his support to Assange. In July 2015, British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn opposed Assange's extradition to the US, and as Labour Party leader in April 2019 said the British government should oppose Assange's extradition to the US "for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan." Many leading activists and celebrities also gave Assange their support. In July 2010, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that "Assange has shown much better judgment with respect to what he has revealed than the people who kept those items secret inside the government." In October 2010, Ellsberg flew to London to give Assange his support. In November 2011, Vaughan Smith, founder of the Frontline Club, supported Assange, and in July 2012 offered his residence in Norfolk for Assange to continue WikiLeaks' operations whilst in the UK. In August 2012, historian and journalist Tariq Ali and former ambassador and author Craig Murray spoke in support of Assange outside the Ecuadorian embassy. In April 2013, filmmaker Oliver Stone stated that "Julian Assange did much for free speech and is now being victimised by the abusers of that concept". In July 2016, artist and activist Ai Weiwei, musicians Patti Smith, Brian Eno, and PJ Harvey, scholars Noam Chomsky and Yanis Varoufakis, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, and filmmaker Ken Loach were amongst those attending an event in support of Assange at the embassy. That same month, long-time supporter documentary filmmaker Michael Moore also visited Assange in the embassy. In December 2019, Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis said "I became fascinated at this young, idealistic Australian, very tech-savvy, who developed a way for whistleblowers to upload data anonymously", and said she would be giving "100 per cent of my attention and resources" to his defence. In January 2021, Australian journalist John Pilger stated that were Assange to be extradited "no journalist who challenges power will be safe". In December 2010, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal", but the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law. Then Vice President of the United States Joe Biden commented that Assange was "closer to being a hi-tech terrorist" than to the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, and said Assange had "done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world. He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends." American politicians Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin each either referred to Assange as "a high-tech terrorist" or suggested that through publishing U.S. diplomatic traffic he was engaged in terrorism. Other American and Canadian politicians and media personalities, including Tom Flanagan, Bob Beckel, Mike Huckabee, and Michael Grunwald, called for his assassination or execution.

As for your objection that "there was no consensus for any alterations," that goes far beyond the discretionary sanction in place, which reads: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. None of my 21 contributions beginning at 00:50, 19 October 2021 have reinstated challenged (via reversion) edits. Accordingly, you have no grounds for wiping out my improvements without consensus on this talk page to do so. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good work. Let's settle on this version for now. It's a definite improvement. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And this is not what "no edits without consensus means". It's not "if I like it". By the way, much of it has been challenged (in fact almost all of the new text has been) and reverted. The problem is figuring out what has been challenged ina sea of edits. So we reset it and then discuss what shoulds be changed. And only do it if there is consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Valjean. It's a definite improvement. Cambial foliage❧ 09:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It gives to much emphasis to support and in my opinion quotes to many people. But then you know this. So it does not have a consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your comment appears to attempt to elide the distinction between no consensus and one editor seeking to stonewall. Cambial foliage❧ 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I in fact offered an alternative which still included a number of positive opinions. It is not me who has refused to compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing seventeen reliable secondary sources and using the misleading edit summary of "There we go, some positive statements" is not compromise, but rather an attempt to ignore WP:5P2. If you believe it is a compromise, you may find this page, this page, or even this admittedly flawed page helpful. Unless, that is, if you mean sense 3. of the verb as given by the OED: Bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behaviour. In that sense I agree that edits such as your edit linked above compromise you and would compromise the integrity of this page if it were allowed to stand. Cambial foliage❧ 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How was it misleading, were they not positive statement?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What was difficult about following the link I provided for your benefit? SUMMARYNO, first sentence:

Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading

Cambial foliage❧ 10:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop with three kinds of ad homonums (nor is a this the first time you have tried this kind of tacit, having previously stated I suppot4d your edit, when I did not). I removed material and replaced it with quotes. That is in no way misleading. If you think I am in breach of policy, report it, but stop making arguemtns based upon the user and not content, as that is agasint the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please indicate where you believe I have made an ad hominem argument about page content. With diffs. I remind you that accusations of bad faith without evidence are considered uncivil. You removed content and seventeen reliable secondary sources. You failed to mention it. That is misleading. Cambial foliage❧ 10:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:TPNO you have already misrpersented what I have said on this talk page which violates wp:npa and you are supposed to "Comment on content, not on the contributor.", stop.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So, no diffs then. Cambial foliage❧ 10:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Of all the hundreds of comments about Assange and his predicament from famous thinkers, politicians, celebrities, artists, musicians, journalists, we happen to give star billing to remarks from the President or Russian and the Prime minister of Russia. It’s almost as if someone where trying to spin a narrative which ties Assange to the “big bad Russians”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: Thank you for being precise in your objection. If you believe that including assessments of Assange by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2010—six years before Russiagate—violates WP policy, I will support your deletion of those 41 words, which editors can then debate in a new section at this talk page devoted solely to that removal. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I take it you think the inclusion of support from those two people and their positioning 1st and 3rd in the list of people quoted in the Assessments section is just coincidence? If so I’m not so sure – Russia comes up again and again in Assange article and I don’t believe an objective look at Assange’s relationship with Russia (what there is of it) warrants that – seems to me there are editors who have allowed conspiracy theories to cloud their judgements ie they have genuinely convinced themselves that Assange was in some way working for the Russians (rather than having a few overlapping interests). A reminder that Wikileaks revealed some quite uncomfortable truths about events in Russia over the years eg | here. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: The positioning is chronological, not coincidental. The entire Assessments section is now arranged chronologically. If you object to that order, please start a new section at this talk page where editors can focus on how we can best sort the assessments of Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I get the chronological order. I don’t get why plainly insincere comments from the Russians – are chosen over more sincere comments made by others at the time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: If you can cite WP:RS to support your opinion that the assessments of Assange by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2010 were "plainly insincere," then I reiterate my support for your deletion of those 41 words, which editors can then debate in a new section at this talk page devoted solely to that removal. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prunes, don't keep throwing your unsupported personal opinions up on the talk page. It impedes collaborative discussion and it's a huge waste of volunteer editors' time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know whether OR is relevant, but I agree with Speci that this tangent discussion is a waste of time (and very, very silly). Basketcase put the comments in chronological order. That’s all. If you know of other secondary reliable sources (as per WP:BLPBALANCE) that report comments made by others at the time, by all means add them in; there can be no reasonable objection provided they are presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone and not given disproportionate space.Cambial — foliage❧ 07:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The present order seems to work fine, and I'd oppose deletion of the Russian comments as a violation of NPOV. Notable allies of Assange should get their say, and Assange's actions had helped Russia, so of course they're grateful. We don't limit coverage to critics. -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As I noted above, we have included assessments of Assange by Russian President Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Putin in 2010—six years before Russiagate. That was also two years before Assange's TV show on the Russian government-funded network RT. So I'm not sure it's true that "Assange's actions had helped Russia" when Medvedev and Putin offered those assessments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Russia considered a major enemy of the United States? It follows that Assange's actions in 2010 would be viewed with glee by the Russians as they were very helpful to Russian intelligence and Russia's interests. -- Valjean (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"you and your co-thinkers have adamantly opposed any logical or chronological order in the article" - what are you referring to? Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As discussed above, the "assessments" (funny word) should be folded into the article (which was the longstanding position). When Assange rose to worldwide notoriety, Prime Minister Gillard labelled him a criminal. That should be included when it occurred. She might have revised her opinion: Bob Carr apparently has. Similarly there was a rush of commentary when the US indictment was unveiled. That should be included when it occurred. Likewise the comments of Melzer. Likewise the comments of the Doctors group. Of course most of this is in place at the moment. I'm just explaining the pattern that should be followed. See WP:STRUCTURE.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree that we are encouraged to include assessments within the flow of the article rather than in a separate section. Burrobert (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Assange is a classic victim of 'cancel culture', so demonised that he can no longer get a hearing,

A request has been received for more information about the statement in the heading. The explanation comes earlier in the article where Cockburn says, talking about the Yahoo report:

"This riveting and important story based on multiple sources might be expected to attract extensive coverage and widespread editorial comment in the British media, not to mention in parliament. Many newspapers have dutifully carried summaries of the investigation, but there has been no furore. Striking gaps in the coverage include the BBC, which only reported it, so far as I can see, as part of its Somali service. Channel 4, normally so swift to defend freedom of expression, apparently did not mention the story at all".

He then says:

"The true reason the scoop about the CIA’s plot to kidnap or kill Assange has been largely ignored or downplayed is rather that he is unfairly shunned as a pariah by all political persuasions: left, right and centre".

How we incorporate this explanation into the article, I will leave for discussion. Given that it is based on the media response to the Yahoo report, which is itself dependant on an RfC, there may be a delay in working out the details. Burrobert (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that articles are supposed to reflect the weight in reliable sources, which at this point means mainstream media. In the years ahead, as better sources are written, we should reassess the current weight in the article, if it is different. TFD (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the article you want to use there is Cockburn writing not as a journalist but as an opinion commentator. We would need to have a third party talk about it in order for it to be WP:DUE at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, Cockburn's opinion that Assange "can no longer get a hearing" should be paraphrased to disambiguate the meaning of hearing. Cockburn apparently means that Assange cannot get anyone to listen to him. However, in this BLP, that word occurs 17 times, and in all 16 other instances it refers to a legal hearing. Without clarification, the reader might erroneously conclude that the evil UK/U.S. authorities, in their barbarous persecution, have conspired to deny Assange one or more rightful hearings in court. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Execept he is getting a hearing, it's just that this one story was not deemed fit for consideration in some news organs. Many of which have been supportive of him. News organs that do have very high standards of editorial control (hence why they are top-line RS here). Now we already have commentary on the CIA hit, and it may be possible to have a line about the mainstream media largely ignoring this, but we really need more than a an Opp-edd invoking cancel culture.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe it would be okay to say that is the 'Assessments' section as attributed opinion about Assange. There's a number of articles talking about that in different contexts for Assange from ignoring most of what happened in the extradition trial to Thordarson's retractions to this business of the CIA plotting to kidnap or murder him. WP:WEIGHT doesn't require the mainstream media for everything in the article but they do have to be reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The "Assessments" section should be limited to assessments around 2010. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Cockburn's opinion anywhere in this article is misleading, as Assange has had multiple hearings in multiple forums.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: I have searched in vain for an ad nauseam discussion about limiting the Assessments section to those around 2010. The present discussion contains Burrobert's comment to the contrary: "Most of the sources are from 2010. Let's update this," which Valjean commends as a "good point." Elsewhere there are 16 Talk:Julian Assange/Archive pages with one or more instances of the word assessment(s), but only two pages specifically relating to the Assessments section. Archive 26 does not discuss a temporal limitation. In Archive 27, Prunesqualer notes that the assessments as of 10 August 2021 "all derive from the 2010/2011 pre-asylum, pre U.S. indictment, pre imprisonment period," whereas he favored including people who were more recently "campaigning/speaking out about Assange's predicament"; and SPECIFICO criticized on NPOV grounds the absence of "assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years." Of course, you may be alluding to other pages, such as noticeboards. In any case, please direct me to the ad nauseam discussion. I trust it will be most informative. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

See [13], [14] and [15]. I remember many discussions of this, but I think they were intermixed with other discussions. Perhaps my memory is faulty. In any case, it makes more sense to include commentary with the events being commented on, rather than a jumble of comments over decades.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: I appreciate your response, but find it unhelpful. You provide links to three Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive page sections, none of which involve limiting Assessments to 2010-2011. Confusingly, in the first linked section, you comment, "I think it is reasonable to have assessment of events as they happen." That suggests, to me at least, that you were not then (April 2021) opposed to including assessments subsequent to 2010-2011. Rather, as you assert above, you believe the Assessments section should be limited to those around 2010. Perhaps, instead of intermixing with other discussions, it would be better to create a new talk page section that focuses exclusively on that single issue. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have never suggested assessments should be confined to 2010-11. What a bizarre comment!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Either your "memory is faulty," as you suggested here less than 24 hours ago, or an imposter forged this statement by you just a day before: The "Assessments" section should be limited to assessments around 2010. In either case, I agree—this is a bizarre situation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You've just missed the point of what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. If there was any point to what you said, I missed it. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We should follow WP:STRUCTURE:Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. The original "Assessments" section was "folded into the narrative" to some degree in that it summed up opinions at the time that Assange became internationally famous (around 2010). The current "Assessments" section has been taken out of the narrative and is apparently supposed to cover his entire life.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: If you're waiting for mainstream (corporate) news media to come to Assange's defence? Keep waiting. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There is enough material for a separate article about the media's response to Assange, his work and his imprisonment. Here is a selection of editorials from sources that we have given the green tick of approval. If you are interested in an analysis of corporate media's coverage of Assange, FAIR has some good articles. Burrobert (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Related to the above, here is an editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald which illustrates the furthest limit that corporate media will go to support Assange. It mentions the "recklessness of Mr Assange’s release of identifying details from confidential diplomatic cables", and asks whether the "public interest in the material he released into the conduct of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq outweighed the potential damage to individuals", says that "the Herald understands the need to protect classified information and British courts have found that his actions were not purely journalistic". The paper then says that we have tortured him enough and it is getting embarrassing because "Joe Biden has just held a summit for democracy". The paper, which is clearly a loyal servant of empire, seems to think that torturing Assange any further "poses a threat to the US’s reputation because it could refocus attention on the ugly incidents during the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were exposed by WikiLeaks". Burrobert (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

A few more articles in which mainstream media give an opinion on whether JA should be extradited. There is probably too much material to include in Assange's bio, though a summary would be useful. A separate article would be needed to provide sufficient coverage of the media's treatment of Assange. There are two aspects to this. Firstly, the media's reaction to Wikileaks' publications and secondly, the media's reaction to the US charges and attempt to extradite him. Not sure if one article could cover both aspects. Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC Should two statements in the 2016 U.S. presidential election section be removed

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

---

Should the following material be removed from the Julian Assange#2016_U.S. presidential election (see discussion above):

• “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”.
• "On October 7, the Access Hollywood tapes comes out. One hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails into the public. One could say that those things might not have been a coincidence”.

NadVolum (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The section already has a number of statements about the timing of the email drops. This is about removing a couple which are pure conjecture. There is a discussion just above at Baum, Gussin and Podesta speculations.

The bit by Baum and Gossin was at the end of a newsblog article where they were amalysing how newspaper articles about the emails increased as Hillary Clinton rose in the polls - but this speculation at the end was not part of that analysis and doesn't correspond to reality and has not been referenced in any secondary source The source is "Why it's entirely predictable that Hillary Clinton's emails are back in the news". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 November 2016.

The conjecture by Podesta looks like coincidence. Assange announced only a couple of days beforehand that Wikileaks would be making a release. Roger Stone asked Corsi to ask Assange to do a drop after the Hollywood tapes, but the Mueller investigation showed no straighforward contact and the best conjecture based on that would need everyone in a line of five or six and then the release being done in the hour. The conjectured connection is simply unlikely to be true and is not needed in the biography. The source is Cohen, Marshall (7 October 2017). "Access Hollywood, Russian hacking and the Podesta emails: One year later". CNN. Retrieved 24 December 2020. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Note also they contradict each other about the reasons for timing. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal - The "might not have been a coincidence" thing is clearly unecyclopedic speculation. Completely the wrong tone. Poor writing. The Baum/Gussin thing immediately begs the question, "Who are Baum and Gussin?". It's bad enough when we start listing out a whole series of random opinions from notable commentators. It's terrible when we do it from non-notable ones. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Why are we RfC'ing this? It seems self-evident. Is someone contesting it? NickCT (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.canyons.edu/academics/politicalscience/faculty/phil-gussin.php https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty/matthew-baumSlatersteven (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is the point that these guys are a pair of non-notable academics? What the heck is "Canyons College"? Is that even a real place? NickCT (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Note these two sentences are not by the same people, or in the same source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• And? What are you trying to say? NickCT (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Re why an RfC is needed. The page is under rather strict sanctions requiring consensus on changes, and it seems to require an RfC complete with a closing decision before some editors agree a consensus has been achieved. Yes it is contested. NadVolum (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum: - Contested by whom? This is snow. NickCT (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT:The removals where opposed by Slatersteven and SPECIFICO in the previos talk page section “Baum, Gussin and Podesta speculations”. Both these editors are quite bullish in the reverting department so we needed consensus to move on this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 05:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Statements containing the words "may" and "might" are hardly useful for establishing anything truly Encyclopedic, and if there is already ample information on the timing of the email drops, readers can make up their own minds. Speculation is not helpful or neutral. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of speculative opinions per Iskandar323. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal (my reasons are given in the section above) Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. Unfounded speculation, whether by inconsequential nobody academics at mediocre institutions or by obviously biased parties, is not encylopaedic content. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal, as even the sources themselves are questionable. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of Baum and Gossin. Oppose removal of Podesta. Baum and Gossin are speculative, as I have long said. Podesta might well be wrong, but this is an indication of what the Democrats believed, which is relevant. We should also be aware that over years a number of editors have opposed any reduction to this section. I don't agree with them, but I think that we should avoid drastic cuts in order to avoid edit wars. I also think that starting a discussion, then starting an Rfc shortly after is not good practice. Administrators are complaining about the length of the talk pages and having this much discussion over a couple of sentences does seem excessive. This follows a number of other discussions which were recently duplicated on this page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland This is not a “drastic cut”. Also please note I have brought up issues regarding this overlong section on several occasions only to be filibustered by just a few editors, so that an RFC seemed the only way of making progress. You said: “I also think that starting a discussion, then starting an Rfc shortly after is not good practice” yet the “Baum, Gussin and Podesta speculations” discussion already ran into thousands of words within the three days, before this RFC was opened - and no progress was made at all. You then said “this much discussion over a couple of sentences does seem excessive” I agree - but it was precisely because there was so much unproductive “discussion” that this RFC was opened. As for edit wars – sadly these are already a regular feature of the Assange page – (which is why we’re in special measures). Doing this by the book seems the best way to avoid that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance in a biography about Assange. But would you then agree that the end of the statement from the same source should be included rather than chopped out "Podesta himself has speculated that the timing of WikiLeaks' release might be connected to the other major stories that day, though no evidence has emerged to lend any credibility to this argument."? NadVolum (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevance of what?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You said "Podesta might well be wrong, but this is an indication of what the Democrats believed, which is relevant." Why is it relevant? And if you think tht shouldn't it also say the bit from the citation saying no evidence has emerged to lend any credibility? Are you trying to establish in the Assange article that Democrats are credulous or conspiracy theorists or what? NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you answer me NadVolum: do you think that Assange is the son of God or the spawn of the Devil? I'm not trying to attack the Democrats. Where did you get that from? I'm just saying that we should note the animosity of the Democrats to Assange. Some Democrats and their co-thinkers etc clearly believe that Assange was perhaps not the spawn of the Devil, as you suggested, but in league with President Evil, Donald Trump, and Darth Putin of Russia. Podesta is a prominent figure, though not as prominent as Comrade Pamela Anderson. Let's include him.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely anyone will think from what's there already that the Democrats held warm feelings for Wikileaks participating in the release of the emails. But why should that matter anyway in this article? And as I said if it was kept we really should include the bit from the source saying no evidence has emerged to lend any credibility, how would that reflect on the thinking of the Democrats? If what the Democrats believed was so important at least try and get something a bit less flawed. NadVolum (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Answer the question, anser. But, anyhoo, maybe this belongs in Assessments (the section).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Both SPS and BLP are clear, we can include opinions by experts, they are clearly experts (both are academics, in the field of political science).Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Baum and Gossin. WP:SPS would be entirely the wrong policy - it says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The relevant policy is I think WP:NEWSBLOG and if you follow 'opinion piece' there you get to WP:PRIMARY where points 1 and 3 apply. I haven't been able to find a secondary source referring to what they say. NadVolum (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

SlaterstevenI agree with NadVolum and also please note the Baum and Gussin sentence we want removed says: “Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls”. That is clearly a statement dealing with statistics ie NOT Baum and Gussin’s field of expertise. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I really wouldn't want to make that argument in general. They probably have some training in statistics as part of their job and that's enough in most cases if the results seem reasonable. Just in this case only the single instance they mention seems to follow their rule! It was just a speculation at the end of an otherwise reasonable article. NadVolum (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Remove both. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:UNDUE. - hako9 (talk) 13:12, 24 November 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.

Request for comment: stroke

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.

There is consensus to include the statement. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article include the following at the point in the chronology of Assange's life that it occurred (towards the end of the last section in "Imprisonment and extradition proceedings"):

According to his partner Stella Moris, Assange suffered a mini-stroke on 27 October while sitting through the court hearing. Assange was subsequently given anti-stroke medication.

Cambial — foliar❧ 18:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

NOTE Please see the thread directly above for detail on discussion prior to this RfC. There is also a discussion at the OR noticeboard WP:ORN#Assange_mini-stroke_possible_synth here — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

!Votes

• Include This statement by Assange's next of kin, who is in a position to be informed, has been reported widely in the British press as well as by reliable news organisations elsewhere. As per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. A serious medical event is noteworthy to a biography, and the report in The Times (written by a medical doctor) stresses its seriousness. Its relevance to the article subject is self-evident. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include Seems silly to exclude it. I started up a discussion about this at #Mini-stroke above. NadVolum (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include but not in WP's own voice. There are numerous sources but they are not WP:MEDRS sources, and all of them that I've looked at attribute the claim to the fiancée. WP's not in a position to state that a stroke occurred, but the fact that the fiancée claims one happened is now part of the widely reported Assange story in sources we consider reliable enough to use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include per Cambial and SMcCandlish, numerous RSs reporting it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include - if it's verified. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include As the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian have all reported the mini stroke, it is covered by the RSP and I am not aware of any reason to doubt it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Do Not Include WP:NOTNP, to start out, it appears that he did have a stroke according to reliable sources, I am not arguing that point. But why is it important to a reader who knows nothing about Julian to know that he had a mini stroke? This seems more like a news story. His mini stroke has not contributed to his fame, nor is it tied to Wikileaks. His medical situation is not relevant, unless it has an effect on his death or is an important part of his life story. He is 50 years old, should we add a section that discussed the fact that he now should be getting regular colonoscopies? Cardiovascular diseases are very common, especially in older men, why would we need to include this? Wikipedia is not a medical chart/history records. Tepkunset (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include - Widely reported in RSs, seems to be little doubt on the story's veracity, no reason not to include. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include Yes, reported in various mainstream press, and I have not seen any counter claims disputing it, so no reason that Wikipedia should. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion

I would have rather we let others chime in before we repeat the above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it's pointless to run an RfC within just a few days of every edit that happens to be reverted. If this RfC remains open, the discussion is fragmented and editors who come here from notification may be unaware of the previous discussion, while those who've commented above are forced needlessly to repeat all of their responses and discussion in the RfC thread that ultimately will be evaluated by a closer. I urge Cambial to withdraw this RfC and let the discussion above run its course. NadVolum has already posted on WP:ORN to elicit comment on at least one aspect of the discussion above. It is way outside WP common practice to put up an RfC before ordinary discussion has run its course. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You've made it abundantly clear that you will employ every possible argument you can think of to try to prevent its inclusion, including (and in fact, mostly) the patently absurd. Your assertion about being way outside WP common pratice is incorrect. I'll be leaving the RfC to run its course. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Again can we not bludgeon this, and allow others to have a say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: given the many !votes and extended discussion in the initial very recent thread above this, if you are not prepared to remove the RfC tag, I think you at least should merge the two threads in whatever way you choose so as to incorporate all of the discussiona and views on this issue in a single thread for those who come here as uninvolved contributors and for whoever closes this next month. The forking to a very quick RfC is not going to get us to a definitive conclusion on this, especially given the opposition being voiced by some of our most respected editors on the site-wide noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no "forking". I fail to see how you dreamed up that characterisation. The discussion above does not include a proposed text, and involved no mechanism to garner wider community input. The arbitrary choices that would be necessary to merge it, and the different question posed, mean that doing so would not be appropriate. There is no hierarchy of editors here, a fact of which, given the time you've spent around this website, you ought already to be aware. Consensus determined by RFC is binding. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I would advise anyone coming here to actually follow that link that SPECIFICO gave rather than just accepting their summary of the discussion at the noticeboard as being anywhere near reality. link to the section within ORN NadVolum (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors seem to be saying that this content belongs in the article merely because it is verified by RS reporting that Moris made this claim. Please see the section above this RfC for discussion of the other issues entailed. As with all article content, the problem does not only concern [[WP:ONUS| only verification, which by itself is not a sufficient reason to include it in the article. Moreover, the issue of SYNTH raised by placing it in the section about his legal appeal has raised concern at ORN from senior uninvolved Admin @Masem:, one of our most thoughtful editors on content and sourcing issues. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page, please refrain from canvassing by pinging your own selection of editors. Pinging AndyTheGrump @AndyTheGrump: who was involved in the same discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:37, 20 December 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.

There is no independent RS that verifies anything about Julian Assange's medication or lack thereof. It can be attributed to his wife, but it cannot be stated as fact in wiki-voice. That will need to be removed from the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thus the information should be added, per RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)