Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

"Australian Criminals"

WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear that Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability.

A relevant part of that policy is that the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Previous discussions over related issues suggest a consensus that this is not relevant to the article subject's notability. It's abundantly clear that it needs to be removed. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

His conviction is widely reported by many RSes

Its what he was first notable for The earliest detailed reports about Assange are 1990s Australian press reports on him and his case. Softlemonades (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I (and evidently others) disagree. Those events gave zero notability for the article subject - that's why no WP article was created about Assange until February 2010. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I couldnt find the RS then. I found it and added it. RSes count more than our opinion. His case was in the news in Australia in the 1990s and he was notable there

that's why no WP article was created about Assange until February 2010 Wikipedia didnt exist in the 1990s and not everything notable was added to it right away and Im not saying he was notable everywhere, but in Australia he was Softlemonades (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

An article not existing is not evidence that the topic was not already notable. Some of the pages created today will have been notable since day 1 but nobody ever bothered to make an article. In hindsight Assange would have passed GNG from the 1990s onward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The criteria for notability of people are at WP:NBIO. It includes specific criteria for crimes. the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: 1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[10] or 2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role

The events in the mid-90s come nowhere close to fulfilling the relevant criteria. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a well-documented historic event

There is sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources, its been mentioned from the 1990s until this year. This article has a lot of sources. Assange also helped write a book about it and talked about it in the public Softlemonades (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Both the GNG and the SNG are used to evaluate notability. Note that the victim of the crime was internationally renowned and the motivation and execution of the crime were both treated as unusual by the press. We have sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Wikileaks aside his early work is still talked about a lot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

the victim of the crime was internationally renowned - What? Which ostensible renowned national or international figure are you talking about and where are they described as the victim?

You claim there is sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role - yet none of this real or imaginary coverage is cited on the page - that all focuses on Wikileaks, and mentions this only in passing as an event in Assange's early twenties. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Which ostensible victim are you talking about and where are they described as the victim? Nortel [1]

yet none of this real or imaginary coverage is cited on the page Start at Julian Assange#Hacking and start reading and look at the sources. None of them are contemporary to when the events took place.

mentions this only as an event in Assange's early twenties It says lot more than that Softlemonades (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked Which ostensible renowned national or international figure are you talking about which is what the criteria for notability says. Nortel is a company, not a renowned figure. Where is the company described as the victim?

You say None of them are contemporary to when the events took place, but all of them are occasioned by Assange's role in WikiLeaks - the source of his notability. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I can only tell you what the source said, which I linked. It also says it in Julian Assange#Arrest and trial, but I think notable corporation works as well as renowned individual.

but all of them are occasioned by Assange's role in WikiLeaks you cant exclude the information because the articles also had other information. and some were just about his case or his hacker past like Video: The Time Julian Assange Hacked the Pentagon. and we know there were articles in the 1990s also covering his case

there was coverage then and coverage since then and it still gets mentioned Softlemonades (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If the company was not the victim what/who was? We have sources calling him Australia's most famous hacker which predate his involvement with Wikileaks, how can someone be both Australia's most famous hacker and non-notable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Assanges biography on Wikileaks when it started said he was Australias most famous ethical computer hacker, so he thought he was famous Softlemonades (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I also see a source that says the reparations were to Australia National University and thats notable like Nortel.

The article has sources for International Subversives hacking NASA, the Department of Defence, the Stanford Research Institute, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Australian systems like the Australian Federal Police and Australia National University so the company or group was notable Softlemonades (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I changed the Category:Australian_criminals to Category:21st-century_Australian_criminals because Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable but the discussion should be the same for it Softlemonades (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories should not be overused, they should be used for things which are defining aspects of the topic. See Wikipedia:Categorization That Assdange was convicted of hacing i Australia is definitely not that. This is the same problem as classifying him as aspbergers syndrome which shouldn't be there either. It simply isn't a defining aspect of him any more than his religion or color is. See Wikipedia:Defining. This especially means that people should not be put into very wide categories uless it is a very defining category for them. For instance a person should not have their religion shown unless they did something like preaching it. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Like we said above, its what first made him notable. It was covered by the Australian press in the 1990s and has been covered by the press for years since then in dozens in RSes. Assange has said he was famous for hacking. One of the sources said it set him on the intellectual path" leading him to found WikiLeaks

they should be used for things which are defining aspects of the topic Thats not what WP:CATDEFINING says. It says The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article

WP:Defining#From_Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people_§_Categorize_by_defining_characteristics is only meant to keep out things that arent notable. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless their legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to their acting career. His conviction is notable in its own right, thats why it was reported on in the 1990s and has been reported on since then Softlemonades (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

He is not notable for being convicted in Australia and he is not notable for having Aspbergers. NadVolum (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Start a new topic about Aspergers if you want. I dont care.

He is not notable for being convicted in Australia He was notable for that case in Australia before Wikileaks happened. RS coverage means more than editor opinion Softlemonades (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

He is not notable as an Australian criminal or for having Aspbergers. He is simply not referred to in those terms. NadVolum (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

He is referred to as an Australian who plead guilty to 24 hacking charges in Australia and the earliest detailed reports about Assange are 1990s Australian press reports on him and his case.Softlemonades (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. He wouldn't be on Wikipedia if that was all he did. I'll remove that and the aspbergers as overcategorization. I'll leave the people convicted of cybercrime as that is a much smaller category. NadVolum (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

He wouldn't be on Wikipedia if that was all he did. Thats your opinion. @Horse Eye's Back already said he met GNG in the 1990s. Wikileaks said he was already famous when Wikileaks started

I dont really care about the Aspergers category but it was raised before at Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_39#Autism so I think you should start a new topic before removing it

The real rule from WP:BLPCAT is that Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. Its what first made him notable in Australia, its published by RSes, he plead guilty and it wasnt appealed. Softlemonades (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither you nor Horse Eye's Back have demonstrated that Assange is notable for events in the mid-1990s. You've said there was coverage then. WP:NBIO is clear that contemporaneous news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability for a crime. After that brief period of news coverage at the time, there is no mention of Assange nor his computer activities until after WikiLeaks started gaining attention. When it is mentioned as part of a profile, it is in every case in sources about WikiLeaks as part of Assange's biographical history as the founder and editor of WikiLeaks. It is not articles about a hack in 1994 that also mention as an aside how he later went on to found WikiLeaks. You are trying to put the cart before the horse with this "they do mention it later". A minority of RS do mention it - but the articles which mention it only exist because Assange became notable for WikiLeaks and people have then written biographical profiles because of WikiLeaks. That is readily obvious from the sources.

In addition, this relatively recent addition has been disputed. WP:BLPRESTORE indicates that If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. There is no consensus to include this inappropriate categorisation. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The 1997 book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier in which Assange gets a whole chapter disagrees on there only being either contemporaneous news coverage or Wikileaks era coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, his breach of bail in taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy was a highly noteworthy episode in his life.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

When it is mentioned as part of a profile, it is in every case in sources about WikiLeaks as part of Assange's biographical history as the founder and editor of WikiLeaks

Yes people mention recent events in articles but many of them are about the hack. I linked to one before [2] Some are just about his case [3] [4]

people have then written biographical profiles because of WikiLeaks But the first detailed coverage of Assange, not just coverage about his case but details about him was because of his arrest and trial. And Wikileaks said he was famous before Wikileaks.

It is not articles about a hack in 1994 No it was 1991

There is no consensus to include this inappropriate categorisation. Replies to this post show consensus is for it and its appropriate to facts Softlemonades (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Half the article is taken up with his court history. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk page list says Hacking size is 8,336, Arrest and trial size is 6,104. Page size is 323,091 and 90,637 readable Softlemonades (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Court history, his trials, being a fugitive from justice, rape allegations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I read you wrong sorry. Youre right. And two are articles about his legal issues were split from here Softlemonades (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of his extradition to America or of the alleged rape to the business about Australia. Anyway categorization is not about finding every single category one can find an RS about to support ones case for sticking in the category. Think about categorization of a book. Just because a book contains a lot of mathematics does not mean it should be in an index of mathematical works. That is what WP:DEFINING is about. A very wide category like mathematics shouldn't be polluted with stuff that is not primarily known as mathematical. However the work might fit under mathematics of finance for instance which would be a much smaller category within which the work might reasonably be listed even if it is mainly about mortgages - it may be known for its mathematical treatment of the subject. NadVolum (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The size of a category has nothing to do with if we use it. Smaller categories get used because WP:PARENTCAT and thats why it was changed to 21 century australian criminals, which has more people than just australian criminals

Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine whether a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine whether particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine whether a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic.

Right now consensus is clearly against you and for including it and policy supports it Softlemonades (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Assange has no notable conviction. The RS that note his previous convictions are doing so as part of passing mention in relation to his current allegations. This is an obvious WP:BLP violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

RSes reported his case and details about him in the 1990s before Wikileaks. They reported his case in detail before his current allegations. Articles about it like Assange's hacking offences laid bare are not passing mention. Assange helped write a book about it

This is an obvious WP:BLP violation. Hes a public figure who plead guilty Softlemonades (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please share the RS prior to his notability for wikileaks? The post wikileaks stuff focuses on him due to his wikileaks notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The earliest detailed reports about Assange are 1990s Australian press reports on him and his case.

The post wikileaks stuff focuses on him due to his wikileaks notability. It doesnt matter why it is reported, its reported by RSes. We dont keep things out for a politician just because it was only reported due to his politics notability

And Wikileaks said he was famous in Australia when they started Softlemonades (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

These are all wikileaks news sources and dont substantiate that there was sigcov of assange prior to that. Please send the actual sources prior to wikileaks. Do you have any? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The first source has a quote in the reference. It says Perhaps the best-documented accounts of Assange come from 1990s Australian press reports, when he was charged for hacking that he did as a teenager in 1990 and 1991

I dont have those reports the online archives arent old enough. But that RS says they exist and ABOUTSELF agrees he was famous in Australia Softlemonades (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nah, we dont have any evidence they exist. Please find the sources or drop the claim. What does WP:ABOUTSELF say in relation to this point? Are you saying that assange said in something self published he was a criminal? Or you trying to say the plea bargain is sufficient? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nah, we dont have any evidence they exist. An RS and a reliable author says they do, you dont get to ignore that

Are you saying that assange said in something self published he was a criminal? He said he was famous, which means notable

Or you trying to say the plea bargain is sufficient? Yes pleading guilty to 24 counts of hacking is enough. He admited to doing crimes Softlemonades (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We dont use self proclamations of famousness to pass WP:GNG, nor would I suspect we use it for WP:DUE. No, the guilty plea would not be sufficient to apply the category. I suggest if you want to push this, you should seek consensus over at WP:BLPCRIMINAL, and not here. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here will not be sufficient to override the policy for application of categories. You would do that over at the WP:BLPCRIMINAL article, and if you can find consensus there that all guilty pleas mean we will apply it, then we will apply it here. As of now you lack local consensus here on this talk page, you lack evidence of the coverage at the time pre-wikileaks (only pointing to a source that says maybe it exists), and you lack policy standing that clarifies if we apply criminal to all guilt pleas. This to me is far off in the weeds of absurd. I would suggest you take this to DR or RFC if you feel you want to do it, looks to me it violates WP:BLP pretty obviously. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As of now you lack local consensus here on this talk page Sure? @Cambial Yellowing @Jtbobwaysf @NadVolum against, @Jack Upland @Horse Eye's Back @Slatersteven @Softlemonades for

only pointing to a source that says maybe it exists Wrong it says it does exist

you lack policy standing that clarifies if we apply criminal to all guilt pleas I didnt say we apply it all guilty pleas I said his guilty plea was enough for ABOUTSELF about being a criminal because you asked when I said the ABOUTSELF about being famous in Australia for hacking

WP:BLPCRIMINAL already says it matches. Assange says he was notable in Australia for hacking and an RS says it was covered by Australian press. It was published by reliable third-party sources. He plead guilty and was convicted. It was not appealed. Softlemonades (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

All starting to sound absurd to me. 3vs4 is hardly consensus to add controversial content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

All starting to sound absurd to me. You say that after ignoring an RS and then adding maybe to it.

The reason for the BLP rules is to protect people. If Assange says he was already famous for it what are we protecting him from? I think you are wrong about policy but if you are right and the reason for the policy is gone then WP:IGNORE WP:5P5 Softlemonades (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please post the link for the FAMOUS where he was stating he was a famous criminal. I am not ignoring your statements, we are discussing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your statements You said an RS isnt evidence of what it says. Nah, we dont have any evidence they exist.

As a teenager he became Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker. After referrals from the United States government his phone was tapped in 1991 and he spent 6 years in court. He hacked thousand of systems, including the Pentagon and the US military Security Coordination Center. Following a case in the supreme court, he was convicted of writing a magazine that inspired crimes against the federal government. [5]

At one conference in Malaysia, called the “Hack in the Box Security Conference”, Assange told the audience, “I was a famous teenage hacker in Australia, and I’ve been reading generals’ emails since I was 17.” [6] Softlemonades (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see something saying that he is a famous australian criminal. I haven't the foggiest where the business about the 21st century came up - is that to say he is a famous criminal this century because he is known for having jumped bail? I admit he is much better known for that than anything he did in Australia but it isn't what I imagined as an actity for that category. NadVolum (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest where the business about the 21st century came up I just thought it should be the most recent one hes living in. If you say it would be a different one I dont object Softlemonades (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am with Ned on this. We have the subject admitting he is a famous hacker (ok we can add hacker tag to this) but we dont have him saying he is a famous criminal. I think the argument of Softlemonades attempts to synth that since he pled to a crime (lots of people do) and since he admitted he was a hacker, we have him admitting to be a criminal. Lots of people plead to crimes, and it certainly does not mean they agree that they consider themselves a criminal. While the law does think that, we are not a court at wikipedia and we dont follow this approach. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Was a hacker I'd say rather than is anytime in the last twenty years or so, but I'm quite happy with the hacker tag and even the People convicted of cybercrime one. He is actually known as those even if the stuff in Australia was rather minor. NadVolum (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In a perfect world a category of "Category:Australians convicted of cybercrime" would exist which would allow us to use one tag instead of two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If he was found guilty in a court of law he's a criminal for wikipedia's purposes, makes absolutely no difference that he pled. Being a criminal doesn't mean you're a bad person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Being an 'Australian criminal' is not something he's known for so it doesn't satisfy WP:DEFINING which is the main requirement for being tagged with a category. NadVolum (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If he isn't known for it how do you explain all of the coverage which either features or mentions it? Easier questionL: can you find a biography of Assange which does not cover it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is a biography. The category tags are not a biography. Their purpose is quite different as described at WP:Categorization and in particular for this at WP:CATDEF. They perform a function practically opposite to the biography - they provide indexes by what they are known for. Biographies provide extra information about people over what is generally known. Anyway his being a criminal is something you worked out, not something that is said. What has been said in effect is that he has been convicted of a cybercrime and that is in the categories in the article. NadVolum (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If its not a defining feature then there should de biographies without it, if you can't find any then it is a defining feature. What is the difference here between having been convicted of a cybercrime and being a criminal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you would just spend a minute reading WP:Defining like I asked you'd see that not everything that is true and verifiable is okay for categorization any more than we should write topics into title names. The major test there in the overcategoriztion section would ask does 'Assange is an Australian criminal...' or 'Assange, an Australian criminal, ...' appear very frequently in realiable sources about him? In fact nothing like either of them do. THe closest we've got is the second one about things in the lead might be suitable. In the lead it says he was convicted for hacking' That is close enough to 'Persons convicted of a cybercrime' for me and I can see that being acceptable and it is one of the categories the article is in. However it does not say he is an Australian criminal, that is something you inferred not something people have written down in reliable sources that I know of, never mind commonly. It definitely is not something he is well known for or written about as such in reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Gudelines that editors make up to facilitate pushing their view aren’t what we follow. The criteria for categorisation, as per WP:BLPCRIMINAL and WP:CATDEF, are that the individual needs to be notable for being a criminal and it needs to be a defining characteristic of the subject. Neither is the case here. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you confusing guidelines with essays? Guidelines have been endorsed by the community and are not made "up to facilitate pushing their view." Note that CATDEF is part of a guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be what they are notable for, but it does have to be something they are well known for. Please read WP:Defining which is referenced from WP:CATDEF for fuller explanation. NadVolum (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You are not Cambial Yellowing, you can not possibly answer the question asked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a private conversation and I'm quite able to infer things thank you. Anyway 'No man steps in the same river twice' so your day old 'Cambrial Yellowing' no longer exists to answer you. (I might be pushing that [7]!) NadVolum (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I have had my questions answered by others all the time, this is how wikipedia works as Ned correctly points out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

NadVolum, Jtbobwaysf, and Cambial are correct that Assange clearly wasn't "notable" enough to meet WP:GNG criteria prior to Wikileaks. Assange was, perhaps, a skilled hacker, and like many non-notable people some of his exploits appeared briefly in the news. Assange became famous however when he began publishing material through Wikileaks, leading to a raft of journalism awards. For these reasons, it is wrong to label Assange as an "Australian criminal." Arguing as such is prejudicial and unbalanced.

Given the unsealed indictments the category could furthermore imply that Assange is guilty of other crimes for which he has been neither tried nor convicted. This would be absurd, since the indictments have been universally condemned by human rights organizations, media organizations, editorial boards, and the United Nations. Those condemnations are widely reported and have been extensively reviewed on this talk page. As this is a WP:BLP, a conservative approach is warranted.

We really shouldn't be positioning ourselves against American and international rights groups and WP:GNG guidelines. Thankfully, half the editors here are siding with those rights groups and with policy, so we have no need to rashly add unwarranted categories. -Darouet (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone fined $2,000 for hacking wouldn't make any Australian criminal hall of fame. The question we should ask is whether it would help someone interested in the subject to read about this case. TFD (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable, TFD. What's your thought here? -Darouet (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Assange was, perhaps, a skilled hacker, and like many non-notable people some of his exploits appeared briefly in the news. Assange appeared repeated in the news, like his Wiki article says. He publicised a patent granted to the National Security Agency in August 1999, for voice-data harvesting technology saying "This patent should worry people. Everyone's overseas phone calls are or may soon be tapped, transcribed and archived in the bowels of an unaccountable foreign spy agency."

This would be absurd, since the indictments have been universally condemned by human rights organizations, media organizations, editorial boards Not for the first indictment and hacking charge. The Washington Post Editorial Board responded by saying Julian Assange is not a free-press hero. And he is long overdue for personal accountability. The New York Times said the administration had begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime and includes his start as a computer hacker, but it also warns about other charges like in the other indictments

Someone fined $2,000 for hacking wouldn't make any Australian criminal hall of fame. RS said hes one of Twelve of Australia's most notorious hackers.

The question we should ask is whether it would help someone interested in the subject to read about this case. This part from the Andrew O'Hagan and Julian Assange biography might help

My case presented itself first to the Supreme Court – almost as a point of order, or as a case study, to help define the terms of the trial – and this allowed us to seek an understanding of what the charges meant. What exactly did it mean to accuse someone of gaining access to a computer? If there was commercial data on the system that was not read by the intruder, does he still stand accused of theft? If a crook breaks into a house and steals that day’s newspaper, is he then liable to stand trial for the theft of the Matisse that was hanging over the sitting-room fireplace? The Supreme Court, however, wanted to make a point to the County Courts that they should not send matters to them except in extreme circumstances. This was a shame, as it would prove a missed opportunity when it came to future computer crimes cases. The law failed its own benchmark of intellectual curiosity that day, and everybody suffered, not least Australia itself, which even today fails to spot the difference between a child molester and a person interested in using computers to secure our liberties.
In the end, I was tried before a judge who knew little of the case. He made it clear he would have preferred a custodial sentence, but, following a code of parity, he gave me a similar sentence to that enjoyed by Prime Suspect. My good behaviour bond was ten times greater and I had less time to pay the $2,100 reparation. I was tarred as a criminal, and I minded that, of course; but there was some relief that I wouldn’t, this time, be going to jail. Nobody would be opening champagne, and I had a working life to rebuild, but the case taught me how vulnerable hackers would be in the future. I walked into that court already a different person from the boy who had hacked into Nortel, and my dander was up, as they say, not to follow the logic of the court, which was primitive in my view, but to follow the logic of mathematics and exploration, and go further into the realms of justice. I wanted to discover how computer science could influence the ethics of the modern world. That was my plan, and I rebuilt myself for the purpose. Softlemonades (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"I was tarred as a criminal" is quite a statement and maybe ought to be in the article. It shows both that he was considered a criminal by some (I still assert that my idea of "some" is still far too small to warrant the category) and that he rejected the label, due his perceived trivial nature of the crime. This discussion, like many on this talk page, seem to be going nowhere. Clear and obvious truth is that there is no-consensus to add this content and if someone wants to push adding this content then it needs to go to RFC and if it does, please ping me so I can contribute. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf Sorry you replied when I was editing, I added a link to my reply [8] and didnt get an edit conflict notification.

I dont think it changes your reply but since I wouldnt edit my reply if if I knew there was a reply I thought to post this and say sorry Softlemonades (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"I was tarred as a criminal" is quite a statement and maybe ought to be in the article. It shows both that he was considered a criminal by some (I still assert that my idea of "some" is still far too small to warrant the category) and that he rejected the label, due his perceived trivial nature of the crime Does he say it wasnt criminal or was he labeled a criminal for things he thinks were good values? Softlemonades (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hard to say really, but clearly he rejected the notion of being considered a criminal by some. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I was tarred as a criminal, and I minded that sounds like he didnt like it. What does he mean tarred as a criminal? His plea? I agree Hard to say. We could add the complete sentence exact words? Softlemonades (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Im ok with a full quote, as I dont think we will come to agreement on this talk page how to summarize it. This lets the reader make up their minds, and I think this is encyclopedic particularly on a BLP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

He also says he wanted the case to be sent to a higher court but they thought it wasn't worth their time, so did he want to be 'tarred'? Or even was he tarred? I don't think we can count peoples' thoughts as having any strong correlation with reality,. I feel we'd need somebody else commenting on it. I don't think we can just grab chunks out of a biography without some reasonable justification if nobody else says anything about it. So I'd question it under WP:DUE. NadVolum (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If we have to have his view RSes say Assange wrote about it later in his blog but its not easy to add to the article but if you want to start a new topic for it thats ok. I dont think the RSes said more then the text exists

If there is a book whose feeling captures me it is First Circle by Solzhenitsyn. To feel that home is the comraderie of persecuted, and infact, prosecuted, polymaths in a Stalinist slave labor camp! How close the parallels to my own adventures! What longing one has when reading Solzhenitsyn's love for his first cell of self similars! Such prosecution in youth is a defining peak experience. To know the state for what it really is! To see through that veneer the educated swear to disbelieve in but still slavishly follow with their hearts! [9]

He also says he wanted the case to be sent to a higher court but they thought it wasn't worth their time I think the first paragraph is relevant to us but not the article because the cases we compare it to hadnt happened, so the penalty doesnt mean much if you compare it to now. But when Assange compares it the bond was ten times greater. That was why I quote it Softlemonades (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha I like the bit about Solzhenitsyn, sounds like some teenager nowadays whose phone has been confiscated till going home time because they used it in class ;-) NadVolum (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Indictment sourcing

Cambial reverted an edit removing the primary source tag from the lead with the edit summary Exactly the same primary source is cited in the body, without a secondary source. Don’t misrepresent the article sourcing [10]

The edit summary is incorrect about the article sourcing. Julian_Assange#Espionage_indictment_in_the_United_States includes additional secondary sources including about the indictments and later and then a lot of references reacting to the indictments that also talk about it Softlemonades (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

All three of those sources are dated May 2019. The primary source about hackers was published in June 2020. Evidently the ES is not incorrect. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I didnt know you were so focused on that. Can I ask that next time you use the "reason for request" if you add it a tag like that and it only applies to some of what you tagged? It makes things confusin, especially if you accuse someone of misrepresenting the sourcing. If I had known what specific problem was I could have fixed it, but the way you put the tag on and not putting a reason was confusing to me. It would help me work with you better later too.

But now I understand your issue now and fixed it Softlemonades (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead

Per [11] the first removal [12] was wrong. It wasnt "described in the succeeding paragraph" like edit said, and the edit added to the first paragraph things that were "described in the succeeding paragraph"

WP:BLPRESTORE has nothing to do with this and bringing it up at [13] is nonsense. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. You didnt object to the sources, the neutrality, or anything else. So this is just more BLP bludgeonging

WP:CRP is okay to ask for but I revert when your reasons are SKYBLUE wrong like the first edit. It wasnt in the next paragraph. Your next edit was right it talks about the details in the end. But MOS:OPEN he first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. That includes indictment and extradition, and if we mention the things the indictment and extradition are about in the first paragraph, we should mention the complete set of circumstances that surround it Softlemonades (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You are not the individual arbiter of what is "wrong", and SKYISBLUE - which is an essay about sourcing - is not relevant. In terms of actual reality, the new content you proposed "the United States revealed an indictment against Assange related to the Manning publications and filed for his extradition" is already referred to in a succeeding paragraph: "The U.S. government unsealed an indictment charging Assange with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion related to the leaks provided by Manning." and "In May 2019 and June 2020, the U.S. government unsealed new indictments against Assange, charging him with violating the Espionage Act of 1917". Cambial — foliar❧ 23:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of actual reality, the new content you proposed "the United States revealed an indictment against Assange related to the Manning publications and filed for his extradition" is already referred to in a succeeding paragraph You did a bad job of reading what I wrote. And what you wrote

You said it was described in the succeeding paragraph. Not a. [14] Sorry I didnt know you meant something you didnt write. You can change it now. But did you even read what I wrote, which already said Your next edit was right it talks about the details in the end. because if you did then your In terms of actual reality, line makes no sense because youre not catching me in anything. Youre just mad and focused on editor not content and policy, You are not the individual arbiter of what is "wrong", or things you say arent relevant, which is an essay about sourcing - is not relevant, and not talking about the policy thats relevant, that I cited in my edit and I cited and quoted here, MOS:OPEN Softlemonades (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've read this, but I don't think youre not catching me in anything. Youre just mad, nor your other groundless assertions, merit a response. MOS:OPEN does not automatically render your proposed content "right". Cambial — foliar❧ 00:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I didnt say it automatically made me right. You accuse me of "not being collegiate" and "not engaging" but you wont talk about the policy, or even why Im wrong. Softlemonades (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've not accused you of "not engaging". I'm not the only editor to ask you not to make things up: that's an example of your inability to engage in a collegiate way that I referred to previously. We don't need to tell the reader information multiple times over within the lead. The information is most appropriate in its chronological position in a paragraph below. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You accuse me of "not being collegiate" and "not engaging"

I've not accused you of "not engaging". Then someone else must be using your account and they left a message on my Talk page yesterday accusing me of a inability to engage in a collegiate way [15]

The information is most appropriate in its chronological position in a paragraph below. Why? I cited a policy. You just say the policy does not automatically make me right and then say youre right because you are and its the right way and most appropriate. You say We don't need to tell the reader information multiple times but you edited it to do that [16] with Collateral murder when you deleted the text Softlemonades (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you cited a policy. It doesn’t support inclusion of your proposed content. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Why are editors on this article openly flouting WP:BLPRESTORE? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, it wasnt removed on BLP grounds, so WP:BLPRESTORE doesnt apply. BLPRESTORE isnt a weapon Softlemonades (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Your repeated references to policies on editor behaviour, and those on achieving consensus, in terms of "weapons", speaks to your problematic view of the article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikipedia is not an opportunity to grind personal axes against individuals you dislike. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ive only brought up your behavior when you violate policies, deny what you said, or make up policies like you did on the Craig Murray page.

  and those on achieving consensus, in terms of "weapons" I said asking for CR was fine. Are you ok?

  Wikipedia is not an opportunity to grind personal axes against individuals you dislike You make repeated insults accusations to me. Then deny saying some of it.

  Go post somewhere else or stay on topic Softlemonades (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  you violate policies, deny what you said, or make up policies - so far that’s only occurred in your fertile imagination. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  At Craig Murray you said there was a site wide policy that the Noticeboard said didnt exist. On this page you just denied accusing me of "not engaging" but you just posted that on my Talk page [17]

  Im ignoring anything else thats not on topic. You and me wont agree but if other people contribute we can find what consensus is without nonsense Softlemonades (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  As did another editor before me, I pointed out that the Daily Mail is deprecated site-wide, which remains true. Your posting of a series of irrelevant, off-topic comments and then saying Im ignoring anything else thats not on topic. is a well-timed illustration of your inability to engage collegiately. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

He came to wide international attention in 2010 when

I dont think we should list He came to wide international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks published the Baghdad airstrike Collateral Murder video, the Afghanistan war logs, the Iraq war logs, and United States diplomatic cables leak. with separate leaks in the lead, because

1 this is about Wikileaks not him

2 the list leaves out the Swedish allegations that made big news for him then

3 Talk:Julian_Assange#Awkward_and_Undue_text_in_lede just took out the Swedish allegaitons

4 theres a paragraph for the allegations and extradition

5 the old version of Manning leaks or things leaked by Manning or whatever works

6 it gives room to focus on what consensus decides is most important in the first paragraph

what do you think? Softlemonades (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As these are the four publications without which, in all likelihood，this page would be struggling for sources, I think they should be referred to. I don’t agree that it’s only about WikiLeaks, given that Assange was its editor and publisher and the media spokesperson/interviewee for each of them. We could certainly do so more succinctly, and I agree that Chelsea Manning should be referred to. For example: ...published a series of documents supplied by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning: footage of an airstrike in Baghdad, military logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and US diplomatic cables. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think they should be referred to We disagree here so I want to see what others think but I agree that something like

We could certainly do so more succinctly, and I agree that Chelsea Manning should be referred to. For example: ...published a series of documents supplied by US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning: footage of an airstrike in Baghdad, military logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and US diplomatic cables.

would be better than the text now Softlemonades (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the current text (which mentions Manning) is OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Cambial Yellowing on this. THe sexual allegations were important for him but are not the basis of his notability, and I think it is right the first paragraph concentrate on why he is notable. NadVolum (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

THe sexual allegations were important for him but are not the basis of his notability to clarify, i think we already settled that in the lead, #3, and was not saying we should add that. just that dont need to list each of the leaks Softlemonades (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why did you put in the list leaves out the Swedish allegations that made big news for him then if you considered that settled? NadVolum (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Because were not listing everything from that time that helped bring him to attention. So instead of naming each leak, we should use a group name for it like Manning leaks or Manning publications so its not extra weight and incomplete

And sorry I thought the 1 2 3 list would help explain it but I didnt do a good job with it Softlemonades (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Its too detailed, for the lead we only need "He came to wide international attention in 2010 due to his involvement with WikiLeaks" (alternatively "leadership of WikiLeaks" but I know thats a bit contentious with a number of the other original members disputing that Assange was ever their leader and that it was a collaborative product) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

He put himself forward with the newspapers as the one to be shot at when they released those stories and that's what they did and that's what's happened. So he is notable personally because of them. NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the massive ego and the obsession with self promotion probably had something to do with it. Whether its involvement or leadership I don't care either way, both work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think most people can agree he definitely has his share of faults. NadVolum (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Support this idea. It fixes my issue Softlemonades (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Text about Manning leaks can move to next paragraph with the other leaks and would be in timeline order for the lead Softlemonades (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't notable for leading Wikileaks. Most people couldn't care less about Wikileaks. They cared about the actual leaks though. What was your issue? Half of the issues you listed were about the sex allegations and then you said that wasn't the issue. NadVolum (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Half of the issues you listed were about the sex allegations and then you said that wasn't the issue I said I wasnt trying to add them. But not listing them and then listing a bunch of things separately that had a group name before we took out the allegations from the lead is UNDUE weight especially in the first paragraph and especially if we dont give a complete list and were not.

We should move them to be in timeline order and just use a group reference like Manning leaks in the first paragraph or @Horse Eye's Backs suggestion wide international attention in 2010 due to his involvement with WikiLeaks. and explain later in lead and article. That will make first paragraph as simple as it can be. It will establish the boundaries of the topic and with most NPOV can be but without being too specific. like MOS:OPEN says Softlemonades (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

How about giving a first paragraph something like what you'd like to see instead of just making the lead look a bit strange until the development you talk about comes to pass? NadVolum (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand the question Softlemonades (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You want big changes to the first paragraph. You are talkinking about reducing it first. Please give a version of something here like you think the first paragraph shjould be like. NadVolum (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You are talkinking about reducing it first I just think it should be reduced, especially after Horse Eyes suggestion. That would be great

Ive seen other BLPs that have very short first paragraphs, one or two sentences. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Short, NPOV, without being too specific, what MOS:OPEN says it should be

I put it gives room to focus on what consensus decides is most important in the first paragraph because consensus isnt my opinion and whatever Talk decides is what happens. But I think simple is better, especially if it makes us, me too, focus on better edits Softlemonades (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree the individual links in the first or second sentence to other articles is a sea of blue and WP:OVERLINK. Lets just summarize. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Those publications made him notable. Basically what NadVolum and Cambial said in general. Senorangel (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This page needs to deal with the oft-repeated but still unresolved question as to the distinction between Assange the man and Wikileaks, purportedly some kind of distinct corporate entity. I have not seen sourcing that establishes the relationship one way or the other. In the absence of dispositive RS stating that Wikileaks is really just a cloak for Julian Assange, we need to respect his claims that Wikileaks is a valid organization separate from himself. If so and as such, Wikileaks' actions are not the topic of this page, and Assange's notability should not be described by detailed narratives about the actions of Wikileaks, for which he's the public face. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The page already does that. It just lists major things Wikileaks did that Assange didn't have any major part in, that is appropriate for the head of an organization. What in particular were you thinking about for the first paragraph? NadVolum (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It just lists major things Wikileaks did that Assange didn't have any major part in, that is appropriate for the head of an organization If he didnt have any major part in it, why would it be in his biography Softlemonades (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Because the head of an organization is assumed to have control over the things an organization does. Have you an example of a founder head or chairman for which this is not done? Anyway this discussion is about the first paragraph and you're surely not trying to make out Assange had no major part in things the US is trying to extradite him for! NadVolum (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Because the head of an organization is assumed Wikipedia doesnt assume and you said that Assange didn't have any major part in it and thats why I asked

Have you an example of a founder head or chairman for which this is not done? Anyway this discussion is about the first paragraph and you're surely not trying to make out Assange had no major part in things the US is trying to extradite him for! The Trump first paragraph is perfect again. It doesnt mention the things he was impeached or indicted for until timeline order and talks about his business in timeline order too. The first paragraph like I quoted is one sentence Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Anyway this discussion is about the first paragraph and you're surely not trying to make out Assange had no major part in things the US is trying to extradite him for! And youre not arguing his extradition should be in the first paragraph now are you? Im not. I really think Horse Eyes short Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH; né Hawkins; born 3 July 1971) is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006. He came to wide international attention in 2010 due to his involvement with WikiLeaks. is perfect. or who founded WikiLeaks in 2006, which brought him to wide international attention in 2010 or who founded WikiLeaks in 2006, worked as its editor in chief from 2006-2018, and currently serves as its publisher. that would let us move the 2010 sentence to the next paragraph in timeline order Softlemonades (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I was agreeing with "Assange's notability should not be described by detailed narratives about the actions of Wikileaks". And I think the article does that. The first paragraph lists things which he was personally involved with and made him notable. I think it would be reasonable to cut the second sentence to 'He came to wide international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks published footage of an airstrike in Baghdad and other major leaks from US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. The second sentence in the second paragraph with various leaks could also be removed. The fourth paragraph about indictments is rather clunky and could be chopped down to something like 'The U.S. government then unsealed an indictment charging Assange with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion related to the leaks provided by Manning. In June 2020 they added extra charges under the Espionage Act of 1917.' Would that cut down the lead enough for whatever reason it is which involves the three issues you haven't said are not the issue? NadVolum (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Thank you for explaining, I dont always know who means what or is talking about what to who

My perfect is still more Horse Eyes sugestion but yes that would cut down the lead enough

But I think we should not cut the indictments but if you have problems with and alleging he had conspired with hackers we can describe it different or say it exists Softlemonades (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There's enough about the US allegations already in what I said, I see no reason to include more about the details of their untested allegations in the lead. At that rate we'd need to be adding contrary stuff like Sigurdar Thordarson there as well. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigurdar Thordarson is not significant for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to include more about the details of their untested allegations in the lead I think I understand. Thats why Im saying change the description, maybe to just say the indictment exists but dont second indictment it in the lead

Something like In May 2019 and June 2020, the U.S. government unsealed new indictments against Assange, charging him with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 so the only description is when Softlemonades (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The four SIPRNet leaks in 2010-2011 should be referenced, not merely because Assange was the editor and publisher of WikiLeaks at the time, but because they are directly responsible for his notability. The reason for notability is a key aspect of the introduction.

Earlier WikiLeaks publications made headline national news, sometimes across more than one country. While Assange's name is on the editorials for some of them, those publications did not make him a public figure, as media focus remained on the documents. The 2010 leaks were not merely much bigger world news, but Assange became far more in the public eye, starting with presenting at the Washington Press Club and then doing numerous press interviews (appearing on Stephen Colbert, the BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN....). The international reach of the disclosures and their size meant that WikiLeaks' editor, Assange, was turned into a media story himself – directly as a result of the nature of these publications and Assange's role in promoting them.

As obvious correlates, the articles on Katharine Graham, Ben Bradlee, James L. Greenfield, Ben Bagdikian, and A. M. Rosenthal all refer to their involvement in the publication of the Pentagon Papers and/or the Watergate exposures in the first or second paragraph of the lead. None became a public figure to the extent of Assange as a result of those leaks (Ellsberg was made the story in that instance). Cambial — foliar❧ 19:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

in the first or second paragraph of the lead And it should be moved to the second paragrpah, in timeline order

Only two of the articles you named have a third paragraph for the lead, being in the first two paragraphs doesnt mean anything if there are only two. And Greenfields is one sentence, you cant compare that Softlemonades (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The notion that we need to "assume" that Assange was directly involved in the publications is entirely refuted by the relevant scholarly literature, which states his direct involvement explicitly and unequivocally. To give just two examples – Merrin 2019 (Routledge):

Manning contacted Assange in November 2009, passing the material he had copied to him accompanied by a ‘readme’ file saying, ‘This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time, removing the fog of war, revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day’...The first material Assange released was an AH-64 Apache helicopter video from 12 June 2007 in Baghdad, showing the crew opening fire on a group of people, killing 10 civilians and two Reuters journalists. To maximize its impact, Assange asserted editorial control. The 39-minute video was posted online as an original source whose veracity could be checked, whilst Wikileaks edited together a 17-minute version entitled ‘Collateral Murder’, which it presented at the National Press Club in Washington on 5 April 2010 (Sunshinepress, 2010a; 2010b)...Realizing he needed to find a way to reach a mass audience, Assange changed his publication strategy...Assange agreed to a multi-jurisdictional alliance between Wikileaks and the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel with simultaneous, joint publication to spread the legal risk and prevent political pressure upon any one organization. As well as political credibility and influence and a huge, daily audience, the newspapers brought with them a range of professional skills, including data analysis (building a searchable database out of the information), foreign affairs expertise...Although he had formed Wikileaks to overturn the existing informational structures that he saw as too close to power, Assange pioneered here a new alliance of ‘old’ and ‘new’ media worlds, one locating Wikileaks within the journalistic rubric, allowing it to receive ‘accreditation and attention’ for its leaks and greater influence than it would have had from posting the material online

Chadwick 2017 (OUP):

The creation of the Collateral Murder film in early 2010 well illustrates how WikiLeaks has used digital tools to behave like a professional media production company...After acquiring the leaked video, Assange assembled a small team of colleagues in Iceland, where WikiLeaks had recently become well-known due to its leaking of a list of generous loans made to shareholders of the failed Icelandic banks of 2008...Collateral Murder reveals the strengths and weaknesses of WikiLeaks’ hybridity. Eager to make an immediate impression on professional news organizations, the team forensically analyzed and edited the raw video material, even to the extent of overlaying animated arrows highlighting key people and events. Assange directed the team, acting as a kind of program producer.

Cambial — foliar❧ 19:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

So are you proposing we merge this page with the Wikileaks article? That would simplify things. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What a bizarre non-sequitur, bearing as it does practically no relation whatsoever to my comment. If you would like to propose such a merger, the page you are looking for is here, though I imagine you may find the pursuit of such a proposal a less-than-fruitful use of your time. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What I think is bizarre is the push to eliminate references to the things he is notable for and to keep expanded the longer bit with charges against him related to the things he is notable for! NadVolum (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anyone agrees that all the Wikileaks content should be removed or we should merge this page with the Wikileaks article

I think I misunderstood It just lists major things Wikileaks did that Assange didn't have any major part in and Because the head of an organization is assumed and got off topic but Assange was very involved with the Manning leaks, the page and RSes are clear

What I think is bizarre is the push to eliminate references to the things he is notable I still think they should be in timeline order not elminated Softlemonades (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, the bit about not including details of misconduct is not true. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Really true?

• Assange article was created 01:35, 2 February 2010
• Wikileaks article was created 22:17, 11 January 2007

Picking an arbitrary date to compare the two, April 6th 2010 we see wikileaks was a full blown article while Assange BLP would have been a candidate for a snowy AFD I am not convinced that "wide international attention" would reflect the BLP article as of April 6th, 2010. We can use WP:OBVIOUS and stay away from WP:PUFF here. Assange was not an international phenom by any means as of at least April 6th, 2010. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, Assange's personal story is, of course his family and early education etc. same as everyone, but most significantly it's about his flight from justice, his self-serving commentaries and narratives about Wikileaks, and RS coverage of his subsequent conduct in an almost uniformly negative light. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

But that wasnt the subject of this discussion. I thought we were discussing if he came to fame/infamy in 2010? I am guessing many of these RS are just stating subject and wikileaks came to fame, which is true. But it seems the subject didnt come to fame until he was inside the consulate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing if he came to fame/infamy in 2010 My first suggestion was just to end the sentence at 2010 and not list all the leaks until later in the lead, but then agreed with Horse Eye to make the first paragraph would just be Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH; né Hawkins; born 3 July 1971) is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006 and maybe say his role as editor in chief and publisher, and talk about the 2010 leaks in the next paragraph in timeline order with the other Wikileaks leaks

But it seems the subject didnt come to fame until he was inside the consulate I agree but dont understand if it is important unless you think the extradition case should be in the first paragraph,. If the lead just describes it all in timeline order, it is NPOV and due weight. We make the first paragraph clean and short and stop trying to put everything into it Softlemonades (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH; né Hawkins; born 3 July 1971) is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The footage of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike was released on the 5th April 2010 and made it into the newspapers on the 6th. So the 6th of April 2010 is not exactly arbitrary! Since Assange's talking about that and later leaks was what brought him to wide international attention (see that article) then of course Assange's article at that date did not reflect the later attention. NadVolum (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Right. It was the collective effect of four publications over the course of that year, and Assange’s numerous media appearances to discuss and promote them, that made him a public figure. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It was arbitrary, please WP:AGF. I am not aware of the dates of releases and didnt bother to check. I did pick a date range that included a surge in edits as I felt that would likely be the most up to date. If your point is that he was very notable on that date, then why was almost nothing on the BLP around that date? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The basis of his notability in the lead paragraph gave the Bagdad business as the start. You could have checked that. Notability grew from that date - the thing that was important on that date was the airstrike not Assange. What kind of checking is it to assume 2010 ends at the beginning of April and come to your own conclusions about the whole of 2010 from that and the people who wrote that are wrong? Anyway people make mistakes - but I really would have expected the people who responded to you to notice. NadVolum (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, AGF. As for content, in July prior to the rape accusations, the article was still largely focused on wikileaks and his role as the head (or spokesman) of wikileaks. Still certainly no widespread fame here, he was more likely described as a fringe character as of then. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I am starting to lose good faith after that. Did you not compare the size of the coveragein July and read about the public appearances compared to your earlier on in April? And why can't you compare to before when the sex allegations came out? And did you read about him in the article about the Bagdad business like I asked please? And do you really think anybody would have paid much attention to the allegations if he was not already notable? NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Assange's biography, which mentioned WikiLeaks, was very short before the April 2010 leak of the Baghdad airstrike video. At that time, the WikiLeaks article was already sizable. It seems that Assange's personal notability did not rise until after that video leak, which is also consistent with the subsequent surge of edits prior to the August rape accusation. Senorangel (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You are required to AGF. If you would like to pick a different date in that range (prior to rape accusations), please do so and explain why. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

See the reasoning about dates in Senorangel's reply just before yours. If you're going to argue about wide international attention in the lead using the article history the appropriate dates were just before the Baghdad business, the first in the lead as contributing to his wide notability, and just before the sex allegations. There was no need to pick arbitrary dates - especially not one which happened to be the first and argue that therefore his notability was due to the second! NadVolum (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead - Manning documents

I inserted the word "illegally" to make clear that the files were not merely "provided" by Manning. This has now been removed and a redundant text inserted -- "wikileaks leaked", etc. I think the current text is uninformative and that "illegally" needs to be added to make clear what all the fuss was/is about. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "illegally" in that context refers to an action by Manning: it's relevant to the article about her, but not to this one. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is very clear from the wording I added that "illegally" refers to Manning and Manning's actions (which were adjudicated in court). But the whole long story of Assange, his flight, the controversy, and the travails to which he has been subjected, stem from the fact that what he published was illegally appropriated by Manning. That fact has given rise to all the charges and free speech/free press issues that have been central to Assange's life and his actions since that time. That's why we need "illegally" provided by Manning up top in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not persuaded that what you describe as the whole long story (really the bits you want to highlight) is a result of the illegal character of the action of someone else, rather than the action itself. Hypothetically, if Assange himself had hacked into SIPRNet and then published the documents, there is little doubt that the subsequent pursuit of revenge by the DOD and the State Department would be similarly vigorous. Characterising the actions of another party is not relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The prosecutions are based on the theory that publishing the fruits of a crime is itself a crime. The defense is that once the theft occurs, publication is journalistic free expression. Therefore the interpretation you present ignores the central fact and is incorrect. Moreover, one must not deflect discussion of law enforcement and the various authorities and purposes thereof for "revenge". That is not a well-informed, and it is a misrepresentation of the purpose of law in western societies. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s not an accurate summary of the prosecutorial brief. As to your second point, actually I agree with you. That’s not the ostensible purpose of the law, and US civil servant’s prevailing upon their counsel to put it to such a use, as has evidently occurred, is not merely a misrepresentation but a gross perversion of the purpose of law in western [sic] societies. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

We can't make decisions based on editors unreasoned assertions and Original Research. It would be helpful if you could provide RS and the as yet unstated theory to support your assertions as supported by such sources. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not proposing a change to the article. As you’re keen not to make decisions based on editors unreasoned assertions and Original Research, we all look forward to when you support your assertions as supported by such sources (?), particularly that prosecutions are based on the theory that publishing the fruits of a crime is itself a crime. You’ll surely forgive me for not holding my breath. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please review the following and other RS narratives that demonstrate the point: 1 2 3. Is there some aspect of this that is unclear to you? If so, please specify. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What’s clear (and amusing) is that those particular sources not merely fail to demonstrate [your] point, they actively refute your claim that the prosecutions are based on the theory that publishing the fruits of a crime is itself a crime. They state By charging Assange with hacking rather than for publishing classified information (Grauniad); The Justice Department [sic] hasn’t charged Julian Assange for publishing (ACLU). Is there some aspect of this that is unclear to you? – Yes, there is: it’s not clear why an editor would make a series of unsupported and unorthodox claims as the premise for their argument to change article content, and then adduce sources which refute those unorthodox claims entirely. I could hazard a guess, but it’s unclear. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOURT, WP:SYNTH, with a heap of WP:BLP sprinkled on top here. It seems the first NOTCOURT has disappeared, but we experienced editors know what it means. It means we dont try and convict article subjects in the court of talk pages (at least this is what I recall it meant). So we are not going to attempt to state that the article subject is guilty when he isn't. Nor are we going to associate the article subject with Manning, thus implying guilt. Second, SYNTH appears to apply in that we are not going to say that because one crime was committed (Manning) that the article subject has committed another crime (release of criminal proceeds). In fact journalists release leaks all the time, so this is very far stretch anyhow, but we will leave that the the US courts (if it ever gets there). Third, we had a heap of BLP on top of this, which means that there is no wiggle room on policy, we are not going to bend the policy or interpret some nuance and form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here to including something inflammatory, it just isn't going to happen. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Leaks links to News leak which I think deescribes it better than documents. Is a video a document? It also says the information is confidential which refers more precisely to what Wikileaks published rather than to Manning. It is also shorter. NadVolum (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A news leak is way too broad and is not informative, nor does it set the background for what Assange has subsequently endured. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Cambial Yellowing is quite right worrying about misreading if you misread what was put there as "wikileaks leaked". It didn't leak, it published some leaks. NadVolum (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Illegally is WP:UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is the core mainstream description and it is the core of Assange's present legal troubles. Please review WP:NPOV. It would take a very unusual and heretofore unarticulated exposition of fact and theory to support any claim that such content as UNDUE as defined on this site. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  His legal troubles stem from running afoul of the US military, illegal is undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Jtb, the word "illegally" was about Chelsea Manning's theft. Manning was imprisoned for seven years after being convicted of this crime. Please review the issue stated at the top of this thread and the reasons that require it to be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you just think our readers are too stupid to realize straight away that it would be illegal for army intelligence analysts to leak data to the public? According to WP:Readers first a good guide is to 'imagine you are writing for people who read serious (i.e. non-tabloid) newspapers', or 'high school and college students'. NadVolum (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stay on point. Nobody claimed that anyone is stupid. Readers are serious but by definition they lack information -- that is the reason they come to read our pages. "Leak" is common usage, e.g. a critic "leaks" the plot of an upcoming novel or movie. A corporate employee "leaks" the name of a new product in development, etc. But this crime that Manning committed was a serious felony that landed her in the brig for many years. And Assange is NOT the one who committed that crime of stealing documents. But the public has tarred him with the seriousness of that espionage crime merely because he published the documents. That needs to be made absolutely clear. Once again, it's the crux of the controversy about Assange: Was he an accessory after the fact to a heinous breach of the US Espionage Act, or was he a publisher sharing information and protected by the US Constitution. That is why it's essential to restore "illegally" when we describe Manning's action. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the introductory paragraph is to establish the reasons for notability. The purpose is not to lay out what one editor believes is the "crux of the controversy", despite the lack of support for their view in the literature on the topic. That’s why your proposal is inappropriate and unhelpful, and not, as you see it, “essential”. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason for Assange's notability is that he published illegally leaked, stolen documents that landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade. That's what makes Assange notable, vs. thousands of publishers of legally shared information about documents, scandals, and atrocities. It is why Assange himslelf, unlike those other publishers of legally shared information is being called a criminal, despite his role as what he states is a protected journalist. If you disagree, kindly refute that rather than suggesting it is merely "what one editotr believes, etc. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What made the Baghdad airstrike video notable was its contents, not how it was released. The only thing I can see at that article about legality is whether the attack was legal. By the way do we know under what provision the FOIA request for it by Reuters was denied? NadVolum (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not respondive to the issue I have articulated. In fact, the FOIA bit is going even farther from the central point. Are you aware of the facts of Manning's case? Please review the cited sources for this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you link 'central point' to a guideline about behaviour that is unacceptable on Wikipedia? I don't believe Assange's behaviour if he ever edited Wikipedia is relevant. NadVolum (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2023

TPNO presents Graham's Triangle. Please address the central points I have explained several times. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the introductory paragraph is to establish the reasons for notability. Reasons for notability have nothing to do with it MOS:BEGIN

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states that the list covers "harmful aspects of human activity on the biophysical environment". Softlemonades (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. So, not “nothing to do with it”. Try again. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, above you call the article subject a thief. I think we can stop the discussion here, this is a WP:BLP violation and any idea to associate one criminal in the LEAD to another non-criminal is a no-no. Jtbobwaysf (tal k) 06:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not. Please review this thread and address the stated issue. Assange is the one who associated himself with a criminal. Others, including the US, claim that he too is a criminal due to having published stolen information. Also please review WP:ASPERSIONS. SPECIFICO talk 08:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont know if its a BLP violation but I agree this discussion can stop. Its not helping and theres not going to be consensus for the text Softlemonades (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I read you say "landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." Apologies I thought you were saying landed the thief. Is that a quote of Assange or someone else? I am unable to find this quote in google. Did that article subject call himself a thief? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Bob, I am going to AGF and respond to you this one more time before seeking outside assistance: Those are my words, italicized for emphasis after various unresponsive replies in this thread. There is no quotation, and it's hard to understand the purpose of googling a just-written WP talk page comment. So please consider the issue raised above and respond to the crux of the issue, per WP:TPNO. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I enjoyed the phrase "unresponsive replies". Oxymoron much? The my words, italicized for emphasis part makes more sense, but one ought not to be surprised that repeating the same arguments already rejected by other editors fails to persuade. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The articles on Chelsea Manning and July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike do not use the word illegal even once. The Manning one describes the documents as ' classified, or unclassified but sensitive, military and diplomatic documents'. I fail to see why your particular wording is a 'crux of the matter'. The lead is not about some crux of the matter as determined by you, it is about Assange's notability and summary of the more important contents of the article. What you propose does not address either of those. Please see WP:OR, except you don't even seem to have had sources o combine. NadVolum (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems problematic that you are referring to the article subject as a "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis". That appears to be a BLP violation, as I would think these talk pages are also covered by that policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

And by the way if we're talking about 'what all the fuss was/is about' I think the FOIA is more important because the refusal to release the video seems to have been the trigger for Manning's actions. But that also would not be suitable for the lead. NadVolum (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to derail the thread back to the original concern, but in case people are still trying to build consensus here, the current language (WikiLeaks published a series of leaks from US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning) seems fine to me. I don't think "leaked" is redundant language here just because "WikiLeaks" is in the same sentence; it's similar to describing Wikipedia as both an encyclopedia and a wiki. Things aren't always what they're named (for instance, WikiLeaks is not a wiki). The term "leak" feels appropriately neutral here, as it's commonly used and understood to refer to the unsanctioned disclosure of information. Also as Cambial noted, the sentence currently makes it clear that Assange was involved in the publishing of the documents. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible COPYVIO at start of 'Wikileaks' section

There is a dispute at the start of the Wikileaks section over a 'thought experiment' quote from Assange. Whether it is a copyright violation is debateable but I think we'd be better off erring on caution and actually describing what it is about in our own words. I think we should cut it down to the first sentence 'The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in the leadership and planning coterie.' and putting in a description of the rest, or as much as the source that quoted in twice thought was worth talking about. NadVolum (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A paragraph in blockquotes are not COPYVIO when its attributed and quoted as important by RSes. Several RSes decided it was important to quote it and not paraphrase or describe it probably because it could change the meaning

I think WP:NFC#Text Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Softlemonades (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

On the copyright question, Softlemonades is undoubtedly correct: there is no violation. I also agree with SL that interpreting a primary source would not be appropriate because it risks altering the meaning, and interpretation of primary sources is not done on this site. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please review our policy on cut and pasting large blocks of editor-selected text. Moreover the authorship and text is not found in the cited sources. On the second point: That's a stunning misstatement of WP policy. We need a secondary source to interpret the primary source for us to use as an article reference. We editors are not the ones who interpret primary sources. That was not a "brief quote" as defined, and we need secondary sources to indicate that of all Assange's statements that one was so significant that it should be used to represent him to the exclusion of all other statements and the exclusion of RS secondary evaluation and discussion of his ideology and the basis for Wikileaks' early activities. Please find sourcing to support the content of that brief section. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Moreover the authorship and text is not found in the cited sources Please check again or look at my reply on to your comment on my Talk page Softlemonades (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I would guess their familiarity with the sources meant SL already knew this, but I wasted time going to check: the authorship and the text is indeed found in the reliable sources. Why waste editor time pretending otherwise. Your claims about what you perceive to be a misstatement of WP policy carry little force given that Softlemonades quoted policy verbatim, while you failed to even refer to anything specific. Hand-waving won’t fly. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the quote.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an interesting and encyclopedic quote, that is properly attributed to the article subject. Doesnt seem to be a violation to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The copyright problem I think with what we have at the moment is justifying fair use. There just is no commentary relating to the quote. Fair use needs some rationale like 'purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research' and I don't think just baldly quoting a chunk like that in the article satisfies that. The Wired link [18] does go into it so we have enough as a secondary source to do some decent paraphrasing which is the way most of the stuff is supposed to be done. Definitely not just duplicating some primary material. NadVolum (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There just is no commentary relating to the quote. The he "thought experiment" behind WikiLeaks is commentary, but I agree we can use Wired to expand it

and I don't think just baldly quoting a chunk like that in the article satisfies that Two articles already chose the quote as fair use. They have everything we need to satisfy it. If you think its better to add it thats ok. I dont think its needed but theres no reason not to Softlemonades (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

'baldly' meant without the hair of commentary like the Wired article had. NadVolum (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you for explaining. I still think its ok but I removed half the quote its only two sentences now and added explanation. I hope that helps your issue [19] Softlemonades (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's much better thanks. NadVolum (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Long UNDUE quote

There's another long UNDUE and possibly COPYVIO quotation of text in this section. I could be characterized with paraphrase in the article text or radically shortened. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The summary of the criticism of Assange from a notable and active supporter is DUE but I agree that : Nick Davies, David Leigh, and Luke Harding of the Guardian; the New York Times team; James Ball; and the Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke. Assange's former lawyer Mark Stephens; Jamie Byng of Canongate Books, who paid him a reported £500,000 advance for a ghostwritten autobiography for which Assange withdrew his co-operation before publication; the Channel 4 team which made a documentary about him which resulted in his unsuccessful complaint to Ofcom that it was unfair and had invaded his privacy; and his former WikiLeaks team in Iceland are also featured. can be removed and people will still understand without all the names and details and Ill remove that Softlemonades (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that entire block quote needs to be removed and any significant content not already in the text can be added. We simply do not use long block quotes in lieu of summary narratives of the WEIGHT of RS in our bio articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

We simply do not use long block quotes in lieu of summary narratives of the WEIGHT of RS in our bio articles. Thats not what its being used for. The section is for asessments of Assange, not narratives. Its a notable assessment from a supporter and her exact words are part of whats important. Its balanced like most assessments arent because it says the good and the bad

Several RSes and Assange supporters like Vivienne Westwood responded, adding to the weight and importance Softlemonades (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes of course it is being used in our narrative about Assange. In this case, the reaction of observers. The content reads like a list and then an editor-selected long handy quote. We need to do the tough job of synthesizing the vast amount of reaction to Assange. Including all the sources that discuss his persistent fabulism and selective communication. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The content reads like a list and then an editor-selected long handy quote Everything on wikipedia is editor selected, so I dont know what this means

We need to do the tough job of synthesizing the vast amount of reaction to Assange. There has been suggestions before about a SPLIT to a separate page and replacing the section with a summary. I dont think anyone disagreed but no one made a real proposal Softlemonades (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is way too long already. Remove the quote completely. Nemov (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with block quotes.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nor I. This isn't a particularly long quote. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Awkward and Undue text in lede

I removed or changed some other awkward text in the lede today. Seems editors are trying to stuff content in to the lede that doesn't belong. I am still a bit undecided about the sexual assualt allegations with wikilink in the lede. Seems we should be clear in the same sentence that this claim was later dropped, right now we go on a couple of sentences before dropping that. Normally in a BLP we drop entirely the allegations if there lacks a conviction or charges are dropped. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Normally in a BLP we drop entirely the allegations if there lacks a conviction or charges are dropped The allegations were dropped because he fled, and the prosecutors said they were stiill credible and I dont know how we could talk about the asylum in the lede without the assault Softlemonades (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems the Swedish authorities wanted more than once to drop it long ago but were persuaded by the British ones to keep the charges. So I feel even the bit about citing too long has passed is a bit ingenuous and people should just look at the aricle about it for more. The section could be cut down but you can't just chop it out of his story - especially with what has happened because of the charges. NadVolum (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

So I feel even the bit about citing too long has passed is a bit ingenuous thats not for us to decide its the RSes and people should just look at the aricle about it for more. agree it will always be main article for this and we should link to it

but you can't just chop it out of his story - especially with what has happened because of the charges thats what i tried to say, the asylum story cant be told without it, and samme for his arrest from the embassy for bail and then the indictment Softlemonades (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Editorial judgements about what content from reliable sources is due for the lead and what represents a neutral point of view across the sources are of course for us to decide, by consensus. NadVolum You have a fair point about including that without including the earlier attempts to drop the request for questioning. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes from reliable sources not from OR or opinions. Does an RS say the investigation was closed for a different reason?

is due for the lead I thought Nad meant the section of the article and not just the lead because they said The section could be cut down. @NadVolum sorry but can you say what you meant? if you only mean that part of the lead and not that section of the article too then i didnt understand you Softlemonades (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No-one has suggested the investigation was eventually closed for a different reason, and that's not what is at issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I was meaning just the lead, the section in the article seems to cover this business okay as far as NPOV is concerned. We could just say they dropped it in the lead, readers can look at the citation or the fuller picture later in the article. Their reasons have little to do with Assange. I'm all for chopping bits in the lead if possible! NadVolum (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I didnt understand what you meant. Im okay with changing the words but I worry readers will look at it and think charges were dropped because they should be. Other mentions to close the case were because of time or Assange being in the embassy

In 2013, prosecutor Marianne Ny wrote to the CPS and said that she intended to lift the detention order and withdraw the European arrest warrant as the actions were not proportionate to the time passing, the costs and seriousness of the crime. The CPS responded to Ny that it did not consider costs were a relevant factor in the case.

In August 2015, the statute of limitations on three charges ended.

On 19 May 2017, the Swedish chief prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court to rescind the arrest warrant for Julian Assange because it was impossible to serve notice while he was in the Embassy and that they "cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador", effectively discontinuing their investigation against Julian Assange. The prosecutor said the case could be reinstated until the expiration of the statute of limitations in 2020 if Assange 'made himself available'. Additionally, Britain's arrest warrant pertaining to bail violations remained open.

We could delete the sentence so the lead would say He was granted asylum by Ecuador in August 2012 on the grounds of political persecution and fears he might be extradited to the United States. On 11 April 2019, Assange's asylum was withdrawn following a series of disputes with Ecuadorian authorities.? So readers dont get confused and we focus on asylum and indictment and those matter more in a summary Softlemonades (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That strange proposal does nothing to address the concerns raised by NadVolum and goes against what Jtbobwaysf said about Seems we should be clear in the same sentence that this claim was later dropped. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I also said what my concerns are and Im ok with the text the way it is. Im open to other suggestions.

That strange proposal does nothing to address the concerns raised by NadVolum NadVolums concern was that the Swedish authorities wanted more than once to drop it long ago but were persuaded by the British ones to keep the charges It always was because of the time that passed so Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation in 2019, citing too much time having passed since the allegations doesnt leave anything out except that they had said that before. @NadVolum If i still did not understand or focus on the wrong part sorry please explain

But if we just say it was dropped without saying it was dropped because he hid for years like every RS says, it will mislead readers. They wont know theres more. We dont say what hes charged with or mention his arrests in the lead because they dont belong. We say twice in that paragraph he was afraid hed be extradited to the US, we can say why the charges were dropped Softlemonades (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As Nad says in the first sentence of his post, It seems the Swedish authorities wanted more than once to drop it long ago but were persuaded by the British ones to keep the charges. Softlemonades you think to say it was dropped without saying it was dropped because he hid for years like every RS says, it will mislead. The same applies for a failure to mention all the previous occasions on which prosecutors actually dropped the investigation, and other times tried to drop it. That misleads readers. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As Nad says in the first sentence of his post, It seems the Swedish authorities wanted more than once to drop it long ago but were persuaded by the British ones to keep the charges. I gave you the quotes and information. All of those times were because of how much time had passed.

The same applies for a failure to mention all the previous occasions on which prosecutors actually dropped the investigation, and other times tried to drop it. That misleads readers. So you want to mention those times in the lead? What do you propose? Softlemonades (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

How about just "Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation in 2019"? WP:BLPCRIME says 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. No ifs or buts. And they wanted to end the investigation much sooner so just putting in the reasons they say is not the full picture even if we ignored BLP. NadVolum (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, and has the advantage of being the most concise version. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If we dont say why, what about "closed the investigation in 2019"? Dropped feels like it implies something, but closed feels neutral to me. The words the prosecutor used was "discontinue the investigation" Softlemonades (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've no particular preferencem I just used dropped because it was there. NadVolum (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I dont think dropped made a difference when the reason was given but without the reason we should use the more neutral word. If youre ok with closed then Im ok with shortening it if @Jtbobwaysf is too Softlemonades (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Normally in a BLP we drop entirely the allegations if there lacks a conviction or charges are dropped" thats only true if the person isn't a public figure, Assange is such a public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats what i thought Softlemonades (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would support to excise the word "sexual xyz" from the lede, stating only that Sweden sought his extradition and then gave up. Issue is this is a BLP and the sexual abuse allegations never resulted in a conviction. In other articles we generally drop this, such as Alan Dershowitz. I edit a lot of BLPs, often removing objectionable content, and this is the path we normally take for all controversial allegations that are later dropped, we normally remove them entirely from the lede and often from the article. I dont think the allegations at this point in time are worth the weight in the lede. Article subject was refusing to go to Sweden out of fear of extradition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I dont think that would be a good idea but you have more time with BLPs than me. I dont know if RFC would be good idea

  If we remove it we should remove which he denied and said that the warrant was a pretext for a further extradition to the United States over his role in the publication of secret U.S. military documents too since we would not say what hes denying and two sentences later it says He was granted asylum by Ecuador in August 2012 on the grounds of political persecution and fears he might be extradited to the United States which gives same idea as the second half Softlemonades (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A rough sample of what I propose is here. Could discuss including or removing the extradiction text fears, I think it is ok to keep in lede as well. In fact the article subject's fears about extradition seem to be prescient as as soon as the UK could get their hands on him, they started extradition so clearly that aspect does need to be in the lede in some form. My initial edit was quite crude and just meant for discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to leave rather a glaring hole over why. I don't think omitting it entirely in the lead works out okay - it is rather an important matter in his life with a number of consequences. WIth the sentence about the case being dropped or closed I think it should satisfy any BLP concerns like that. NadVolum (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It does leave a hole agreed on that. I think put dropped in the same sentence then and see what others think. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the text on Sweden should be removed from the introduction at all. It is an important part of Assange's life and an important part of the article.Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Im not proposing removing text on Sweden from lede. Is someone proposing that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Good.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sweden, Ecuador, UK, US are all parts of the Assange saga and should be summarized in the lede. The issue is the now dropped sexual abuse allegations and there is plenty of precedence on wikipedia to remove dropped or acquitted allegations (especially high defamatory sexual abuse claims) from BLP articles and lede's. I think that Sweden sought to extradite him for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority for a preliminary investigation (aka they wanted to interview him). The current sexual abuse allegations and wikilink in the lede is absurdly undue. I think we can wikilink to the sub-article and let the reader examine there. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

So you want it linked but not mentioned? How does that work? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, linked to Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• In this edit I make proposal 2 and think that removing all mention of allegations is more BLP compliant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  This still uses "dropped" and not the more neutral "closed" and still says twice that Assange was afraid hed be extradited to the US which doesnt make sense if we want to be concise like Cambial said Softlemonades (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree closed would be better. I forgot. Please feel free to propose a diff. Horse Eyes above didnt seem to agree with me at all in his comment, so maybe he is opposed to this either way. We can also get to a diff and then put it to RFC after the other RFC runs its course. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I still dont think we should cut the charges but if we do I proposal 3 Softlemonades (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to refactoring and changing the emphasis but I am opposed to scrubbing the charges from the lead, its key context/content no matter what you think of the validity of the charges. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Im fine with Softlemonades proposal #3. Seems both Jack and Horse Eyes want to keep the text. You are ok to refactor but want to keep the BLP violation. We dont include retracted allegations in BLPs, particularly in the lede. Feel free to run an RFC if you feel strongly about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• I implemented Softlemonades (talk · contribs) version #3 which reverted a small edit to the same text by Jack Upland (talk · contribs). At this point in time the WP:ONUS is on editors to justify inclusion of the disputed text, where my position is that it violates WP:BLP by included retracted allegations in the lede of a BLP. I think we have discussed sufficiently above. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Have implemented a version which also hopefully takes in the concerns first raised by @Jtbobwaysf:. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! How did the sex allegations text end up back in the LEAD? I thought I had removed it, surprised it was re-added without talk page consensus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

undue text in heading

@Valjean: you reverted my removal of this undue heading (excessive weight for unsubstantiated accusations). This has been discussed extensively in relation to the lede, do you have any policy to explain why you think it is ok here? Your edit summary said "No, it's a perfectly good heading backed by RS" which is not how we determine weight. This, like above, is W:BLP violation. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: it appears to me that your revert to restore the disputed sexual assault allegations to the section heading violates WP:BLPRESTORE. Please remove it and engage in a discussion here. If I am wrong about the policy, please help me to understand. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I think its STABLE and accurately describes the section. The allegations and investigation were widely reported and are still talked about by reporters some times. I dont see a BLP violation by saying what kind allegations they were when its reported this much and the allegations are not dropped just the investigation. Its not like the lead, this section gives readers more information to understand it

And other BLPs have section and page names like that. Donald_Trump#Misogyny_and_allegations_of_sexual_misconduct Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Sexual_assault_allegations Kevin_Spacey#Sexual_misconduct_allegations Noel_Clarke#Sexual_misconduct_allegations Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation Matt_Lauer#Sexual_misconduct_allegations Mario_Batali#Sexual_misconduct_allegations Win_Butler#Sexual_misconduct_allegations James_Deen#Rape_and_sexual_misconduct_allegations Jackson_Sousa#Sexual_misconduct_allegations Softlemonades (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation. It's not unsourced or poorly sourced negative content, in this case about a very public person. Removing the words smacks of censorship and POV whitewashing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In this case my understanding is the charges were dropped and the accuser actually didnt accuse the subject. Is this correct? STABLE does not override WP:BLPRESTORE. I ask you restore your edits and follow the process here on talk page. Kevin Spacey is not really a good example, as he is quite well known now the allegations. About the rest of them, some subjects I dont know anything about and maybe have never visited their articles. Regardless, WP:OSE does describe all of it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In this case my understanding is the charges were dropped and the accuser actually didnt accuse the subject. Is this correct? No. The investigation was closed due to the long period of time that has elapsed and the complainant had submitted a credible and reliable version of events. The statute of limitations for the charges ended when Assange hid in the Embassy, they were not dropped.

Regardless, WP:OSE does describe all of it No because the point was that youre saying theres a policy that doesnt exist. You brought up other BLPs and when arguing about the lead. Normally in a BLP we [20] This is same. Softlemonades (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is whitewashing and it could give the impression to readers that the Swedish allegations were overtly linked to WikiLeaks rather being about sexual conduct.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

In these times 1 and the times 2 pieces on Miss Ardin's biography, she states she agreed to have sex with him. This doesnt meet the criteria for wikivoice on sexual assault. If we want to discuss it in the article, we can, but we dont create section heads to try the subject in the court of wikipedia. "After they agreed to have sex, Ardin claimed Assange pushed her onto the bed roughly and 'deliberately sabotaged' the condom so he could have sex without one." For purposes of avoidance of doubt, this doesnt meet the basic definition located at Sexual assault stating, "Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will." If the accuser Ardin says in her own words she "agreed to have sex" we cant use this. How are the allegations of other accuser? Regarding Miss. W from the guardian "that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex." We also read that the Swedish authority dropped their investigation in 2017 and Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Statute_of_limitations_expires_for_three_charges expired in 2020. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That is OR, she states he assaulted her, and consent can be withdrawn at any time. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Then we would might consider the "assault" word and drop the "sexual assault" definition. Key point if neither accuser is making the sexual assault claim and the prosecutor drops the charges, why are we making the claim? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Well the guardian source you link to says that is what it was "Documents seen by the Guardian reveal for the first time the full details of the allegations of rape and sexual assault..." Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Whose allegations? The prosecutor? If it is Swedish prosecutor allegations, that are later withdrawn, then we have a policy in place for that. We dont normally keep retracted allegations on BLPs. Also, there was an edit conflict, I was going to respond to the previous message and deny doing OR on this. I am just reading the RS in which both accusers state it sex was consensual. If there is some nuance we can discuss if it is due in the text, but the weight in the LEAD as well as in the section heading are UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

We almost always keep retracted allegations in a BLP unless the person isn't a public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, and the allegations werent retracted. The investigation was closed because it couldnt keep going. Not the same. Softlemonades (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be a disservice to remove the allegations and the reason for their retraction. We do not disappear history. The public may know about the allegation but not know about the retraction. We do them a service by providing the whole story. That's what we do here for public persons. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will." That means in a way the person doesnt want too. So if theyre alsep or only want to have sex in some ways or with a condom and then someone breaks those rules, that is intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent

Assanges lawyers tried to say this wasnt rape too and the courts and other lawyers told them they were wrong. The New Statesmen criticised Assange's English lawyer for calling the allegations against Assange "sex by surprise" and telling the media that it wasn't a crime in the UK. Salon criticised several pieces of heavily cited reporting on the topic that relied on a "Daily Mail piece, a Swedish tabloid, and statements from Assange's lawyers." According to New Statesmen, a British judge had already ruled that it would be considered rape in the UK.

If it is Swedish prosecutor allegations, that are later withdrawn Not withdrawn stop saying that. We also read that the Swedish authority dropped their investigation in 2017. Wy? Because they "cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador" and The prosecutor said the case could be reinstated until the expiration of the statute of limitations in 2020 if Assange 'made himself available'.

I am just reading the RS in which both accusers state it sex was consensual. Consensual? Ardin told police she didn't want to "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she let him to undress her. Ardin told police she realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her, held her down and stopped her from reaching for a condom before agreeing to use it, but she said he had "done something" to it that made it rip, which he denied. Consensual? Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him and go back to her flat outside Stockholm. She told police they started to have sex, but he didn't want to wear a condom and lost interest when she didn't want to have unprotected sex. Later that night they had consensual sex and "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom". Early the next morning, she awoke to discover him having sex with her, and when asked he said he wasn't wearing a condom. Softlemonades (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your analysis of what the prosecutor might have done is WP:SYNTH and your analysis of the law regarding to hold down, etc is all WP:OR. Key point is both accusers said it was consensual. While it might not be very nice to read, it is what the accusers said. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Everything is quoted from the wiki and has RSes. I didnt analysis anything or say what the prosecutor might have done. I quoted what the prosecutor said they would do Softlemonades (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I find your defense of Assange's sexual assault deplorable. Here's what happened:

"Later that night they had consensual sex and "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom". Early the next morning, she awoke to discover him having sex with her,[17] and when asked he said he wasn't wearing a condom.[12][13][14]"

That's rape, pure and simple. A very perverted act. None of that can be defended. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf started a discussion about this at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Valjean_edits_at_Julian_Assange Softlemonades (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)