Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Mubarak closing mobile services

Under Julian Assange#Later activities it takjs about "Assange and others at WikiLeaks hacked into Nortel to reverse it". I can't find any evidence that any part of the closure was reversed before the government said they could start up again. And it could be closed quite easily in Egypt without help from Canada! I think Andrew O'Hagan confused a story about Assanges past with the then current situation. Does anyone have evidence of any breakage of the government closure of the networks? I thought it should be easy to find. NadVolum (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have evidence of any breakage of the government closure of the networks? Andrew O'Hagans reporting

I thought it should be easy to find. Many Al Jazeera online archives dont go back that old, other things might be in Egyptian sources Softlem (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Per the source Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, dont know if any sources say they were closed. I fixed the article to better follow [1]

I think Andrew O'Hagan confused a story about Assanges past with the then current situation Hes an RS and The revolution continued and Julian was satisfied, sitting back in our remote kitchen eating chocolates. sounds like details a person there would say Softlem (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Reports do say that Nortel did things for Egypt's phone system [2] [3] [4] Softlem (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt Shut Down Its Net With a Series of Phone Calls, Egypt in virtual communications blackout. No mention of Nortel and no mention of internet access except for Noor which was used by the finance sector and mnisters but was also eventually cut. Only says that many people could still do voice calls. Nortel worked for Telecom Egypt to upgrade their service, it had no control, it was a telecom and networking equipment manufacturer. ccording to Vodafone accuses Egypt govt of co-opting network voice was only down for 24 hours. Anyway the article by Andrew O'Hagan is just wrong. Mubarak didn't just try he succeeded and there was no way hacking Nortel could do anything - and anyway you can't hack a network when it is all shut down. NadVolum (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Nortel and no mention of internet access The article is about internet access not phone access, and the only mention of phone access in the articles you cite is about a different network called Vodafone Egypt

Only says that many people could still do voice calls So phone networks stayed up and only internet was cut off

Anyway the article by Andrew O'Hagan is just wrong Thats OR and not even Assange denied it

Mubarak didn't just try he succeeded Thats OR unless you find a source that says Nortel closed phone networks

and there was no way hacking Nortel could do anything Thats OR. I think hackers can reverse what others hackers try to do and the RS says they did

and anyway you can't hack a network when it is all shut down Thats OR and no source says it was all shut down, O'Hagan says Mubarak and hackers tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network and they failed and no source says they did Softlem (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this all comes under WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. There is no evidence for it, it would have made the news, and the details don't sound possible. It sounds like a mishmash between the then current events and what he was involved in twenty years before - and I think that Andrew O'Hagan mixed them up by mistake. My main problem is how does one counter something like this from a reliable source in Wikipedia when nothing else mentions it at all, never mind contradicts it. NadVolum (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence for it There is an unchallenged RS

There is no evidence for it, it would have made the news, and the details don't sound possible. An unsuccessful attempt would not make the news. Nortel was not shut down according to the RS

contradicts it nothing contradicts it Softlem (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've asked a question at WT:Verifiability#What to do when a reliable source says something but no evidence and it seems very unlikely? about what I should do. NadVolum (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Internet in Egypt#2011 Internet shutdown talks about this. Telecom Egypt is the ones Nortel put equipment in for and it was definitely shut down from the beginning. Egypt Turns to Sole Provider, Dial-Up for Internet Access does not sound to me like the order to shut down didn't succeed. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Internet in Egypt#2011 Internet shutdown talks about this No it talks about ISPs being shut down on mobile phones, which still had phone access and WP:RSPWP

Egypt Turns to Sole Provider, Dial-Up for Internet Access does not sound to me like the order to shut down didn't succeed It sounds to me like it succeeded for mobile ISPs only which does not contradict O'Hagan saying Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network. You already said that an RS says that many people could still do voice calls and that means parts of the country’s mobile phone network worked Softlem (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As I read it the mobile network was closed down for one day and then switched on again but for voice calls only and there was some problems switching it on again. The internet was switched off for five days with a few exceptions like Noor at the beginning. It was the analog landline network that seems never to have been switched off and reporters could use satellite phones. SMS messages were sent out by voice and there was some radio use including morse but that seems about the only avoidance of the shut down I can see. No one says anything about the government or hackers working for it trying to stop it being opened up in any way, or of hackers trying to open it up.. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Channel4 article you cited about Noor [5] is clearly about internet access Pressing the kill switch on more or less an entire nation’s internet capabilities is not unprecedented. and it says Jon Snow said that calls could be made on mobiles

As I read it the mobile network was closed down for one day and then switched on again but for voice calls only It does say that On Saturday, Vodafone, with 28 million mobile phone customers in Egypt, and France Telecom restored mobile voice services, one day after service stopped because the government demanded the cut-off but thats about Vodafone not every service and they already said calls could be made on networks like Noor

No one says anything about the government or hackers working for it Government hackers not being public is not a surprise and Assange knowing would not be a surprise

Channel4 said Analysts said that there is not a kill switch that can stop mobile oral communications, unlike the sending of texts and data by phone, and internet communications. and that explains why hackers would be used Softlem (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What explains about the hackers? And why would they attack or defend Nortel? There's no way Nortel could affect anything. And Vodafone did everything the government asked of them. NadVolum (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

What explains about the hackers? No kill switch gives less options

And why would they attack or defend Nortel? There's no way Nortel could affect anything. Thats OR but we know Nortel was involved in their infrastructure and O'Hagan said the service that came through Canada

And Vodafone did everything the government asked of them. Vodafone is still one company and we dont know if O'Hagan is talking about things before or after that. Maybe Mubarak tried this before or wanted to try to do it secretly after or needed hackers to do it because there was no kill switch. He just says that At the time of the Egyptian uprising, Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, a service that came through Canada. Softlem (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think an RfC is needed on this since nobody else has given their opinion and it looks like you think Andrew O'Hagan is saying something sensible. NadVolum (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok and that agrees with AndyTheGrump saying we need more editors

Can we agree on text for the RFC so it includes both views before it starts? You can propose text Softlem (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_to_do_when_a_reliable_source_says_something_but_no_evidence_and_it_seems_very_unlikely? you said that They were talking in Bungay ten minutes from Ellington according to what he wrote. and he did rent there but before that he says on Monday 17 January 2011​ I drove to Norfolk. It was dark and drizzly by the time I got to Ellingham Hall. and then talks about the kitchen. He went there a lot At 10 p.m. one night I drove over to the house and on 19 January he says he was there and some times WikiLeaks staff worked in the kitchen with laptops When we arrived, the kitchen was full of WikiLeaks staff, all gathered excitedly around a laptop.

And then Julian started coming to Bungay ‘But it can’t be the priority,’ Julian said. ‘Ending wars and starting a revolution in Libya is the priority.’ He started coming to the house in Bungay every day. then During those days at the Bungay house I would try to sit him down with a new list of questions, and he’d shy away from them, saying he wasn’t in the mood or there were more pressing matters to deal with. I think he was just keen to get away from Ellingham Hall.

So O'Hagan went to Ellingham and Julian went to the house in Bungay Softlem (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of all that was. Here is what I'd propose for an RfC. "Should Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking Egypt in 2011 be removed?" And my description would be "In Julian Assange#Later activities there is a description of Assange and others hacking to keep the mobile phones working. Discussion above at #Mubarak closing mobile services. According to WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Is the claim extraordinary? If so then it should be removed. I would be happy if somebody could find a single bit of corroborative evidence that anything like that happened or show how what is said makes some sense." I would then present my points in a *Remove as proposer. NadVolum (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of all that was I thought you thought you they werent at the same place. I guess I misread your comment, and I dont understand why you brought up Bungay and O'Hagan renting a house

I would then present my points in a *Remove as proposer It should include both our points or well just repeat the discussion again. This doesnt say why it would be exceptional, and for exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources it was repeated by The Guardian [6] and The Independent [7] and Los Angeles Review of Books [8] and re published in O'Hagans book The Secret Life and that had a different publisher and editor than London Review of Books Softlem (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Propose make the question: Is Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking in 2011 mentioned in Julian Assange#Later activities an exceptional claim that should be removed?

Then we quote the short part of Ghosting thats about it

Then reasons you think it is an exceptional claim

Then reasons why I think it is not Softlem (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

O'Hagan talks about it at a festival posted at Literary Hub [9] it was in person so its not precise as his writing there are details

He said During my time with Assange there was a moment, it was during the uprising in Cairo, and it became obvious to Mubarak, the leader there, only too late that the revolution was essentially being organized by Blackberries, by social media, and by people fully in connection on their phones. So he closed down the Internet in the country, and I have to give him credit for it. It was an amazing thing to watch. It was new to the novel, new to the cinema, new to any sort of reportage that I’d ever encountered, was that five young people, young hackers in this house, me leaning my back against this typical English Aga, as they went to war from this house with Mubarak’s official hackers, going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier and fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them. And you saw on the big screen, as the Assange-istas won that battle, everyone holding their phones up in Tahrir Square. The Internet was back up and the revolution could continue.

So according to O'Hagan it was the internet, he was there and watched, and going through the portals of Nortel helped somehow Softlem (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand O'Hagan thinks Assange did something. But there is no evidence of it and there's good reasons to doubt it. And it was Mubarak with his advisors that opened it up again, it was not any hacking. As it quotes a chronicle rin Egyptians Were Unplugged, and Uncowed "Mr. Hosni Mubarak has offered it back to us after blocking it for only 5 days. Such a generous man!!" In Egypt court demands details of web, phone blackout Mubarak's lawyer said mobile and web services were restored once officials saw the protests were peaceful. Nothing about hackers doing anything. NadVolum (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Services were never completely blocked according to the timeline [10] even the day before they were turned back on The intelligence service continues to shut down remaining ISPs and intelligence services might have used hacking. Youre guessing they didnt

Nothing about hackers doing anything Except from a reliable reporter who saw it and said it repeatedly, which was reprinted by multiple outlets and in a book Softlem (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

CLosing down an ISP is far more easily done by just sending some police around! And they would not have been able to provide a proper service anyway - just connect their customers once the main switch was closed. Assange's team would not be able to contact them never mind do any hacking. Thanks for that detailed timeline but it just does not support anything in O'Hagan's story - in fact it makes it even more extraordinary. I'm pretty certain now he just confused Assange's tale about his past exploits with the ongoing situation. Assange should have had someone a little more tech savvy for the job. NadVolum (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

CLosing down an ISP is far more easily done by just sending some police around! One takes days and never finished according to the timeline. Cutting off the source seems like it would be right away

Assange's team would not be able to contact them never mind do any hacking More OR and assumptions. We still dont even know what day it was. O'Hagan makes it clear that there were two efforts by Mubaraks public orders and his hackers. He talked about both at the festival. But even if they were they same, Assange might have responded to the DNS block or some other part. You have to assume a lot to decide its impossible.

O'Hagan might give Assange too much credit for impacting but thats normal for Assange and the Egypt Revolution [11] [12] Softlem (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

As to your proposal for the RfC your title is too verbose and the description should also be fairly short and pretty neutral. The arguments for and against can then follow as is normal for RfC and be written by us separately. NadVolum (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As to your proposal for the RfC your title is too verbose Propose Is Andrew O'Hagan's descrption of Assange hacking Egypt in 2011 an exceptional claim?

and the description should also be fairly short and pretty neutral. Propose In Julian Assange#Later activities there is a description of Assange and others hacking to keep the mobile phones working. Discussion above at #Mubarak closing mobile services. According to WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. Should it be removed because the claim is extraordinary? I removed the end because the rule of thumb in WP:Writing_requests_for_comment#Neutrality

The arguments for and against can then follow as is normal for RfC and be written by us separately. Ok. I looked and I remembered WP:Writing_requests_for_comment#Best_practices wrong. I think we should link to the different sources after the question or in a source section Softlem (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Another possibility I can see at WP:RfC for dealing with questions of a technoical nature is to ask at a relevant WikiProject, for this that would be one that dealt with something like hacking or the internet, the closest I can see is WP:WikiProject Computer science, how about I request a third opinion from there? Or in fact [[WP::WikiProject Computing]] which looks pretty active. NadVolum (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Theres no reason to ask a wikiproject to speculate about something someone saw. First you said he was confused about something Assange told him and that he didnt see it. Now hes said he did see it but you think hes still wrong and its impossible. Thats not questions of a technoical nature thats arguing with RSes like London Review of Books, Los Angeles Review of Books, The Guardian, The Independent and Literary Hub. None of the RSes thought O'Hagan was wrong or agree with you and Assange didnt deny it when it was printed in London Review of Books or when it was added to for a book Softlem (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be asking if it is an extraordinary claim. See Andrew O'Hagan for a biography, it is distinctly non-technical never mind anything to do with computers. I see nothing extraordinary about him confusing Assange's tales of his 1991 exploits with what was happening in Egypt. I do find the tale of hackers of an equipment supplier in Canada doing something about Egypt when the internet connection to the rest of the world was cut off by a switch very extraordinary. All those RSs you put in there are just parroting O'Hagan, they are not independent and there's no evidence they did any checking rather than just quoting him. Why would Assange bother with what he said when he had already joined a long list of other people Assange was on bad terms with? Oh this bit is wrong but I'm not going to say anything about being mad sad paranoid vain and jealous? There's just so many things a person can waste their time on. This needs an outside person with a bit of technical nous to evaluate it. NadVolum (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be asking if it is an extraordinary claim. and This needs an outside person with a bit of technical nous to evaluate it. If its the same question as the RFC then just tag the RFC

I do find the tale of hackers of an equipment supplier in Canada doing something about Egypt when the internet connection to the rest of the world was cut off by a switch very extraordinary. Thats one thing we know they did, and according to O'Hagan its not what made them relevant. O'Hagan said the came through Canada, what he said makes more sense when you read it. The equipment supply just confirm they did some business together so Nortel providing other services is not surprising

All those RSs you put in there are just parroting O'Hagan, attributing they are not independent Then no source that cites WikiLeaks is independent from it, but thats not how independent sources work thats how attribution works and there's no evidence they did any checking rather than just quoting him. The general standards and policy are why theyre on the RSP page. They have fact checking policies and they dont repeat things for no reasons. You cant challenge an RS because you dont think they did any checking when they have policies to check and no one denies the events

Oh this bit is wrong but I'm not going to say anything about being mad sad paranoid vain and jealous? There's just so many things a person can waste their time on. International hacking is an alleged crime and isnt the same as being mad sad paranoid vain and jealous. Assange and WikiLeaks often threaten to sue journalists and outlets and sometimes just threaten them [13] And this wasnt just about Assange, it seems like other people at WikiLeaks were involved but O'Hagan just says five young people and Julian and his gang and none of its the same as vain Softlem (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support inclusion: it's a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether it is an extraordinary claim, not whether it is a reliable source. That's why I propose asking at a project that can probably deal with the technicalities. If it is an extraordinary claim then it would need some independent support, for instance someone saying that hacking had occurred or one of Assanges team corroborating rather than someone just copying O'Hagan. Or as I said I'd be happy if someone could show what was described would have any relevance to the situation in Egypt. NadVolum (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether it is an extraordinary claim, not whether it is a reliable source First its should it be removed as an exceptional claim, not is it one. Even if it is the only part that could apply is Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; and there are multiple sources including two generally reliable RSes from WP:RSP

rather than someone just copying O'Hagan Thats why it was already attributed to O'Hagan and lots of things have a single source thats repeated a lot by RSes and cited by Wikipedia

Or as I said I'd be happy if someone could show what was described would have any relevance to the situation in Egypt O'Hagan said the service went through Canada. Turn off a service in Canada that goes to Egypt and it never gets to Egypt. And one description might mean that it helped them access other things but I dont know what portals means in going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier Softlem (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have asked the question about the credibility at WT:WikiProject Computing#Third party opinion on a hacking claim wanted. I think there should be someone with the technical knowledge to give a pretty definite answer there. NadVolum (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There was no response there and it quickly turned into a wall of text. I should just resist responding to things even if I consider them very wrong. There were two responses at WT:V where I'm afraid the discussion also descended into a wall of text. There were two other contributors. One said that the various sites about O'Hagans book quoting what he said are separate reliable sources for what he said. Another pointed out there was a letter in the Ghosting article saying basically the bit about Egypt was silly, the contributor themselves said that too about another aspect. So no overall conclusion, I wish I had been able to get some response at the Computing project which should have the technical expertise to evaluate it. I guess I just have to abandon this even though I think what is in there is something really stupid and it alleges Assange committed a crime. NadVolum (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There was no response there and it quickly turned into a wall of text. I should just resist responding to things even if I consider them very wrong. I asked you to stop BLUDGEONING and most of my replies were only that and telling you to wait for replies from the project. My first reply was only source quotes and links

There were two responses at WT:V and So no overall conclusion There were a lot more than that. There were five responses.

Two you said and @AndyTheGrump said No source is always 'reliable' in the abstract. All sources get things wrong sometimes. Hence the need to apply our own judgement on occasion (which is presumably why WP:OR does not apply to such discussions)

and @HaeB said Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal. As for Those are all just quoting O'Hagan, that means that all these reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements that apparently differs from your own. Putting the latter over the former when writing articles is a textbook NPOV violation. Or to put it differently: WP:NPOV asks that articles should reflect all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic - without adding "...unless these views disagree with the conclusions from your own original research." I will admit that this can, in rare cases, lead to unsatisfying situations where an editor really knows better than several RS, but honestly most of the times it is the other way around.

and @Horse Eye's Back said We care about verifiability, not truth. and I get where you're coming from that the claim should absolutely be attributed, but it doesn't seem to be all that exceptional unless I'm missing something.

So there is an overall conclusion that it is reliable and not an exceptional claim and that the sources are enough. I think reader letters are PRIMARY or comment section

and it alleges Assange committed a crime. No one in any of the sources alleges its a crime. The wikipedia article doesnt allege its a crime. You keep saying it is Softlem (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if people didn't misrepresent a general statement I made about policy as supporting a 'conclusion' I didn't come to. I wrote get more contributors involved in the discussion for a reason. [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry I didnt mean to say you supported a conclusion and I agreed with getting more involved and supported the RfC proposal and tried to work with NadVolum on it but NadVolum abandoned it for the WikiProject Computing discussion. I think what you said was relevant and impartial Softlem (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I wish I could just let you get on without responding but firstly saying somebody hacked Nortel is alleging they committed a crime. Secondly I believed technical expertise was required because people seem willing to believe Assange is like one of these hackers in a film able in real world terms to leap tall buildings in a single bound and such input might settle the mater one way or the other. And now I really will abandon this instead of getting involved in asnother wall of text. NadVolum (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

saying somebody hacked Nortel is alleging they committed a crime Would it help if we improved the attribution by changing According to Andrew O'Hagan to something like According to Andrew O'Hagan, he saw Softlem (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Hey guys,

I recently introduced a small tidbit of material regarding Assange's involvement with the WANK worm and the fact that he co-authored a book that detailed the WANK worm itself. See here. Both the WANK worm and the book are already discussed in his article. Another editor disagreed with my edit for multiple reasons and cited the fact that the article is a contentious topic. The contentious topic policy does not prevent an editor from introducing information to a article and my edit is neither a disputable fact nor was controversial; as I said the topic is already mentioned in the article and there seems to be no valid basis for not including my edit. Please also note that the contentious material warning is not an editing restriction per se and does not prevent constructive editing of a page; pages that are listed as contentious also do not necessarily require a discussion to edit constructively. Comments? Scorch (talk | ctrb) 00:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: could you please explain what is contentions about this? I am not familiar the subject, but Scorch's logic seems reasonable at first glance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This editor appears to have been active after we both pinged him but he has not yet commented here or replied to my message on his talk page. If there's no other objections to adding my edit then I will readd it in the coming days. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A single reversion to a completely unrelated article is hardly "active".

I've removed the original research that was added by MrScorch. The remaining content is true and can be sourced to the book, but is not encyclopaedic content. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing I'm sorry, but this is now the third reason you've given for reverting my edit and it leaves me confused. First you reverted the edit saying that the addition was of little relevance, then you said it was contentious content, and now you are saying that it is not encyclopedic content. What exactly makes it unencyclopedic content when the entire paragraph is about that topic and the book is relevant enough to have its own article? Also, what I added definitely is not original research by the definition of the WP:NOR policy. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Scorch's logic continues to be sound. Please provide a reasonable justification. None of the justifications you have provided support removal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t revert your content in my recent edit. I removed the part of your content that is original research: that reference in the book to the WANK worm is “prominent”. No, I haven’t given 3 different reasons. It’s not encyclopaedic insofar as it’s a trivial piece of information; it’s not particularly relevant to an encyclopaedia article about the subject’s life. The reference to contentious was because it had been reverted and you added again without discussion: the consensus required restriction as part of the contentious topics applied to the article means prior discussion before readding disputed material is a necessity. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing

You did revert my entire edit. Again, that is not what original research is, you should review that policy. Citation of the book itself is sufficient in that regard because there was no claim of factual information, just the fact that the chapter existed in the book and that the topic was discussed in a book Assange himself researched and co-authored. I used the word "prominently" because the entirety of the first chapter is about the WANK worm. Again, it's a dull argument that it isn't encyclopedic content when that entire section of the Assange article is specifically about that topic, the book is relevant, and the book is also mentioned elsewhere in his article. By that logic we should then remove that section.

And again, the contentious topic policy doesn't require discussion before constructively editing an article. The better practice, rather than reverting a minor edit you don't agree with so you can trigger a talk page discussion, is improve that edit in a way you see fit. That's a long-held doctrine on Wikipedia and constitutes good editing practice. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 23:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing

I went back and looked at the last few edits; my mistake, you did not revert my last edit adding the material back to the article. You did make a minor edit to it -- has that edit assuaged your conscience on keeping the material in the article or do you still object to it? Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200: “By that logic we should then remove that section.” That argument makes no sense and is not any kind of logic. You make an irrelevant value judgment that it’s a “dull argument”; I consider it dull content. The claim that it is prominent is original research; the policy can be found here if you don’t understand why. Your edit was not minor, which you can establish for yourself at Wp:MINOR. New disputed content is not to be added a second time without affirmative talk page consensus – that’s how the consensus required sanction works. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing It is a logical argument but I don't see it prudent for the purposes of this discussion to explain why. What my edit said was that the topic was discussed prominently in the opening of the book, and I don't see that being in conflict with the policy against original research as 1) it is not a disputable fact that the entirety of the opening chapter is about the WANK worm and 2) it was not original research because it was not my own conclusions about a fact, like if I had added conjecture that because Assange was a hacker around the time of the WANK worm and mentions it in the book that he likely was involved with the hack based on other information x and y. Saying "this chapter of the book discusses this" with the book as a citation isn't original research in my view and is verifiable by a reader; similar to how we cite other factual information from books. Are you saying that you want a secondary source to support that? You also didn't state through your edit summary that the supposed original research was your initial reason for removing the content, you stated something else.

Calling information "dull" is very subjective, isn't encyclopedic at all, and shouldn't be used as the sole argument for removing content -- with that train of thought most of us would think a large amount of content on Wikipedia is dull and we'd have to excise a lot of "dull" information from articles. See WP:FANCRUFT which discusses this lightly. To get the discussion back on track, does your edit to the content quell your mind about keeping it in the article or do you still take issue with it? That's the important issue here; you are the sole person objecting to it. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 10:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Quoting you in full: Again, it's a dull argument that it isn't encyclopedic content when that entire section of the Assange article is specifically about that topic, the book is relevant, and the book is also mentioned elsewhere in his article. By that logic we should then remove that section. Your last sentence does not follow logically from the preceding one, ergo it's not a logical argument. Some content being appropriate to a brief biography does not mean other content on the same topic must also be appropriate.

You speculate at some length about whether I think we need secondary source for "this chapter of the book discusses this", yet you've apparently neglected to read my reply above: The remaining content is true and can be sourced to the book.

The claim that it is prominent is original research, as I've also already stated. The reason I gave in my edit summary is why this is not appropriate to a short biography, being the contents of one chapter of a book the subject did research for. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing does your edit to the content quell your mind about keeping it in the article or do you still take issue with it? I dont know if youre explaining problems before, now or both Softlem (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades Thanks for stepping in and trying to ask this question again; this discussion is way more complicated and argumentative than it needs to be. He is mainly taking issue with the original edit; he takes issue with me using the word "prominently" and believes that description of the chapter was original research, which I disagree with. Still, he revised that original edit (so that point is moot) yet says that he believes the content is unencyclopedic which would apply to how it also stands in its present form but he isn't stating whether he still takes issue with the content being in the article with his own edits and exactly why. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 12:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I also dont like to use words like "prominently" as it adds additional weight. How about we just remove that offending word and state the article subject was featured in the book? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf We've already removed the usage of the word "prominently" here, but it seems as if the other editor still takes issue with the content of the edit (which is live) -- although he hasn't concisely explained if his edit removing the word "prominently" has corrected what he felt was wrong. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 15:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What think is a over the top is the attempts to try and say Assange had anything of note to do with the attack. Without some actual evidence that he might actually be linked I think what is there is too much on that. Could we reduce the insinuation and the statement that there's no evidence to one sentence thanks? NadVolum (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Senator Assange in The Monthly When, in 1989, the International Subversives, a hacker group of which Assange was a member, launched the “WANK Worm” virus to attack global military networks, they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oil: “You talk of times of peace for all, and then prepare for war.”

Assange told Andrew Fowler they did it. Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains. The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks Softlem (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades Unfortunately, while I am of the view that the International Subversives did either code and deploy or just deployed the worm, I don't think that this source is enough to support that assertion. There's nothing that I see in that article that backs up that theory -- even in there it is conjecture like in all of the sources cited in the article.

For the second source you quoted in your second paragraph, is that a book or an article? Scorch (talk | ctrb) 21:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Book already cited in the article. Andrew_Fowler_(journalist) Softlem (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades Interesting, I'm going to grab a copy and take a look. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 15:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I can see it on Google [15]

Fowler is usually pro Assange so he would not say this and not mean it. The book is made on their interviews so I believe him when he says Assange admitted it to him. The part he wrote that Assange is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains. seems like something I added about WANK and the second version of it called OILZ The code indicated that the worms evolved over time and was not written by a single person. Not exact same but close Softlem (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There are many anti-Assange sources used on this article, so that aspect is fine and not justification for removal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That cite from Fowler does not even allege he was probably involved! This is ridiculous for the coverage of allegation in the article. At most it is saying he might know who was involved even though he says noone know who was involved! NadVolum (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

He doesnt say noone know who was involved, he says No one knows who wrote the program for the worm thats not the same. He says Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group Softlem (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better then if we had Assange said the Melbourne hacking group was involved, but did not know who wrote the program? And leave out the various vacuous allegations? NadVolum (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better then if we had Assange said the Melbourne hacking group was involved, but did not know who wrote the program? Better than what? If you mean add something like Assange said the International Subversives were involved, but that no one knows who wrote the program thats exactly what I would support

The section of the book is clear its talking about Assange and the International Subversives because its about him and his hacking and doesnt mention any other hacking groups, and he would not admit it if he wasnt involved. That was the word Fowler used after interviewing Assange Softlem (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A week since the last comment so propose replacing the current text with

Several sources suggested Assange may have been involved in the WANK hack at NASA in 1989, which he called "the origin of hacktivism". Assange later admitted to Andrew Fowler it came from the Melbourne hacker group, but that no one knows who wrote the program.

Its shorter and uses Fowlers words and I think is what NadVolum suggested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlemonades (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no prior mention of a "Melbourne hacker group" in our article, so this phrasing would be confusing. That Assange mentioned its possible attribution to a hacker group is not particularly relevant: this biography is about Assange's own life story. "Several sources suggested" is the kind of weasel-worded unsupported attribution we ought to avoid. The status quo accurately and properly attributes this unproven claim. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In the book the Melbourne hacker group is clearly the International Subversives who are the only hacker group mentioned, and the only reason Assange would admit it is if he was involved which is what Fowler says and what The Monthly said

I agree the phrasing could be confusing and we could clarify it by just saying admitted involvement

the kind of weasel-worded unsupported attribution we ought to avoid The proposed text gave three citations supporting it. WP:WEASEL says views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. In text attribution is not needed, but we dont need that part since Assange admitted it.

What about Assange called the WANK hack at NASA in 1989 "the origin of hacktivism" and later admitted involvement, but said that no one knows who wrote the program. Softlem (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, in the book Fowler makes it abundantly clear that the Melbourne hacker group to which he refers is not the same as the "International Subversives". He does so in the immediately succeeding sentence. Given that you've already quoted the relevant passage, your claim otherwise is surprising.

Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains.

Take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources here on talk. Your claim that Assange admitted it and suggestion to include as much in the article is unsupported by the available sources. How about the status quo. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, in the book Fowler makes it abundantly clear that the Melbourne hacker group to which he refers is not the same as the "International Subversives". He does so in the immediately succeeding sentence You misread it. he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives Coy means Reluctant to give details about something sensitive it doesnt mean he didnt say anything about it. Thats clearer when he adds No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains. Its even clearer when you read the rest of the section before that which only talks about one hacking group, the International Subversives

Take care not to inadvertently misrepresent sources here on talk. Your claim that Assange admitted it I did not that is the word Fowler used and the The Monthly directly said it was the International Subvserives [16] Softlem (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t misread it. The meaning of the word “coy” is not at issue. Possibly you misunderstood the word “but” , I don’t know. It does not indicate that Assange was personally involved, the relevant factor here, as multiple other editors have already explained to you.Cambial — foliar❧ 23:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing and @Softlemonades: For the record, the book does state on pg. 73: "Although nobody was ever charged with the Wank Worm attack, Assange admits it came from the Melbourne hacker group. But he is coy about the involvement of The International Subversives. No one knows who wrote the program for the worm, he maintains."

It's slightly ambiguous, but it seems like Assange meant the WANK worm came from the overall collective that was the various associated hackers in Melbourne at the time and not the International Subversives specifically. He likely meant it came from himself and his associates described in his book with Dreyfus. In an encyclopedic sense, it isn't really worth noting on this article anyway and has a better home on the relevant article.

For arguments sake amongst us, Assange likely knew about the worm prior to the attack and probably assisted in coding or distributing it. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 00:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It's slightly ambiguous, but it seems like Assange meant the WANK worm came from the overall collective that was the various associated hackers in Melbourne at the time and not the International Subversives specifically. The Monthly still says [17] When, in 1989, the International Subversives, a hacker group of which Assange was a member, launched the “WANK Worm” virus to attack global military networks, they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oil Thats not ambiguous Softlem (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades It is ambiguous when other sources, specifically the book you mentioned, contradict it slightly. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 13:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont have the book right now what contradicts it?

If you mean No one knows who wrote the program for the worm and they made sure the last thing that terminal users saw before their computers froze was a quote from Midnight Oil they might contradict each other but I thought the sentence meant "when they launched the WANK worm they made this happen" Softlem (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades The book specifically states that Assange is coy about the involvement of himself and his group. Every other source states basically the same -- just that the worm came from a Melboune-based group or collective. So for the magazine to specifically state it was the International Subversives, then that claim contradicts all of the other sources and is the only source that explicitly states that, albeit with no supporting information. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

then that claim contradicts all of the other sources At most thats new information not a contradiction

I didnt see the part of your comment that In an encyclopedic sense, it isn't really worth noting on this article anyway and has a better home on the relevant article. Sorry, that changes what you meant and local consensus

I will drop it here and read the other article again and if there is a good place to add it I will propose it at talk Softlem (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Renata Avila

I have removed a description of Avila from this article because it was not in the sources. It is mentioned on her own wikipage but there appears to be no source there either. It may be correct, but in order to use here we need a source which states it and which states that her memo was written in that capacity. Burrobert (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned on her own wikipage but there appears to be no source there either. Its cited on her page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Renata_%C3%81vila_Pinto#cite_note-3

and which states that her memo was written in that capacity. I dont agree we need a source that says that but if theres a policy or something please tell me. But you made a good point so I wanted to check and the lawyer her wikipedia article said she worked under for the Assange and WikiLeaks case was hired in 2012 [18] so she could not have written it in that capacity and I agree with your revert [19] Softlem (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it was not enough to have a source saying she was Assange's lawyer, since it may not have coincided with the writing of the memo. Glad we were able to work that out. Burrobert (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What you were trying to tell me makes more sense now, thank you Softlem (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained removal by IP editor

This edit [20] was made by an IP editor with no edit history and no edit summary and removed a paragraph from Personal life. The text had RSes and I think it was DUE because it talked Assanges personal life when he started WikiLeaks and he said he was directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project

The edit should be reverted Softlem (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The source may have been OK, the text seems pretty trivial. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

the text seems pretty trivial. Do you mean it wasnt DUE or it needed to be edited? Softlem (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really due, as what does it really tell us about him? Why do we need to know this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really due Ok thank you

as what does it really tell us about him? Why do we need to know this? Because it was before he did media I thought it revealed a little but it might be WP:CRUFT Softlem (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is relevant. It shows how he characterises himself and WikiLeaks and indicates he might see himself as a stainless steel rat (see Harry Harrison). Jack Upland (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The edit was reverted [21] by @Dhtwiki for unexplained removal but I dont know if Dhtwiki saw the discussion

per Burrobert the text needs to be edited if it stays and there might be weak local consensus to remove it Softlem (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't watching this page closely. If an edit has been made according to consensus, it would be helpful to note that in the edit summary. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The edit was made with no discussion and I almost did reverted it too

I dont know the IP editors reasons or if there is consensus for removing or keeping it. I support keeping it but will let other editors decide what to do Softlem (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Won't comment on the suitability for this page other than:

• The source does not mention the username refers to the science fiction writer.
• The current readable page size in 99kB. Policy says pages of > 100 kB should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". Burrobert (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised that it has grown so large. I've tried to stop some of the worst of the growth, inclusion of things which were in newspapers years ago but biographers didn't think worth talking about, big chunks from subarticles which should just be summarised to something like the lead of the articles. An allegation I believe anyone with any technical expertise would know was rubbish. Basically it is a scrapbook of anything anywhere that mentions his name. I have no particular thoughts about this beyond that I think it probably beats a lot of the other stuff that's been included. Perhaps Assange's early life could be split off to cut the size down but I fear the space that frees will just be an opportunity to make the article even more scrappy. NadVolum (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is how the article size has changed over the last few years:

On 31 October 2021 the readable prose size was 69kB.

On 31 October 2022 the readable prose size was 79kB

By 1 March 2023 the readable prose size had ballooned to 97kB. Some pruning was discussed on Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_40#Trimming_things and within a few days the size was reduced to 82kB. Some of the increase in size is due to copying content to this article from related articles, which is odd because, at one stage, we were removing content from this article because it was covered elsewhere. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I just proposed renaming Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange after the section on this page. [22]

I think the section should be WP:SPLIT to the page, its one of the biggest Softlem (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished. Otherwise there will be people adding stuff to both articles and it'll make a horrible mess. This is where people will add current stuff however you split it up. His early life is at least finished and not a currently evolving topic. NadVolum (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished. Otherwise there will be people adding stuff to both articles and it'll make a horrible mess. I thought making it about arrest and extradition proceedings would stop all the adds here and focus there and make it easier to start a new article about his trial if he is ever extradited Softlem (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not unless the sub article can be restricted somehow to something that is finished. Do you mean the section on Julian Assange or the SPLIT article? I want to be sure I understand Softlem (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean the split off sub article. What exactly were you hoping to rename and to what? There is no possibility of stopping adds about the extradition here until he is actually extradited or released and you shouldn't even try. NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean the split off sub article. Ok thank you

What exactly were you hoping to rename and to what? It was in the diff I linked but I am going to revert it because I think I have a better idea based on what you said Softlem (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The thoughts of David Morales

The thoughts of David Morales, a contractor for the CIA currently the subject of criminal proceedings in Spain, are not due weight for this biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

please observe WP:CRP You did not object to the material. You said you were adding and rewriting. Editors dont know what is a mistake if summaries are unclear. WP:SUMMARYNO If you say you adding and rewriting but remove complete paragraphs and sentences, [23] it seems like a mistake. If you say what types of edits you make it will help. Better summaries are clearer and helps find the right edits later

the word "justified" is not in the source to which this new content is cited. please don't add unsourced editorialising to this biography. It is not unsourced editorialising. The source said “We have been informed of suspicions that the guest [this is how Assange was alluded to] is working for the Russian intelligence services, thus the profiling of his visitors and aides,” which is a clear reason why. If the problem was "justified" you should have rewritten it like edit summary said, not removed the entire sentence

the subject of criminal proceedings in Spain And WP:BLPCRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

are not due weight for this biography. The reasons why for the surveillance of the subject for this biography are DUE. No other reason has been given and there is not a contested view. It is in the lead of Surveillance of Julian Assange which was copied here per Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_proposal and WP:SUMMARY. According to the RS they are not The thoughts of David Morales, but what they were informed of and decisions made because of that Softlem (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the source cited that sentence is from an email from David Morales, a hired gun spying on Assange to whom you failed to attribute that obviously tendentious view. It's not a significant opinion, coming as it does from a complete nobody. There is no reason to accept as fact Morales' claims as to his motivations, and no indication his opinion is sufficiently noteworthy for a biography of Assange. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

to whom you failed to attribute that obviously tendentious view I didnt fail to attribute anything. Per the edit summary [24] and Talk:Julian_Assange#Trimming_proposal it was the lead from Surveillance of Julian Assange which readers are told is the Main article and which attributes it every time its mentioned outside the lead which is WP:SUMMARY

There is no reason to accept as fact Morales claims They were not claimed as fact in the article. It said it was a reason for the surveillance according to internal emails. If Assange didnt work for Russian intelligence it was still an explanation given for the surveillance

and no indication his opinion is noteworthy. The RSes cite him several times. He was in charge of the surveillance of Assange. His opinion is noteworthy and this is not his opinion, it is what the company was told and the decisions he made reported by RSes

I changed the word justified in the main article since you objected to it Softlem (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on dropped vs. closed

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

---

Hi, shall we use "dropped" or "closed" in the LEAD in reference to end of the Swedish investigation. Please see diff. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a large discussion at #Swedish prosecutors closed/dropped the investigation in 2019 about dropped/closed/discontinued. Unfortunate that RfC's are required so often for this aticle butI agree it's the best way of ending it all. NadVolum (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Polling

• Dropped as that is what is in the vast majority of RS and the argument put forth that the "closed" is a better translation is an absurd argument and not how wikipedia works. We follow RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Use droppped since it's preferred by RS. I've reviewed the arguments above, and it's a bunch of blatant OR and opinion-mongering about various legal systems and what terms might mean to someone. Just follow the dominant source usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Use dropped. More prominent in the sources and shorter. Th whole section should be shorter per WP:SUMMARY like the lead in the sub-article about it all. NadVolum (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dropped is fine, since this is the standard language used by most sources and reflects what actually happened. From the BBC [25]: "Prosecutors in Sweden have dropped an investigation into a rape allegation made against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange in 2010..

We should consider additonal details from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, who used the word abandoned [26]: "The Swedish state spent almost a decade intentionally presenting Julian Assange to the public as a sex offender. Then, they suddenly abandoned the case against him on the strength of the same argument that the first Stockholm prosecutor used in 2010, when she initially suspended the investigation after just five days: While the woman’s statement was credible, there was no proof that a crime had been committed. It is an unbelievable scandal." Melzer stated that the Swedish government refused to answer questions about its mishandling of the case, effectively "an admission of guilt." Based on his authority, then, we could write something like,

Accused by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture of mishandling Assange's case for nearly a decade, Sweden declined to respond to the allegations, and abandoned their case against Assange.

-Darouet (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Dropped is best, as it is supported by many RSs and clearer than "closed". I don't think it has any negative connotation, so it's also neutral and objective.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dropped It's kind of a shame this ended up in a RFC. It's been used by reliable sources and I don't really understand the objection to using the word. Nemov (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dropped as per above.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Discontinued and RfC wasnt made right per Discussion Softlem (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dropped as per all the sources. (no mention of "closed" or "dismissed" or "discontinued" here, here, or here for example) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Context about "all sources" claim

as per all the sources Youre going to say that, even after the discussion gave lots of sources for discontinued including the original post by Gitz? Secondary RSes like CNN BBC Insider Financial Times Sydney Morning Herald Al Jazeera Independent Guardian Washington Post all use discontinue and not all the sources use dropped Primary sources also use discontinue like the official press release and the official translation Softlem (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) All of the secondary sources you cite use the term "dropped" either in the headline or the article or both except the WaPo "worldviews" op-ed which appeared seven months before the investigation was dropped. WP:1AM -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Headlines are not RSes. Youre the one who said that sources from 2017 were relevant. Pointing out the clearly untrue thing in your reasoning is valid. 1AM would matter if the RFC had been made the right way or if you didnt say things that were clearly untrue. Softlem (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC) For any whose minds might not yet be made up, here are four more secondary sources that don't use "discontinue" anywhere, but do use "drop" both in their headline and the article (7 articles in total to add to the eight above that use both terms): USA Today, CNBC, ABC News, and VOA. Several more cite the prosecutor in tiny print like Reuters or TechCrunch (in captions under a picture of the press conference), but use "dropped" in all cases when they are not directly quoting (in both the headline and body). Still, as all the loyal badgers sing (usually in chorus): "On, Wisconsin!" -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Please stop making claims like the eight above that use both terms that fail policy like WP:HEADLINES. Sources like CNN only say "dropped" in the headline and headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context and are not a reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlemonades (talk • contribs)

Discussion

• This seemingly trivial point has been discussed ad-nauseam above Talk:Julian_Assange#Swedish_prosecutors_closed/dropped_the_investigation_in_2019 and seems to be support for dropped, but one editor doesnt agree to implement the change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• The choice was between dropped, discontinued and not changing it from closed. I said that changing it needed an RfC because there was disagreement over what to change established content to. Discontinued is what I said should it be, is supported by primary and secondary RSes and is the official term used, not including it isnt the right way to do the RfC Softlem (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• I invite any uninvolved editor to proceed with a WP:SNOWBALL closure of this RfC. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said the RFC wasnt about the actual disagreement about what it should be changed to which was discontinued or dropped. If you leave out the main other option that is supported by RSes it will be a SNOWBALL always

  I dont think this was on purpose but we should do best practices and "Propose the text of the RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC. Especially get feedback on whether the question is neutral from the editors who disagree with you." I wasnt here for a week but would not agree to a question that left out the option I had said we should use and was supported by primary and secondary RSes and what editor would say that an RfC that leaves out a major option at the basic of the argument is best practices? Softlem (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Can you add "discontinued" to your list of possible verbs please? Cambial — foliar❧ 12:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It might help but it has been running for five days and there have been a lot of responses already. Adding the other main option when someone is already calling for SNOWBALL close seems too late Softlem (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand this. I tried to change "closed" into "dropped" and I was reverted. That's OK, it means that Softlemonades thinks that "closed" is better than "dropped". Therefore we had an RfC. Apparently everybody (Softlemonades included) now thinks that "dropped" is better than "closed", so it's likely that at the end of this RfC we'll have "dropped". However, if Softlemonades thinks that "discontinued" is even better than "dropped", they are free to launch another RfC on this. So, let's proceed in an orderly fashion. First we finish this RfC on closed vs dropped and then, in necessary, we'll have dropped vs discontinued. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That's OK, it means that Softlemonades thinks that "closed" is better than "dropped". No, I said you needed an RFC to change long standing content when there was disagreement about what to change it to and that you counted consensus wrong

Apparently everybody (Softlemonades included) now thinks that "dropped" is better than "closed" I never said that. What made you think that? I want to clarify

However, if Softlemonades thinks that "discontinued" is even better than "dropped" That is what I said since my first reply on 10:43, 23 September 2023

So, let's proceed in an orderly fashion. First we finish this RfC on closed vs dropped and then, in necessary, we'll have dropped vs discontinued I am okay with that Softlem (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing:, no I dont think it is necessary to add more suggestions as it might conflate the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Wikileaks excuse?

@NadVolum I dont know what Wikileaks excuse is just as due as Leigh's means [27] It said the files were copied by supporters not by Wikileaks

Ok if it is DUE but what do I miss? Softlem (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I just meant the excuse for the file being released into the wild. I don't know about the internal mechanisms of Wikileaks. You're not missing anything especially. I just thought it was rather non NPOV in the whole sorry affair to give Leigh's excuse about thinking the password would go out of date without the excuse for the file being copied. NadVolum (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Citation gone wrong

In the section about Legal issues in Australia the cite about political bribery is

"WikiLeaks names one-time spokesman as editor-in-chief". Associated Press. Retrieved 26 September 2018.

which seems to have absolutely nothing to do with that. Any ideas about what has happened there or how to fix it? NadVolum (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Dont know what happened but I found CNN source and fixed it diff Softlem (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much NadVolum (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Trimming proposal

Propose we replace these sections with the leads of the main pages per WP:SUMMARY

Julian Assange#Swedish sexual assault allegations from Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

Julian Assange#Indictment and arrest from Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

Julian Assange#Surveillance of Assange in the embassy from Surveillance of Julian Assange

Swedish sexual assault allegations total size is 15,267

Indictment and arrest total size is 41,334

Surveillance of Assange in the embassy total size is 6,620

Article total size is 353,143 and readable size is 100,921. I dont know readable size of sections. I think the three sections are 63221 or almost 18% of the article

Also propose we WP:SPLIT Assessments and Julian Assange#Honours and awards into something like Reception of Julian Assange and summarise the Assessments and Awards on this page. Assessments total size is 38,089 and Honours and awards total size is 7,435. If there is any support we tag it and start a formal discussion Softlem (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all except I have some reservations about the Indictment and arrest article. I think it would have been better to just have an article devoted to the indictments which could cover what is in the section here in "Espionage indictment in the United States" as well as any bits which are relevant from the arrest and extradition hearings. The hearings don't really test the indictment, that isn't really all that relevant to an extradition hearing even though it's why he is being extradited. Of course any thing removed from here would need checking against the sub article before removing it. NadVolum (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would have been better to just have an article devoted to the indictments which could cover what is in the section here in "Espionage indictment in the United States" as well as any bits which are relevant from the arrest and extradition hearings. I would support limiting Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange if thats what you mean

The hearings don't really test the indictment, that isn't really all that relevant to an extradition hearing even though it's why he is being extradited. I agree and made it a separate section. Julian Assange#Hearings on extradition to the US would stay the same on this page for this proposal but I am okay with a bigger change

Of course any thing removed from here would need checking against the sub article before removing it. To make sure it is there and content is not lost? Agree Softlem (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is easier to follow changes when they are made in small increments. Burrobert (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum Are you ok with it if Julian Assange#Hearings on extradition to the US stays on this page? I think we agree Softlem (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it may be long but I think it has got to stay for the moment until at least he is actually extradited or released. NadVolum (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

at least he is actually extradited or released agree that makes sense

If another editor wants to move extradition hearings it should be a new topic Softlem (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Because there is support and no objections and the text is already part of the main article I will BEBOLD and replace Julian_Assange#Surveillance_of_Assange_in_the_embassy with the text from the lead per WP:SUMMARY. It is the easy section and I will wait for more talk on the rest of the proposal Softlem (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I did it to Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_assault_allegations [28] and will wait for more talk Softlem (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose removing the awards table if that is what is being proposed, it is pretty lean already and is very encyclopedic. I see that Assessments was already removed, it was quite a lot of text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I oppose removing the awards table if that is what is being proposed, it is pretty lean already and is very encyclopedic I think the table or a text summary should stay. Agree very encyclopedic

  I see that Assessments was already removed, it was quite a lot of text. The text is there, heading name changed to Julian Assange#Reception. I agree it is a lot of text and it would be the main reason for a SPLIT Softlem (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused and thought it had been removed. Yes, I just couldnt find that Reception had just been moved. I think Reception could be moved off to a sub-article, as it is a bit UNDUE on the main article. These controversial figure articles sometimes have excess comments/reception from pundits, and this ends up clogging the articles over time. Thank you for pinging me below on the updated split discussion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Article total size is 353,143 and readable size is 100,921

New total size is 279,597 and readable size is 74,768 Softlem (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Reception SPLIT

Propose splitting Julian Assange#Reception to a page like Reception of Julian Assange

Assessments from Julian Assange#2010 and 2011-2014 and 2015-2018 and 2019–present would be replaced with a summary

Julian Assange#Honours and awards would be copied to new page but not removed

Talk:Julian Assange#Trimming proposal has some talk about this. Pinging @NadVolum @Burrobert @Jtbobwaysf from it Softlem (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: sounds like a good idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removing/copying honors but am ok with moving the assessments off. The awards section is both short and important in that it supports the article subject's notability as an award winning journalist/publisher. It helps to add balance to the POV that the article subject is primarily notable as a fugitive criminal spy. I dont think that it is necessary to copy content either, the new proposed sub-article that carries Reception does that adequately without the rehashing of the awards. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree about Oppose removing honors

I dont think that it is necessary to copy content either, the new proposed sub-article that carries Reception does that adequately without the rehashing of the awards I think it should be copied because It helps to add balance to the POV that the article subject is primarily notable as a fugitive criminal spy. so it should be on both pages. But its not the reason for SPLIT and we can copy it later if it is DUE Softlem (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Jtbobwaysf about retaining the awards section. Can't see any problem with hiving off the Reception section to another article but reserve my right to change my mind if another editor produces a good reason for it to remain in this article. Burrobert (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

{Agree with Jtbobwaysf about retaining the awards section. What do you think about retaining the awards section and copying it? Softlem (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No strong feelings about that one way or the other. Of course, we would then have two articles into which future awards would need to be added. Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think people support SPLIT so I made Draft:Reception_of_Julian_Assange. It is a wp:draft and so can edit the awards and lead and any more changes that are DUE

Ill wait for more talk and if local consensus changes i will nominate for deleting draft Softlem (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades: can you please explain why we should copy the awards content to the new sub-article? It is common for sub-article content to be duplicated on the main article, but I am not knowledgeable of the reverse (which you seem to be proposing). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I've no objections to the awards being moved to the sub-article. They form part of the same business of reception or assessment of him. There would need to be a good sentence or two in the summary about them though. NadVolum (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

can you please explain why we should copy the awards content to the new sub-article? Because its part of his reception and adds balance. I think its DUE for both articles Softlem (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I think if we are talking about balance on the sub-article, this isnt he right approach. We could add more reaction/reception content. I think awards is not reception, it is quite a bit above that and wouldnt want to mix the two. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think awards is not reception, it is quite a bit above that and wouldnt want to mix the two Disagree but can keep it out of the SPLIT and only do part we consensus on and talk later at new page about adding awards Softlem (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

We can also summarize the awards over at the sub-article and point to the main article for more detail at the top of the sub-article section. I think its easier. Duplication is generally frowned upon to my understanding. Agree that there seems to be no objection to moving the reaction/reception content off, its the larger section anyhow. The table format of the awards and wikilinks doesnt really affect readability, it might even enhance it, as readers might get bored of article text and skip down to the awards, look at photos, etc. I certainly do that when I am browsing some new subject as a reader. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I put the awards in its own section here. Can we hive off rest to a sub-article and just summarize here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Im ok with that. Draft:Reception_of_Julian_Assange can move to main space if people are ready Softlem (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I made a suggestion over at the sub-article on the awards. here is my rough suggestion on how to handle it. Still needs a sentence or two or prose to summarize. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I added proposed summary. I think its been enough time to make article public but someone should fix Some former colleagues have criticised his work habits, editorial decisions and personality. first Softlem (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

About this statement "journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist" seems to be anchored with two opinion articles yet we are summarizing in wikivoice. Do we have a large number of non-opinion articles saying this? If not, probably too much weight in the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

About 15 sources After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist. Journalists at the Associated Press, CNN, The Sydney Morning Herald, The LA Times, National Review, The Economist, and The Washington Post argued he was not a journalist. Other journalists at The Independent, The Intercept, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and The Washington Post wrote that he was a journalist or that his actions were still protected. Softlem (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to edit or remove it in lead @Jtbobwaysf? Softlem (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If no one objects I will finish SPLIT Monday Softlem (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Reception" seems to me a strange term. Could we retitle it?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rename section or page? Rename to what? Softlem (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Rename page, but not sure what to.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it could also be commentary, editorial, reviews, critique, etc. I personally think commentary is good, as that is what it is. Recption sounds like a wedding reception, and I dont think most of the comments will be too receptive of the article subject ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the wedding connotation. It might vary with country.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Commentary about Julian Assange is good

Reception of because Reception of WikiLeaks but anything is ok if WP:POVNAMING and WP:CRITICISM Softlem (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

whether assange is a political prisoner

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/23/assa-m23.html TimurMamleev (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy pasting an entire article violates policy see WP:C-P#TALK Softlem (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I blanked the copy pasted WP:COPYVIO text left the link where it all came from. The page and post had exact same text.Softlem (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't need huge great spiels duplicated from external sources. A link and a description of how you think the article should be changed because of it is quite enough. You have a link, lots of text, but no suggestion of a change. Long text like that leads to TLDR. NadVolum (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree TLDR and NOTFORUM, and the parts I read had bad facts

Barr makes repeated reference to rape “charges” against Assange—charges that have never existed! It only quotes her not making those references, he would have been charged if he had gone back to Sweden, and what does that have to do with your point?

For nearly nine years, bogus “rape” and “sexual molestation” allegations against Assange have been wielded by Sweden and Britain to smear the WikiLeaks founder and secure his extradition to the US. Not bogus and Assange did more smearing than anyone Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Conspiracy_theories #Statements by Assange #Statements by Assange's lawyers

Assange was always willing to travel to Sweden to answer the allegations against him, but Swedish authorities refused to guarantee against his onward extradition under fast-track “temporary surrender” arrangements in place with the US. They cant promise not to extradite on charges that did not exist and if he was extradited to Sweden would have needed British and Swedish legal approval to send him to the US Softlem (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

What do other sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Top results for "assange" "political prisoner"

2017 HuffPost contributor Julian Assange Is A Political Prisoner Who Has Exposed Government Crimes And Atrocities before his arrest

2021 The Independent Is Julian Assange a political prisoner? Paywall but subheadline says If his real crime is ruffling the feathers of the powerful then the answer is yes ... As he languishes in Belmarsh this Christmas, Mary Dejevsky wonders why a man whose only conviction is breaching bail is being held in a category A prison

2023 The Guardian Biden accused of hypocrisy as he seeks extradition of Julian Assange compares Assange to a political prisoner

2023 Al Jazeera The forever war on Julian Assange says Assange describes himself as political prisoner

I dont see other RSes with that search, but there are opinions at places I dont know. I think most sources say prisoner or describe where he is held and why Softlem (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Describes himself, If. THis is not enough to say it in our voice. At best we can say "he has been called a political prisoner". Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree its probably DUE for Draft:Reception of Julian Assange Softlem (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I started to add that he said he was a political prisoner to main article, it was already there.Softlem (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As previously discussed, the oft-repeated claim that Assange was never "charged" by Sweden is highly misleading. In Swede, unlike the Anglophone countries the "charging" only happens immediately prior to trial. To state that Assange was never "charged" implies that the prosecution wasn't far advanced at all. Which is false. QED.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

PS. I think the statement that he was called a political prisoner should be in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree this should be included, this is core to the convtroversey surrounding the article subject, is he or is he not a journalist/political prisoner. There are high quality RS on both sides of this debate with Assange supporters saying he is and the US govt that seeks to incarcerate him saying he isnt. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagree

More RSes call him a hacker than political prisoner. Hes the only one who directly called himself a political prisoner and two people compared him. Not worth the lead because theres no real debate

If hes a hacker is more core to the convtroversey surrounding the article subject than if hes a political prisoner and has been for his whole life but we dont call him that we just say he was convicted and has new charges. It already says hes in prison and why, saying in the lead he calls himself a political prisoner breaks NPOV and is unduly self-serving Softlem (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether he should be called a hacker or a journalist are separate issues. Let's stick to the point. He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner. But this is denied by many. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. But prominent claims about the subject should be mentioned in the intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is like the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy. If he leaked information about illegal activities by Russia and they put him in jail, he would be a political prisoner. I think that various opinions should be included in the article.

Per WWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus on the reliability of this source. TFD (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner. No he isnt

But prominent claims about the subject should be mentioned in the intro I agree but this isnt a prominent claim. He made it and two people compared it, one of them saying HE compared it. Thats not notable

TFD is right Softlem (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The claim that he is a political prisoner has been widespread for YEARS. There seems little point in debating assertions that are obviously false. See [29]--Jack Upland (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether he should be called a hacker or a journalist are separate issues. Let's stick to the point. RFCs decided both and had good logic. Same logic goes here. Thats the point

He is famous as someone who is described as a political prisoner. Hes described as a lot of things but thats not what hes famous for

The claim that he is a political prisoner has been widespread for YEARS. Then give secondary RSes that dont attribute to him, the ones that were already posted werent enough for the lead

The parliament text wont load for me, can you quote the right part?

Already agree that it should be in the article and tried to add it but was there already Softlem (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If it is a prominent claim and view about Assange it belongs in the lead for Reception of Julian Assange not this lead

Theres a subarticle about this, we dont put every prominent claim and view about Assange in the lead here. And lead follows body so we add to section and sub article first then this lead if there is enough Softlem (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is what the Hansard says: "Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (18:18): The media have dubbed Julian Assange the most famous political prisoner in the world. He is, for all intents and purposes, a political prisoner."--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think thats due for Reception or Commentary. Maybe more if RSes say it. It should be easy to find RSes if Wilson is right. If not his opinion is still notable and due for the section but not the lead Softlem (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Early life and Before WikiLeaks

@Jack Upland I dont understand the changes to the early section of the article. I think his career before wikileaks should be kept from his early life and wikileaks

I tried the compare tool but it didnt show all the edits Softlem (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to make it neater and more logical. He was hacking when he was 16, so I think that's part of his early life.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hacking prior to wikileaks is not related to wikileaks. Agree this should be separated. This is a BLP and we focus on his life, not on wikileaks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

He was hacking when he was 16, so I think that's part of his early life He was convicted in his twentys and early leaks and activism was later. I dont think putting it in Early life helps readers and articles arent divided by age

Hacking prior to wikileaks is not related to wikileaks Agree and maybe theres a better heading than Before Wikileaks but I dont think Early life fits for almost 30 years, a trial, conviction, leaks, activism and more

Early life should before he did notable things Softlem (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I also support putting it in early life. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the same as other articles, early life should be childhood and everything before he did anything notable

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart keeps Early life for before he was notable. Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#1773–77:_Employment_at_the_Salzburg_court was when he was 17

Why is 27 "early" ? Do other BLPs put major events that late in Early life? Softlem (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I definitely think 'Before Wikileaks' being put so early was wrong. The bits that might be included I would have thought are 'Cypherpunks and programming' and 'Leaks' but they are small and seem to fit in well after 'Arrest and trial' which is about things he did as a youth. I think perhaps just change 'Early life and education' to 'Early life' might be best. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps just change 'Early life and education' to 'Early life' might be best. Agree thats better

The MOS doesnt say about Early life or section names but I dont think other articles have put notable things in Early life

Well I definitely think 'Before Wikileaks' being put so early was wrong I dont understand but I dont have more Softlem (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think "Before WikiLeaks" is ambiguous. It could mean his entire life before WikiLeaks or it could mean a prelude to Wikileaks (for want of a better phrase). As NadVolum said, the two sections that belong in the "prelude" are small and flow on from the hacking section. I think "Early life" is OK as an umbrella heading taking in all his life before WikiLeaks, i.e., before he became world famous. Sure, his hacking conviction put him in the news, but he wasn't world famous, and Australians like me had never heard of him!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer Softlem (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Text relating to rulings by court on CIA actions

I believe the edit by Burrobert [30] is far more consistent with NPOV than the reversion by SPECIFICO in the main article which has now been reverted. If the judge makes a number of rulings it is just wrong to cherrypick some and not report others which are just as important and are just as prominent in the source. NadVolum (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I don't understand why we would ignore the first sentence of the source which says "A lawsuit journalists and allies of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange brought against the CIA advanced in federal court Tuesday after a federal judge turned down a bid by the spy agency to toss out the case ". I think there are three important points from the source that should be included:

- The CIA's request that the suit be thrown out was dismissed by Koeltl

- Some of the lawsuit was dismissed as mentioned in the original edit by Softlem.

- Koeltl ruled that the CIA did breach the plaintiffs privacy rights if it accessed the contents of their phones.

I amended similar edits on the pages Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency and Surveillance of Julian Assange to include all three points. Burrobert (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We should say what was thrown out and what wasnt, not that the entire case wasnt. You say three points 2 and 3 say the same as 1

And the only part of the lawsuit about Assange is that the surveillance of him was dismissed Softlem (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

On reflection I think @Cambial Yellowing: 's reduced version is suitable for this page. The fuller version covering all three points above is appropriate for the pages Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency and Surveillance of Julian Assange since they are more directly related to the surveillance. Burrobert (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

- And that fellow journalists filed the lawsuit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. "Four associates of Assange" could be changed to "two attorneys and two journalists", which is roughly what we say on the "Surveillance of Julian Assange" page. Burrobert (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Kunstler lead says lawyers Margaret Kunstler and Deborah Hrbek, and journalists Charles Glass and John Goetz and it should say lawyers and journalists here Softlem (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A summary of the current situation?

Would it be helpful to add a section that that specifically covers his current situation? 86.184.224.11 (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Running commentaries isn't what Wikipedia is for but something like that can be got from the article pretty straightforwardly. NadVolum (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal issues in Australia

This section consists only of two instances, from a decade and more ago, where Assange could be charged in Australia. Do we really need to take up space with this? If he is actually charged, we can address the issues at that point. Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Walkabout

Assange fell into a deep depression while waiting for his trial and checked himself into a psychiatric hospital and then spent six months walkabout.

Walkabout links to a page that defines it as an Aboriginal rite of passage. Assange is not an Aborigine. I think (from Robert Manne's article) he spent time sleeping rough in a national park. I don't know the best way to phrase this. Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Did assange consider himself to have done a "walkabout"? Its pretty interesting if he did. If others applied the term, the totally agree, probably the wikilink is undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone got access to the book to see what it says?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Softlemonades, as the editor responsible for adding this can you add any light on this?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The book is available on google books. It says "He fell into a deep depression, first checking himself into a mental hospital and then checking out to spend six months on an aimless walkabout, sleeping in the wilderness about Melbourne, frequently walking with his face covered by mosquito bites". So it appears the term "walkabout" comes from the books author, not Assange. Going back a bit, there was some controversy about commentators saying that Evonne Goolagong went walkabout during games. Burrobert (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I tend to double down on my statement then that this is probably undue for a wikilink, as we are giving too much weight to the jargon of a single author. Given that we can use common sense that this isnt anything aboriginal, it is dubious. If Assange himself says he went on a walkabout, then I retract my position and support the link. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

i agree with @Burrobert and @Jtbobwaysf Softlem (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed it to "homeless".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed that unsourced content, and used a near-verbatim gloss on the cited source. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Um, sleeping rough directs to "Homelessness".--Jack Upland (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

“sleeping rough” is not in the source, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Something like walkabout is common to a lot of places, you see young people doing it all the time. If it is going in I see no good reason to change the author's description. NadVolum (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake: "sleeping rough" is what Robert Manne says [31].--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Death?

User @Lacebugger updated the page to report today's death of Assange, without adding any source that Assange is, in fact, dead. Mago Mercurio (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Claim by Leigh and Harding

The claim of "deserve to die" is obviously pretty inflammatory (and had a bearing on the indictment). Andrew O'Hagan reports that Assange denied ever having made this claim. Given the only source is Leigh and Harding, who were in a legal dispute with Assange over precisely this issue, this is not appropriate to include. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There's good evidence Leigh lied. I would take everything he says about Assange with a pinch of salt. I think he seems to have really hated Assange ever since Harding was denied re-entry to Russia but I'm no sure exactly why. John Goetz of Der Spiegel was at the meeting where Assange was supposed to have said that and strongly denies it was ever said, see [32] and there is a signed affadavit by him saying that o the Wikileaks site. NadVolum (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Or [33] may be a better explanation but I'm not sure it is the whole story. NadVolum (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate, per WP:BLP, to say There's good evidence Leigh lied - as far as I can tell, there is no evidence of this, just the claim of Goetz and Assange. Will you please strike it?

Meanwhile, Goetz's claim is suspect; he says "I told [Patrick Forbes] that Julian did not say that at the dinner". However, in the ofcom complaint submitted by Assange (which was not upheld), Channel 4 says "[Patrick Forbes]s confirmed to them that Mr Goetz did not tell him that Mr Assange did not make the statement “they’re informants they deserve to die” and nor did he say words to that effect." It also says "It would be difficult for Mr Goetz to state categorically that Mr Assange did not say these words, particularly when taking into account that the restaurant (Moro) was busy and noisy and the dinner did not take place in a private room." BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Goetz's denial is reported explicity in Harper's Magazine and in Goetz's affidavit. Channel 4's attempt to frame it a certain way in an obviously partial statement (they are trying to defend themselves from misconduct) is not a RS, and is neither here nor there. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Given you don't seem interested in engaging with the arguments I made for inclusion (below), and the "consensus required" restriction on this article, I've opened an RfC below. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim is attributed, and was widely reported (CBS, The Atlantic, NBC, ABC, The Times Washington Post, The Guardian etc)

It's also not just Leigh; Declan Walsh also supports the claim.

I think it would be a WP:BALASP violation to exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This article includes allegations about Assange and allegations by Assange. I support inclusion. Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The method is transparency, the goal is justice

A fair amount of text related to Assange's world view was recently removed from the article because the editor was "Not convinced that this is an improvement - and we need more evidence that these views are sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion". The article currently contains little information about Assange's views. The only time recently that (some) editors showed enthusiasm for including Assange's views was in relation to a (possibly) imaginary statement that would cast him in a poor light. I will break up the text into small packets, provide sources for each and ask editors to decide whether the text would improve the article. To keep the discussion from becoming confused, I will start a separate talk section for each item. The first packet is the sentence

"Assange described WikiLeaks as an activist organisation and said that "The method is transparency, the goal is justice". 

Apparently this was a motto on WikiLeaks' website when it was founded. Here are some sources which support the inclusion of this sentence:

• As recently as last April, [Assange] said, “We are an activist organization. The method is transparency, the goal is justice".[34]
• Assange summed up his anti-war ethos at a 2011 rally in London. "The goal is justice, the method is transparency," he said.[35]
• The goal is justice, the method is transparency — Julian Assange, quoted on p. 277 of Tariq Ali and Margaret Kunstler’s 2019 book, In Defense of Julian Assange
• SPIEGEL: Nine years ago, when WikiLeaks was founded, you could read on its website: "The goal is justice. The method is transparency." This is the old idea of Enlightenment born in the 18th century.[36]

Burrobert (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• And I made my explanation in a THREAD ABOVE, it has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• I think that is documented well enough and important enough to include okay and it is a reflection on Assange rather than just the organisation. NadVolum (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet his actions contradict that. We go by reliable sources, not what the subject claims. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of a few editors in a talk section above, I have added this to the WikiLeaks article. Burrobert (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Enemy of the (United) State(s)

Are there any reasons why Wikipedia cannot highlight the shameful way that media outlets are willing allow Julian Assange (their one-time hero) to rot in jail, while at the the same time rushing to report the death of a (relatively minor) ACTORvist in Russia? 95.147.153.31 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have seen a few sources that have pointed out the disparity in the media's treatment of the two, but can't recall seeing it in a source we can use here. If you know of any, please post here. It might be worth adding Navalny to the See Also section given there are some similarities in their situations. Burrobert (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise.

While I cannot point to the kind of sources you are requesting, are not the (related) issues current and high profile enough to deserve a mention? I know rules are rules, but... 95.147.153.31 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well one reason is, I would argue that one has not actually been murdered or even actually poisoned with an actual nerve agent (so two reasons). Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:5P1 - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS I think covers that. You'll have to find good sources covering that. Wikipedia follows - it does not lead. NadVolum (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the two of them are very similar.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Journalism in the lead

@Richard-of-Earth: i noted your removal of Spoilerceaser (talk · contribs)'s add to the lead. We did indeed reach consensus that this term would not be used in teh first sentence of the lead. However, there was a lot of support for this content to be in the lead in some way and that was summarized in the close. I have added that to the lead in the 3rd paragraph in a neutral way. I think we should be doing something to add this to the lead given the continued interest by editors to have it there. This content is clearly WP:DUE in the lead, as we are summarizing the key point of notoriety of this subject. We can run another RFC on this if you feel it shouldn't be there. I think this can also reasonable assuage the editors that are seeking to the be the lead, but dont know that we already have had an rfc on it (as you correctly point out). Spoilerceaser, please do not keep adding this to the first sentence, you will likely get a ban for it if you continue. Hopefully this is enough to meet your goals, noting this is a somewhat controversial point on this article (an already controversial article). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was to not to describe Assange as a journalist in Wikipedia's voice. That is the current consensus and I think it applies to anywhere on Wikipedia. Your edit does not violate that and I have no objection to it. Spoilerceaser, your edit does. You added it to the short description which is in Wikipedia's voice. I reverted and told you why and then you just did it again with no discussion or rationalization. So I have reverted it again. It is not edit warring on my part to enforce the consensus of an RFC nor to remove disruptive editing. As editors we are suppose to be working together to improve Wikipedia. I personally do not care for Assange and I do not think he should be described as a journalist. However, I feel he should be afforded the same protection that journalists receive for his actions in regard to Wikileaks as a publisher and contact point for whistleblowers. It is not like he was selling this information to the enemies of any state or using the information for extortion. The way he is being treated is shameful and an abuse of the justice system that is suppose to protect us, not suppress freedom of the press. He is still not a journalist as far as I am concern. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

Enough time has passed to raise an RfC to change the consensus if you like. NadVolum (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I dont see any reason to challenge the RFC consensus relating to the short description and I didnt change that in my edit. Is Assage today more referred to as a journalist than he was a few years ago? I dont follow the news on this enough to know, but I am guessing nothing much has changed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We can have another RFC, but until the old one is overturned it stands. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for not calling him a journalist? I at a loss here. It does seem to me that he meets every criterion that someone should meet in order to be called a journalist. 94.205.38.119 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC saying we should not say it. But one reason stated was not everyone agrees he is a journalist. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 17#Request for Comment - Journalist. Have you some new point to make? it would be best to discuss that first. Even if not if you feel a new RfC could overturn that decision you are certainly welcome to open one as plenty of time has passed since then. NadVolum (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the points raised earlier? I cannot find any? All i can see is a single paragraph where someone seems to say that they dont believe he is a journalist without qualifying it in any way. Surely the reputation of someone who, regardless of what you may think of him, lost a decade if his life because of his work in journalism, shouldn't tarnished without atleast a proper argument. 94.205.38.119 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Read the NO votes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Has there ever been a journalist with more awards and accolades? No. Explore this interactive map showcasing Julian Assange’s awards for journalism, local honours and accolades: https://freeassange.org/free-assange-interactive-map/ --91.54.26.201 (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what i was saying. He has published more consequential news stories than the new york times has in the past 100 years. It is absured that we are not calling him a journalist. 94.205.38.119 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

he doesnt publish stories Softlem (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I find it entitely absurd that a man who has won as many journalism awards isnt good enough to be considered a journalist by wikipedia https://freeassange.org/free-assange-interactive-map/

. I woild like to propose that we vote on this again 94.205.38.119 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

We have already discussed this above. You can start a new RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

the lead says Assange has won multiple awards for publishing and journalism. Softlem (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• As much as I would support using the term journalist in the lead, I more support our existing wikipedia norms which would indicate that we need another RFC to overturn a previous RFC, especially on a contentious matter in which nothing has really changed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)