Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

add new section - something like "Assange supporter"

i think a new section - or subsection - named "Assange supporter" or something like this, have to be placed in this article. Is valuable part of the Assange life - even in resist against the bad things - the worldwide support that simple people, and famous people, showed and show for him.

one more:

Australia: “Teachers for Assange and Manning” campaign in Melbourne

www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/03/07/cfpe-m07.html

--5.170.45.99 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Australian teachers are simple people? HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If so, you're right.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Compared to some famous people supporting Assange (as in example www.assangecampaign.org.au/petition-to-german-parliament-release-julian-assange-from-prison/ ), Australian teachers can be named "simple" (common) people; is not an offence.
In the same way, teachers - especially famous university teachers - can be considered more important people compared to other (even if famous);
But please stay on the topic, the proposal for a new section, with a cronological list of worldwide Assange supporters / Supporter actions.
...uhm, maybe, as the list is very long, here can be placed just a short paragraph about this, and the full list can be placed in other dedicated article.
--5.170.47.70 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it? lots of people have fans, that does not mean we list every Jon Pertwee fan club.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious?
If yes, i suggest you do other in your life instead than edit/vinculate the edits of wikipedia.
If you're not: HAHAHA!! :-)
--5.170.47.70 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am serious, why are what some teachers in Australian thinking relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I think it is relevant but we can't have a standalone section for this. It can be placed in the section "Reactions in Australia". Is that okay?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is not restricted to the Australian teachers mentioning; what is missed in this article about Julian Assange is something like what is present at Pussy_Riot#International_support; then is required not just adding the australian teachers source on Reactions in Australia, but a new section Julian_Assange#International_support with a lot more (and the local reaction sections can so be deleted, moving here what there present); at the moment, even the heartfelt support of Roger Waters to Assange is not reported ( don't you know? see www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-extradition-protest-london-wikileaks-parliament-embassy-vivienne-westwood-a9352831.html and rogerwaters.com/assange-london-speech/ ). --5.170.47.36 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

So what percentage of teachers belong to this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note: "Reactions in Australia" are reactions to the US indictment. With regard to the Australia teachers, that article is published by the World Socialist Web Site. It says that, '“Teachers for Assange and Manning” was initiated by the CFPE as a result of a series of resolutions passed at Footscray City Secondary College moved by Will Marshall, a longstanding Socialist Equality Party (SEP) and CFPE member.' The CFPE (Committee for Public Education) was established by the SEP.[1] Socialist Equality Party (Australia) is a tiny Trotskyist group which gets miniscule electoral support.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

proposal to add "International support" section in Julian Assange article

As the most part of the few reply has not been on topic ( pointing focus only on a marginal part of the proposal), is better to start again:

I think is good to add a new section named "International support" in the same way as is present Pussy_Riot#International_support, to be similar, in order expose the worldwide support to Assange.

At the same time, i propose to add the two source below, quoted in the new section (and anyway in the article)

www.assangecampaign.org.au/petition-to-german-parliament-release-julian-assange-from-prison/

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-extradition-protest-london-wikileaks-parliament-embassy-vivienne-westwood-a9352831.html

--5.170.46.77 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• indifferent Oppose but it should not turn into a list of every village school assembly that passes a resolution supporting Mr Assange. Nor should it be sourced to primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  Changes to oppose as any proposal that is treated so flippantly by its proponents cannot have any real solid ground.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Proponents was not Burrobert; you change idea 'cause is your right, but you're not right.
Anyway, I hope none never more start tell you in flippantly way anything, and especially something like "2+2=4", otherwise you will probably conclude that in real it's not. --5.170.47.221 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"proponents", those who support this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• No thanks. Support for Assange might be historical, prior to his establishment as a Kremlin asset, or might pre-date the rape accusations. When someone has had such huge changes to their reputation over time, any section focusing on support has the capacity to seriously mislead. Also the first source fails WP:RS. Guy (help!) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You're pushing it: "cultists"; "Kremlin asset"; "rape accusations".     ←   ZScarpia   00:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really starting to wonder where the line is for WP:BLPTALK, or whether there even is a line. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy makes a good point. For example, Jemima Goldsmith is a lot less supportive than she was.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

*You're talking about nothing related to this topic*; as is show above this is not a proposal of section for " worldwide Assange official fan club Historical members", but to do a list of supporter/actions for his freedom/denial of extradition, like - and as *above quoted* - what is present on Pussy_Riot#International_support (where is about what happended as support for pussy riot members when they face prison for the "surprise show" in a churc);
So please read better the question before to do off topic answer. --5.171.0.82 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
p.s.: and even, what about "first source fails"??? where is the "first source" in the proposal? (....) --5.171.0.82 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea. Can it be done without disrupting the current article. There is already a lot of international support spread through the article which would then need to be moved to avoid duplication. He has received a large amount of support from various parts of the world (though notably little from his own country's leading politicians) so creating a section under that heading could work. On the other hand placing the support in its relevant chronological section would also work. By the way, while we are speaking about support here, the same argument would also apply to criticism, except that this hasn't been as plentiful. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nix. First off he's kinda stateless these days, so everything is "international". Second, it's just a cherrypick trap and would lead to all sorts of snippets of this guy liked his hair, this one liked him helping Putin, this one liked him publishing this or that. Editors can't be in the role of "curating" from the vast number of statements that have been made referring to him over the years. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! You're not the first that don't full read the question before reply (se above "Guy" and "Jack Upland") ...but i hope you will be the last. --5.170.45.2 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We've already rejected the 150 Germans thing. It's easier to discuss when it's out of the context of exaggerated German-centric views of world affairs. So it's worth commenting on the larger issue before Spaniards and Congolese chime in with their own petitions. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Now you add 1 reply in topic (you reject to add the link about german petition), you don't reject Roger Waters source, but you forget to reply to the main topic question (new section proposal), and you mainly freely speak off topic - about i can't understand other things (note: i'm not german): not so good. :-(
So try again: What your opinion about the proposal?
--5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I see you are not a native English speaker. "Nix" means "No" No new section as proposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You said *nix* to nothing related with what is proposed. What is proposed is a Pussy_Riot#International_support section style; if you check it, you can see nothing of what you reject with your *nix* is present. --5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• No The last thing the article needs is slurping fan club missives. Zaathras (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So nobody read what is Pussy_Riot#International_support: not a place for fan club, or other stupid things. --5.170.44.21 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have. Not applicable. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF when you can spare a moment of your busy day. Zaathras (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

...too busy, i'm already reading WP:don't-do-this, WP:don't-do-that, and WP:say-nothing
--5.170.44.21 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

How did this get into the International Support section of the Pussy Riot article? Aren't they monitoring German influence over there?:

A letter of support from 120 members of the German parliament, the Bundestag, was sent to the Russian Ambassador to Germany, Vladimir Grinin. It described proceedings against the women as disproportionate and draconian.

Burrobert (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Guess the difference is this was a letter signed only by German MP's, and was sent to the Russian ambassador, rather than just being published in the media.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is because their Germans wrote the letter in black ink and our Germans used blue ink. Burrobert (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was there are real differences between the two documents.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So was mine. Burrobert (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You have seen the original letters, care to provide a link?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I admit that some educated guess work was required to deduce the colours but it is a very plausible explanation. Burrobert (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot take this seriously neither can I, hence why I have now changed my choice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the two documents have differences, as is not these differences leading the wiki reject of the german petition for Assange. Also, check the Roger_Waters#Other_activism last edit (not mine), about Aamir Aziz: check how it was, and ask yourself why it was not reported the London event cause.
Let me start a question: the same people that is fighting Assange reputation, with fake rape in Sweden, with spy-crime accusation, etc., can let Assange free to appear as defended by the world on wikipedia? after having doing so much to put the support to Assange under silence on all the other massmedia? I don't think so. --5.170.47.221 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Point of fact: the RfC above is tending very strongly towards inclusion of the German appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

well.. we will see the final result (...) What i want to say is that we are in the same circumstance of the questions about if 1946 Italian institutional referendum had a fake results: would the United States ever allow a true monarchy (perhaps hostile, perhaps not - it doesn't matter) to remain at the head of the nation they had defeated? I don't think so. --5.171.0.136 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Point of policy The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. This nonsense died out after approximately 4 days and has not been mentioned since. The Americans call this "nothingburger" the Germans might translate to nichtsschnitzel or something. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is he being defended by the whole world? What percentage of German MP's have supported him openly? As to why the media do not do something, that is not our concern, our concern is what we do.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

See the above discussions, including the RfC. Given the widespread media coverage of the German appeal and the prominence of the supporters, I've argued for inclusion of two short sentences. The RfC is leaning heavily towards inclusion in some form. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is also not the whole world. In fact I seem to recall reading about how his case has not has quite the impact among ordinary people it should have. Just one in nine Britons (11%) have a positive opinion of Julian Assange. Sorry but he doe not enjoy huge support or sympathy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of support from prominent politicians, jurists, journalists and cultural figures. Some of this is mentioned in the article. I don't know if it's better to organize this support into a separate section or to discuss it in the relevant sections. What guides how much overall space in the article to give international support for Assange, however, is the weight of coverage in reliable sources, not opinion polling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a moment in the big facts history, where people become accomplices to historical crimes, even killing none, simply by not doing what is necessary to maintain rightness and freedom in their world; and it can happen even following wiki-laws without feel when something is wrong. --5.171.0.136 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The article already has a very high opinion/fact ratio. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article already has a large amount about "supporters", especially in the "Reactions" section. Given that opinions change over time (like Jemima Goldsmith's), and that there are different shades of opinion (e.g., Nils Melzer does not argue that Assange is innocent), putting them all together would be misleading. Wikipedia policy is opposed to Criticism and Controversy sections (see WP:CSECTION), and I think a supporters section would be just as bad.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article is already overwhelmed with unencyclopedic content of this sort. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and users need to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Ola Bini

Does Ola Bini really belong here? He was arrested and released without charge. It seems to be a minor incident with little connection to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Given there has been no response, I have removed the paragraph.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Mueller and GRU content in the lede

I make a new section, as the above section seems to focus on an editor's (mine) edit summary rather than the content. Jack Upland made some edits and at least as far as this one, seems correct and neutral.

This uncited statement is in the lede (two sentences in length):

Sentence 1: The U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as a Special Counsel investigation, concluded that the Russian government carried out a hacking campaign as part of broader efforts of interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Sentence 2: In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charged the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread stolen documents.

While uncontroversial and probably a summary of some other article, how does it relate to Assange? Was Assange named in the Special Counsel's report? Both statements imply a connection. If Assange was in the report then these statements are WP:WEASEL and must be re-written. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Assange was named. That content is about proven GRU actions with WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks=Assange. It's very relevant:

"The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."

Assange is an enemy of Hillary Clinton and a Trump ally who has obeyed Trump by denying that Russia was involved in the hacks and dissemination of stolen documents by WikiLeaks. Trump offered him a pardon for doing so.

This is one of the best documented cases of Russian hacking around, and we can thank Dutch intelligence for it. Starting in 2014, long before Trump's campaign started officially (but already in 2013 the Russians were starting to publically promise him their support for his coming candidacy, long before Trump let Americans know of his plans), Dutch intelligence succeeded in "monitoring" Russian hackers by hacking the surveillance cameras inside and outside where they did the hacking. They got pictures of each hacker, identified them, compiled dossiers on each hacker, recorded their keystrokes, and watched them perform the hacking in real-time. That's why specific Russian hackers have been indicted.

When you think of all this evidence, the denials by Trump and Assange, and efforts to cover-up Russian involvement and Trump campaign complicity, are pretty ludicrous. They were "caught with their pants down", and we have the "pictures to prove it", so to speak. Of course, Trump claims this is all "fake news". I suspect there's a diagnosis for those who believe that one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Julian Assange: Choosing Between Trump or Clinton is Like Picking Between Cholera or Gonorrhea

CIA Director Pompeo Calls WikiLeaks ‘Hostile’ Entity ‘Often Abetted By State Actors Like Russia’ , Mike Pompeo About CIA : We lied, We cheated, We stole -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, I don't think this belongs in the lead. It is only tangentially related to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• The latter part is clearly relevant. The former part is probably necessary for context, especially since it's difficult to understand the extradition without it. Guy (help!) 10:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Overlong maybe, but yes this is very relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, this should be included. And speaking on the essence of the controversy (this and and next thread), yes sure, Assange effectively works as an agent of influence on the behalf of Russian government. This is a well sourced view outlined in the Mueller report (see also, for example, here: [2], [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, it must not be included. It is not relevant to Assange as Assange is not in the report paragraphs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Assange comes up 44 times in the unredacted parts of volume I of the report.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• @SharʿabSalam: What is your basis for saying that Assange is not in the Mueller report? This strains credulity. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wow! SharabSalam, I have spent days (weeks!) searching the Mueller Report (it's stored on my PC and is always open), and the word "Assange" occurs 40 times, "WikiLeaks" 200 times, Guccifer 59 times, DCLeaks 68 times, and GRU 139 times. Keep in mind that Assange=WikiLeaks. Mueller describes the coordination between Assange and GRU agents, including their cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. They did a lot together, making Assange a central figure in the Russian interference. Of course, he lied about it all, and obeyed Trump's wishes for him to deny the Russians were involved, in exchange for a pardon offered by Trump. Yes, there are RS behind this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, no response? Do you still maintain that Assange is not in the Mueller report? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• I meant the two paragraphs at the top. They don't mention Assange. I didnt notice your responses. I just added this article to my watchlist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: several editors have said this is "relevant" or something similar. But that isn't the question. The question is whether it should be in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Very notable and should be included in the lead. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, it's USA-centric Undue weight. Most people outside the United States have never heard of the Mueller Report and don't care about U.S. domestic politics. Assange's WikiLeaks has published leaks from many other countries. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Tobby72, that's an irrelevant "other things" argument. We do both, not just one. One does not exclude the other, so don't try to exclude. Be an inclusionist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Inclusionism doesn't apply to the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe not, but its also an exaggeration to claim that the report is is almost unheard of outside the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed excessive detail about Russiagate in lede

I've removed one sentence about Russiagate from the lede (diff):

In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charged the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread the stolen documents.

Space in the lede is limited. The indictment of GRU officers is only tangentially related to Assange. Given the desire expressed by many editors in above discussions to keep the lede concise, it makes sense to cut out this detail. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, no mention of Assange in this content, not biographical and over-weighted in lede. Article already has problems with excessive wikileaks focus and non-biographical information. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

By my count, here is the breakdown of coverage in the lede:

• WikiLeaks: 67 words (most of first paragraph)
• Sweden and Ecuadorean asylum: 142 words (2nd paragraph)
• Russiagate: 132 words (3rd paragraph)
• Extradition battle: 162 words (4th paragraph)

What is the justification for giving Russiagate this level of detail in the lede? Is it really twice as important than all of WikiLeaks' other leaks combined? Earlier, an editor did an analysis of media coverage of Assange that indicated coverage peaking in 2010 (link), at the time of the release of diplomatic cables and records on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are also the leaks that Assange's current extradition battle revolve around. That would suggest that these leaks are more important to his biography than Russiagate is. Even worse, it's hard to see what the justification is for dedicating 44 words (nearly as much as is dedicated to WikiLeaks in the lede) to Mueller's indictment of GRU agents - an event that is only tangentially related to Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You reverted my edit to re-add disputed content. Maybe I am confused by this, but I thought I was removing disputed content that had already been re-added by Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs). Maybe there is some earlier history before today that I am not aware of? Or are you and Snoogs re-adding disputed content? Your edit summary I understand to me I am adding content, which I am not. Or do the discretionary sanctions state that nothing can also be removed if someone opposes it as well? Or is it for the addition of content? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi my edit summary was incorrect. This was longstanding consensus content, at least since last November. So the removal was a Bold edit and Snoogs challenged the removal with his revert. My understanding is therefore that the Bold edit (removal) stands reverted, and the content restored, unless consensus is reached for the removal. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Russiagate is given too much detail in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't adopt Thucydides411's disparaging "Russiagate", Jack. You are not a POV editor. "Wikileaks" is indistinguishable from Assange, the person. Assange actively promoted the Russian interference even from his hideout in the embassy through statements to the press. The prosecution of his accomplices is entirely suitable for a brief lead mention. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: do we also need consensus to remove content as SPECIFICO is asserting? This article has an excessive focus on wikileaks the organization at the expense of biographical info on Assange. Jack and I have been discussing this above for a week I guess (with no input from either of these editors), then another editor tries to remove one thing, and the editors point to sanctions. Seems pretty extreme. Do we have to do an RfC one by one to remove content in this issue? Or do a larger scope RfC first to get permission to reduce the wikileaks organization content? I find this unbelievable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I found an answer to my own question. DS says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Thus it appears this would apply to both deleting content and adding content. Is my reading of it correct? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's making a mountain out of a mole hill. Most Bold edits are improvements and are never challenged. Then there's no revert, no DS "consensus" requirement and certainly no RfC. But as you well know, most of this article talk page file space consists of a small number of highly contentious issues raised by a few editors. So in those cases, that is what happens. At least, with consensus required, it's not at the expense of article stability. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What I am seeking clarification on is if the DS covers both removal of content and addition, or just addition. Probably whole paragraphs of wikileaks content needs to be summarized and removed, so if removal of once sentence is contentious then I guess more would be as well. Wikileaks has its own article after all. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to that point. A Bold change to longstanding content is presumed to be against consensus, but if there is no objection it becomes the new consensus. That is how it has been interpreted in the American Politics articles under "consensus required". Could you point us to the week-long discussion you referenced about removing this text? SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure Talk:Julian_Assange#Structure_again. Please join the discussion. Its not much of a discussion, only Jack and me agreeing ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Russiagate" is a neutral description of the entire affair (the accusations surrounding Russia and the 2016 elections, the Mueller investigation, etc.). It's given far too much space in the lede (about twice as much as WikiLeaks). As the media analysis I linked above (here it is again) shows, the leaks in 2010 dominate coverage of Assange. Over the last year, coverage has been dominated by the extradition case and the related political/legal issues (particularly freedom of the press).

Unless SPECIFICO or Snooganssnoogans want to respond to these specific points, reverting to reinstate the disputed sentence in the lede is inappropriate. WP:DS are not meant to be used as a tool for blockading any changes one doesn't like. You're still required to justify your edits. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Snooganssnoogans second ping, do you have justification for your revert? If not, we shall remove the content. You cant just revert and fail to discuss here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal: the "GRU" sentence is too much detail for the lead and is tangential to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal as well. There has never been an explanation provided for why this one part of Assange's life dominates the lead of the article. It is totally out of balance with available sources. It also fails to accurately reflect the most intense coverage that Assange received in his career during the Irag, Afghan and Diplomatic document publications. And it fails to reflect the fact that Assange is now facing extradition to the US while being charged for those publications. -Darouet (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal per Darouet.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal per Darouet Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support removal, for the reasons I explained above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If Assange's actions regarding the 2016 election are to be covered in the lead, along with Assange's denials of working with Russia, then it's obviously pertinent to note that the U.S. indicted a number of Russian intel agents for committing cybercrimes against American citizens and then handing the stolen info over to Assange's organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Uh no, you are still POV pushing that Assange = wikileaks. Your flawed justification could also be sufficient to delete the wikileaks content and merge it all on to this BLP. Obviously ridiculous Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If you somehow believe that Wikileaks is irrelevant to Assange (a ludicrous assertion, given that it's his main claim to notability), you should strike your "Support removal per Darouet", as his argument centers on how Assange's organization has received coverage for many more things than the 2016 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are not convincing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Because we do not count votes around here, "support per XXX" is irrelevant to the discussion. This will need to remain open long enough to gather some thoughtful views from more than the "usual suspects". At least the BLP claim has been debunked, so there's no basis to remove it because Wikilinks is not Assange, etc. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks is inseparable from Assange.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks and Assange are certainly closely linked. But the GRU sentence is one of a number on the topic of the 2016 election that doesn't belong in the lead of the Julian Assange biography. Assange is facing extradition and as many as 175 years in prison for the Afghan War Logs, Iraq War Logs, and Diplomatic Cables publications. Not for the 2016 DNC leaks.

If you're interested in adding pertinent information about Assange's life to the lead of his biography, consider mentioning that Human Rights Watch [5], the Committee to Protect Journalism [6], the UN OHCHR [7], the ACLU [8], the Council of Europe, and doctors writing in the Lancet [9] all oppose his mistreatment and extradition [10]. -Darouet (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a stunning change of subject pivot that any US politician would admire. The part with your Original Research attributing his notability to everything except the DNC email hack is unconvincing. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your opinion of Assange's notability based on? You haven't yet backed up your view of the importance of the DNC emails to Assange's biography with any source analysis. On the other hand, Darouet has shown pretty convincingly that Assange is most notable for the 2010 leaks: [11]. So what's your basis for emphasizing the DNC emails? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is true, then this article should be redirected to the Wikileaks article. That's what we do with "inseparable" subjects. If not, then it would appear that are quite separable. GMG^talk 17:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of support here for removing the sentence about GRU agents from the lede. It looks like a rough consensus to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Per SPECIFICO, we don't do vote counts. This is rather important information, especially given that Russia is already trying to repeat its 2016 interference in 2020, and I would say there is no consensus to remove it from the lead. Guy (help!) 15:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, we don't do vote counts, but we have to have some way of determining consensus.

This is a page about Julian Assange, and what goes in the page should be based on relevance to Julian Assange's biography, not on relevance to the 2020 US Presidential election. The information about GRU agents may be very important to US elections, but it's only tangentially related to Assange.

The vote count - which doesn't count for everything but also doesn't count for nothing - appears to be strongly in favor of removal, and in my humble opinion, the policy-based arguments are as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand that you (and a few others) want to minimise and ideally remove any mention of the Kremlin's use of Assange as part of its 2016 election interference campaign. In my view, though, helping Putin to get Trump installed in the White House may well turn out to be the single most consequential thing Assange has ever done. The discussion above establishes little. Try an RfC with a few options. Guy (help!) 16:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your personal view about what's consequential in Assange's life is just that - your personal view. It's not the view that Wikipedia policy requires us to represent. We're required to go on reliable sources. Are there reliable sources that substantiate your view about the indictment of GRU agents being essential in a short recap of Assange's life? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, my personal view is no more important here than yours. So let's have that RfC. What are your two or three proposals for how we should reflect the Kremlin's use of Assange, within the lead? Clearly it does need an RfC because multiple non-WP:SPA editors dispute it, and you are a WP:SPA so you don't get to dictate. Guy (help!) 21:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Before going down the RfC route yet again, perhaps you could bolster your view with reliable sourcing. As I see it, there is both a sizable majority in favor of removal, and the argument for inclusion is not based on anything other than personal opinions. Those two things, in conjunction, suggest that there's a consensus for removal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an American analogy will help Thucydides and his cohorts to understand. The sports star O. J. Simpson was once a renowned and beloved celebrity for his athletic feats. However, he is best known today as the convicted felon whose later actions eclipsed his initial fame. JzG has put it in a nutshell, and Wikipedia is not going to mirror the denials of Assange's off-wiki fan club. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We have now reached going round in circles, this is not going anywhere slowly and so either an RFC or DR is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is needed to decide each and every edit to the article. Above, there is both a majority of editors in favor of removal, and proponents of keeping the sentence in the lede have not advanced any substantive arguments for inclusion. Personal views about what will turn out to be Assange's most important acts are not relevant here. Sources are. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Thucydides. This is unrelated and excessive details in the lead to push POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What POV would that be? Guy (help!) 21:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. POV, that Assange was a Russian asset. This article already suffers from American POV. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Pardon, but it sounds like you're saying it suffers from a lack of the Russian POV. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I always advocate for an Assyrian POV.

@Slatersteven: there's been a lot of discussion here about what weight to accord the 2016 elections, both in the body and in the lead. If you wanted to propose DR I'd support it. DR discussions are moderated and therefore tend to be productive. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It lacks from all POVs except U.S. POV. The U.S. POV is given undue weight in the lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed this article has excess US focus, it was even tagged as such. Eventually the editors removed it without any significant change. Probably this NPOV can only be dealt with though RfC process, certainly consensus will not be formed on these talk pages among AP2 editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A quick Google indicates that you get twice as many hits for Assange + Russia as Assange - Russia, so it appears on the face of it as if the supposed US-centric view is shared by the real world, not just Wikipedia. This is not a surprise: Putin's destabilisation of the US and EU in 2016 has been globally disruptive. Guy (help!) 08:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam The "US POV" nonsense needs to stop. There is an international consensus view of what happened in 2016, and the fact of Russia using Wikileaks via the GRU cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks forms part of that. All denial of these facts is traceable back to the Kremlin - including the conspiracy theories promoted by Trump. Sure, Putin denies it. WP:MANDY. It's a POV in the same way that the Earth being a globe is a POV.

Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia written from a mainstream point of view. Continuing to advocate for the idea that this is anything other than established fact is disruptive and indicates that your mechanism for telling truth from fiction is badly out of line with Wikipedia policy. Guy (help!) 08:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, this is an issue of weight and balance. There is no question about whether GRU agents were indicted in the US. The question is why that fact deserves a sentence in the lede of a biography of Julian Assange. You've argued that it should be included because you personally view the issue of Russia and the 2016 US Presidential election as the most important aspect of Julian Assange's life. I've asked you if that assessment is based on any reliable sourcing, and I have also pointed to evidence that Assange is actually much better known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications and his ongoing legal battles. I still have not seen a reasonable answer as to why the indictment of GRU agents has to take up limited space in the lede of a biography of Julian Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You and I agree that it's a question of weight and balance, and I suggest that is best resolved by an RfC with a couple of different options. SharabSalam, however, disputes the facts and characterises them as a "US POV". That is disturbing in a project that is supposed to be based on the shared body of fact. It's like encountering an honest-to-goodness climate change denier. We don't see many of them around here. Guy (help!) 09:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the climate change comment is off topic and sounds like an insult. I too support an RfC and think that step by step we can prune down the US focus. I think it is mostly related to the wikileaks involvement in the us election, we could start with that. If there are sentences that dont relate to assange at all, then start by deleting those (the argument that Assange = wikileaks I doubt will stand up to RfC inspection). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, there is no international consensus. There is a report by the US government that alleges that Russia intervened in their elections. In fact the U.S. refuses to allow an international investigation (just like they also dont want the International Criminal Court to investigate their war crimes in Afghanistan) Russia disputes that and only the U.S. government is pushing that -probably false- story. We should maintain NPOV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, English language RS are agreed that Russia interfered, and we base most of our content on them. There are many, not just one, sources for this conclusion: many investigations and reports, both Republican and Democratic, as well as foreign and domestic intelligence agencies and cybersecurity professionals.

You have not yet provided any RS which say otherwise. Claims made by you which are not based on RS are misuses of this talk page, and you should stop making such claims.

Russia denies they did it, and RS document their deceptive denials. We know that. RS tell us they are lying, and that Trump actively provides cover for them, leading to many notable accusations in RS of him acting like a Russian asset. No American president has ever acted like this. It's truly bizarre and worrying.

You state: "the U.S. refuses to allow an international investigation..." Please provide reliable sources for that claim. I have never heard that claim before in any RS. I have never heard any RS mention an attempted "international investigation". -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

English language RSs base what they are saying on the Mueller report findings. They are not the primary source. The only primary source here the U.S. government's own investigation. There is no international consensus or independent investigation. Russia disputes the U.S. findings.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

But we base our content on RS. You are not providing any RS which are contrary. You are also referring to the Mueller Report and the US government as if those are the only sources. There are many others. I mention them.

You state: "the U.S. refuses to allow an international investigation..." Please provide reliable sources for that claim. I have never heard that claim before in any RS. I have never heard any RS mention an attempted "international investigation".

Now answer that question. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If this happens again, I think it's time to put a stop to it. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor Jtbobwaysf has decided to block me from this article

Having failed to have me blocked on an admin noticeboard, the editor Jtbobwaysf has taken it upon himself to indiscriminately revert whatever edits I make this to this article in the future. The editor admitted as much in this edit.[12] The editor decided to restore content sourced to a dead link and a tweet. The edit I made should be restored ASAP.[13] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont have privileges to block someone from an article. You are continuing WP:TE on the same content you had a long noticeboard incident about. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You have literally stated that I am not allowed to make an edit to the article. As for your nonsensical claim of TE, please explain what was tendentious about the edit. Was it the removal of a dead link to a website called "haaveru.com"? Was it the removal of a tweet? Was it the addition of commentary by a recognized expert? In your edit, you literally said I was personally not allowed to edit this content, and you now the audacity to accuse me of tendentious editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Report it at wp:ani, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning a username in the talk page section header is something sanctionable if repeated.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a very old thread. Drop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for help to the Queen

• www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1243706/Royal-Family-latest-Julian-Assange-news-queen-elizabeth-ii-wikileaks-founder-rape Tabloid, fails WP:RS

@JzG/Guy: I'm not sure you're right rejecting this RS;
I've found a lot of Articles where www.express.co.uk is quoted as RS:
British_Heart_Foundation#cite_ref-19
Henning_Wehn#cite_ref-13
Napalm#cite_ref-30
HM_Prison_East_Sutton_Park#cite_ref-5
Nao_(robot)#cite_note-23
UK_Independence_Party#cite_ref-129
Babylonokia#External_links
Stagecoach_East_Scotland#cite_ref-14
Eid_Mubarak#cite_ref-1
Ray_Quinn#cite_ref-12
...
--5.170.47.130 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• consortiumnews.com/2020/02/23/assange-a-tale-of-three-extraditions/ Fails WP:RS, see prior discussions at WP:RSN

@JzG/Guy: Can you please tell what topic on WP:RSN is related?
Also, about consortiumnews.com, I see that Robert Parry (journalist), one of the last director, was awarded with George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984, I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015, and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2017: so it seems the consortiumnews.com can be a reliable source, and I'm not sure you're right rejecting this RS. --5.170.47.130 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• twitter.com/kungfu_mandarin/status/1229038902452813831 Random Tweets fail WP:RS

@JzG/Guy: I'm not sure you're right rejecting this RS;
I've found a lot of Articles where twitter.com is quoted as RS:
Muse:_Drones_World_Tour#cite_ref-2
2017–18_Kuwaiti_Premier_League#cite_ref-2
2019_Chicago_Fire_season#cite_ref-48
2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado#cite_ref-7
Blue_Swan_Records#cite_ref-5
2020_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Georgia#cite_ref-16
...
--5.170.47.130 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Go and ask at WP:RSN, you'll get the same answer. The Express has a long history of printing utter bollocks about the Royal Family especially, Consortium News is little more than a blog and has been discussed several times and found unreliable, Twotter is a primary self-published source and not authoritative, we use it only for the comments of notable people about themselves. Don't be misled into thinking other abuses of a source in any way supports adding one more abuse. Guy (help!) 21:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

--5.170.45.89 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Which she has turned down, none issue.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Also this:

• [Redacted] evasion of spam blacklist, do not reinstate.

"Petitioner's Request for Royal Pardon for Julian Assange from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" (22nd January, 2020)

--5.170.47.219 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You need reliable independent secondary sources. Also if you reinstate the blacklist-evading content again you may be blocked from editing. Guy (help!) 14:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Other RS for "Chris Lonsdale letter" and "Phillip Adams petition" to the Queen

About "Chris Lonsdale letter":

• rightsandwrongs.co.uk/quick-links/136-politics-britain/34611-free-julian-assange-you-pathetic-man-boris

"Queen Elizabeth won’t get involved in Julian Assange case because it’s a POLITICAL matter – Buckingham Palace" (16 Feb, 2020)

• dailytimes.com.pk/559758/queen-elizabeth-wont-get-involved-in-julian-assange-case/

"Queen Elizabeth won’t get involved in Julian Assange case" (February 17, 2020)

About "Phillip Adams petition" for Royal prerogative of mercy:

• www.assangecampaign.org.au/prerogative-of-mercy-with-250000-petition-signatories-delivered-to-the-queen-of-england-and-australia/

"Prerogative of Mercy with 250,000 petition signatories delivered to the Queen of England and Australia" (January 23, 2020)

• andrewwilkie.org/massive-petition-to-free-julian-assange-tabled-in-australian-parliament-today/

"Massive petition to free Julian Assange tabled in Australian Parliament today" (10Feb, 2020)

• www.assangecampaign.org.au/the-petition-officially-tabled-in-the-australian-house-of-representatives-10-2-2020-by-andrew-wilkie-mp/

"The Petition Officially Tabled in the Australian House of Representatives 10-2-2020, by Andrew Wilkie MP" (February 10, 2020)

• www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2020/02/11/auricht-all-the-way-with-usa-on-fate-of-assange/

"Cr Auricht: All the way with USA on fate of Assange" (13 February 2020)

• www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO2002/S00131/global-protests-speak-up-for-julian-assange.htm

"Global Protests - Speak Up For Julian Assange" (21 February 2020)

Please do not edit what above; anything to say about this above can be placed here below.

Remember that we are here to talk about what can be good to add - where and how - not to do censure.

--5.170.47.130 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what a reliable independent secondary source looks like? All those fail at least one and often all three parts of the trifecta. Guy (help!) 21:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I see there's a bit of press on this issue, but it's minor, and in the end the Queen isn't getting involved. I don't see a point in adding material on this. -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there's something relevant about that the Assange case is called "political" in Queen's reply.
Also, the reply to the "Phillip Adams petition" maybe is not already done, and can be important.
Anyway having ideas of this things can be useful in further eveniences, or when a subsection/new wide article about the support to Assange will be done. --5.170.47.130 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Futile petitions are very rarely notable, and the sources you have provided thus far do not suggest this is an exception. Guy (help!) 13:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to know also what do you think about the "political case" in Queen's reply, related to the extradition request. --5.170.46.196 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The reasons why they are futile will vary, but they remain futile and rarely, if ever, significant. As above, you have yet to provide the necessary evidence of significance. Guy (help!) 20:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RS for "Assange at new-media-days-09" picture

Assange at the "New Media Days 09" in Copenhagen, November 2009

Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg at the 26C3 in Berlin, December 2009

'cause New Media Days 2009 and also New Media Days event have no article on wiki, and there is no source about this in the article, keeping direct link in the picture description is necessary in order to have the same result of the Chaos 26C3 picture; otherwise is impossible to understand about what it is, what Assange do in that circumstance.

• newmediadays.dk
• pdfslide.net/documents/new-media-days-09program.html

From page 6 of the new-media-days-09program:

The central idea and motivation of New Media Days (...): For the next two days you will be guided through developments in new media, given insights into current trends, hopefully triggering creativity and provoking new lines of thought. You have a ticket to a dynamic, professional and accommodating forum where experience can be shared, ideas exchanged and interdisciplinary networks can be built. Use it and contribute!

From page 46 of the new-media-days-09program:

The Subtle Roar of Online Whistle-blowing

JULIAN ASSANGE
When governments and businesses can not handle the truth, Wikileaks helps you blow the whistle and takes the Heat.
Speaker: JULIAN ASSANGE (AU) Spokesperson & Advisory Board Member / WikiLeaks

An open platform for the anonymous publishing of compromising documents; according to Time Magazine, Wikileaks could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act. Honorable analogy for sure, but one earned at the expense of powerful players like Sarah Palin, Kaupthing Bank and lately, with the controversial book Jaeger, the Danish Ministry of Defense. Praised for its democratic devotion and threatened by the shadier powers that be, each day is a victory for Wikileaks.

JULIAN ASSANGE is a journalist, programmer and activist. He sits on the Advisory Board of Wikileaks and acts as their spokesperson. Famous for his teenage ventures into ethical computer hacking, Assange was later instrumental in introducing the Internet to Australia and co-founded Australia’s first free speech ISP. He has broken stories at most major venues and been a subject of several documentaries.

--5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That does not really explain what this adds to our understanding of the subject (assange).Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe i can't understend your question; what add the urls, or what add the picture? --5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume the pictures are being used to illustrate Assange doing things, what do the URls add?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The picture show not Assange on some road, or drinking a beer in a pub; is about Assange doing his job; this is the section about what Assange do in his first times, so the urls add what is doing in the picture, which is related to this section. --5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The urls point to what looks to me are self-promotional pages for New Media Days (apparently copied from German en). BTW, I suggest you self-rvt as per the note I added to your talk page. O3000 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain me? point to the german copy (?) you're talking about? it's no my will to do self promotion to anybody, but only to give a outlook about the picture full meaning. --5.170.44.96 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we write about what he is doing if it is worth inclusion, we do not insert links into pictures instead.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not good enought to work about this; my will was and is only to add a good outlook about the picture, so i've put the url as RS on the picture description. Anyway, i can't understand why this topic as been put under spam box. For what i understand, the 2 url here quoted is not spam. --5.170.44.96 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need "a good outlook" for these pictures (not am I wholly sure what you mean by that)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

IN fact what are these pictures being use for exactly?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For deleting? I removed the link from the article, so maybe this can be closed again. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want, I doubt this is going anywhere.Slatersteven (talk)

Sources

this article is not neutral, but just a support for the USA's thesis of accuse

Julian Assange is worldwide known as - also - a journalist.

This appear also always on the wikimedia projects:

• commons:Category:Julian_Assange:

from the infobox: Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist

Deutsch: Julian Paul Assange (* 3. Juli 1971 in Townsville, Queensland, Australien) ist ein australischer politischer Aktivist, Journalist und ein Sprecher von WikiLeaks.

English: Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3rd of July 1971) is an Australian journalist, programmer and Internet activist, famous for being the Wikileaks editor and spokesman.

Español: Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3 de julio de 1971) es un periodista, programador y activista de Internet australiano, conocido por ser el portavoz y editor del sitio web WikiLeaks.

Français : Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3 juillet 1971) est un journaliste, programmeur et activiste Internet australien, connu pour être l'éditeur en chef et le porte-parole du site Internet Wikileaks.

Italiano: Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, 3 luglio 1971) è un giornalista, programmatore e attivista australiano con cittadinanza ecuadoriana, noto principalmente per la sua collaborazione al sito WikiLeaks, del quale è cofondatore e caporedattore.

• de:Julian_Assange:

Julian Paul Assange [əˈsɑːnʒ] (* 3. Juli 1971 in Townsville, Queensland) ist ein investigativer Journalist, australischer Politaktivist, ehemaliger Computerhacker, Programmierer und Gründer sowie Sprecher der Enthüllungsplattform WikiLeaks, welche es sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, geheimgehaltene Dokumente allgemein verfügbar zu machen.

• es:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, Queensland, 3 de julio de 1971),1​ conocido como Julian Assange, es un programador, periodista y activista de Internet australiano conocido por ser el fundador, editor y portavoz del sitio web WikiLeaks.

• fr:Julian_Assange

Julian Assange /ˈd͡ʒuːlɪən əˈsɑːnʒ/1, né le 3 juillet 1971 à Townsville, est un informaticien, journaliste et cybermilitant australien. Il est surtout connu en tant que fondateur, rédacteur en chef et porte-parole de WikiLeaks

• it:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, 3 luglio 1971) è un giornalista, programmatore e attivista australiano[1], cofondatore e caporedattore dell'organizzazione divulgativa WikiLeaks.

• el:Τζούλιαν_Ασάνζ

(infobox) Ιδιότητα: δημοσιογράφος, Ίντερνετ ακτιβιστής, Μάρτυρας δημοσίου συμφέροντος, χάκερ, προγραμματιστής, επιστήμονας, υπολογιστών, τηλεοπτικός παραγωγός, σκηνοθέτης, τηλεόρασης, παραγωγός ταινιών, συγγραφέας, business executive, παρουσιαστής

• sl:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (əˈsɑːndʒ), avstralsko-ekvadorski politični aktivist, raziskovalni novinar, bivši računalniški heker, programer in tiskovni predstavnik WikiLeaksa, * 3. julij 1971, Townsville, Queensland, Avstralija.

• ca:Julian_Assange

(infobox) Ocupació: Periodista, ciberactivista, revelador, furoner, programador, informàtic, productor de televisió, director de televisió, productor de cinema, escriptor, executiu d'empresa i presentador

• ja:ジュリアン・アサンジ

ジュリアン・ポール・アサンジ（Julian Paul Assange [əˈsɑːnʒ]、1971年月日 - ）は、オーストラリアのジャーナリスト、出版社、発行人、インターネット活動家。内部告発およ

• zh:朱利安·阿桑奇

朱利安·保羅·阿桑奇（英語：Julian Paul Assange，發音：/əˈsɑːnʒ/，1971年7月3日－），澳大利亞記者，洩密網站維基解密的董事与发言人。

• he:ג'וליאן_אסאנג'

ג'וּלִיאַן אַסַאנְג' (באנגלית: Julian Assange; נולד ב-3 ביולי 1971) הוא עיתונאי ואקטיביסט אינטרנטי אוסטרלי, הידוע כמייסד, הדובר והעורך הראשי של אתר "ויקיליקס", המפרסם נתונים שנשלחו או הודלפו אל מערכת האתר בעילום שם.

• ar:جوليان_أسانج

جوليان أسانج (3 يوليو 1971، تاونسفيل، كوينزلاند) هو صحفي وناشط ومبرمج أسترالي، أسس موقع ويكيليكس ويرأس تحريره.

• da:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (født 3. juli 1971[1], Queensland, Australien) er en australsk journalist, redaktør og aktivist, der siden 2006 er bedst kendt som talsmand for WikiLeaks, som er en netbaseret whistleblower-organisation.

• no:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (født 3. juli 1971 i Townsville i Queensland i Australia[22]) er en australsk[23] journalist, dataprogrammerer, internettaktivist og hacker.

• ru:Ассанж,_Джулиан

Джулиа́н Пол Асса́нж (англ. Julian Paul Assange [əˈsɑːnʒ]; род. 3 июля 1971, Таунсвилл, Австралия[5]) — австралийский интернет-журналист и телеведущий, основатель WikiLeaks.

• fi:Julian_Assange

(infobox) Ammatti: Wikileaksin tiedottaja ja päätoimittaja

• pl:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (ur. 3 lipca 1971 w Townsville) – australijski aktywista internetowy, dziennikarz oraz programista

• sv:Julian_Assange

Julian Assange ([əˈsɑːnʒ]), född 3 juli 1971 i Townsville i Queensland,[1] är en australisk journalist, programmerare och nätaktivist, mest känd för sitt engagemang inom den internetbaserade visselblåsar-plattformen Wikileaks.

• pt:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange ( /əˈsɑːnʒ/; nascido Julian Paul Hawkins; 3 de julho de 1971) é um ativista australiano, programador de computador, jornalista e fundador do site WikiLeaks.

• nl:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (Townsville, 3 juli 1971) is een Australische journalist, programmeur (voormalige hacker) en internetactivist, bekend van de oprichting van WikiLeaks, een klokkenluiderwebsite.

• ...

..there is only 2 place where Assange is not described as a journalist: one is this article (this one in english language on en:Julian_Assange), and the other is the bank of lawyers asking for Assange's extradition to the USA.

This article in english language on en:Julian_Assange is not neutral; must be added, in the incipit, that Assange is a journalist.

Also: the incipit is very too long, but at the same time empty about facts of the life of Assange, which he was live and doing facts for a lot of years before 2010; incipit is very too long, and not neutral: why nothing about that UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded - on 2015 - that Assange had been subject to arbitrary detention by the UK and Swedish Governments since 7 December 2010, including his time in prison, on conditional bail and in the Ecuadorian embassy? (and that according to the group, Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation?)
This seems to be, at now, not an encyclopedic article about Julian Assange, but just a USA-propaganda paper that point to paint Assange not as the prized journalist that it is, but "some playboy and hacker that is right to put in USA prison".

--5.170.47.65 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has different (and higher) sourcing standards than other languages. We also have a much larger community of editors, so are less vulnerable to small cliques of a like POV. Guy (help!) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has a disproportionately high number of Americans among its community of editors, with the inevitable biases of that cohort. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, I am not American. Guy (help!) 08:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand you think yourself as the best in the world (but believe me: the long incipit of this article is a s***, and the whole structure is just a labyrinth), anyway, i don't think is just a fact of language:

• simple:Julian_Assange

Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian-Ecuadorian computer programmer, publisher and journalist.

--5.170.47.65 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Creationists say the same about our articles on evolutionary biology. Guy (help!) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

really? creationists say that the en.wikipedia article about evolutionary biology is not neutral, instead all the other article in the other languages in the world are neutral? If is it, for what i've see on this article, maybe they are right... --5.170.47.65 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We mention his relationship to the claims of being a journalist several times in the article. Please search the article for "journalist". We document that he is an honorary member of a journalist society and calls himself a journalist. We also document that others dispute his claims as his later work has little relation to journalism. I could be wrong, but I don't know that he has ever been employed as a journalist or been trained as one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You mention his journalism prize, that he calls himself a journalist, but in the same way as you mention he reject USA accuses; your choice has been "to state he is not a journalist", removing this from infobox and incipit.
No doubt he was not a full life/full time journalist, even not a common journalist, but what he done from 2006 to 2010, the reason why for be in prison at now, is *free* journalism. --5.170.46.255 (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We have had a RfC on this issue. The consensus was not to call him a journalist. Please stop arguing the same point over and over.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus? Take a look here above about what is the #Worldwide_consensus : he is also a journalist. --5.170.46.255 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. If you want to change the article, launch another RfC. But please don't, because you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Or please do because it will relieve the cabin fever of many Wikipedians....--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually would argue he is not, [[14]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help!) 09:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@user:JzG/Guy You're not neutral, you're fully against Assange, and the problem is that you lead the editing of this article with your not neutral opinions. --5.170.46.255 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, Guy was quoting Life of Brian by Monty Python. It was a joke. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification of the citation; but the way he do edits about this article, I think anyway is not neutral, not good. (see his recent above talk with Thucydides411) --5.170.46.255 (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that you think that. I think you may be mistaking my animosity towards agenda editors for animosity towards Assange. That's a common error among editors who are deeply committed to a specific POV in an article.

This article is dominated by hyper-partisan Assangites. My view is that things are a lot more nuanced. He did some good things, then he did some bad shit, and now he is as close to being a rogue actor as makes no odds. That also seems to be what RS have said down the years. But, as with any quasi-religious topic, True Believers perceive anything other than True Belief as blasphemy. Unfortunately for them, that's not how Wikipedia works. At least not English Wikipedia. Smaller projects are more vulnerable to cliques of agenda editors. Guy (help!) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven (and @everybody): How can you quote an article that is just an opinion of a single journalist ("Opinion - Julian Assange is no journalist: don't confuse his arrest with press freedom")?
Now I quote you something more relevant, and that show his *opinion* is wrong:

• www.smh.com.au/national/assange-to-become-meaa-member-20101223-195ri.html

(December 22, 2010)

MEAA secretary Louise Connor said "Julian Assange has been a member of the Media Alliance for several years. Clearly, with banking corporations freezing his accounts, his situation is quite extraordinary," she said in a statement. "We've drawn up a new union card for him and offer him the full support of his union and professional association." "WikiLeaks is simply performing the same function as media organisations have for centuries in facilitating the release of information in the public interest. Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists," she said in a statement.

Note: MEAA is the Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which incorporate Australian Journalists Association.

• www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-23/journalists-union-shows-support-for-assange/2383428

(23 Dec 2010)

The Media, Arts and Entertainment Alliance (MEAA) will present an honorary member card to Mr Assange's Melbourne-based lawyer, Rob Stary. The union's Louise Connor says Mr Assange has always been a member, but his fees will be waived in a show of solidarity. (...) "We're pointing out that we don't believe that Julian Assange has in any way broken the code of ethics, we believe that he's upholding two of its important principles - not to disclose his source, and secondly, to publish in the public interest."

• www.meaa.org/news/new-assange-charges-pose-a-threat-to-press-freedom/

(June 4th, 2019)

MEAA has renewed calls for the Australian and United Kingdom governments to oppose moves to extradite WikiLeaks founder and publisher to the United States to face trial on 18 espionage charges. The charges “contain a real threat to press freedom for journalists and media outlets around the world,” MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy and Media section federal president Marcus Strom say in a letter to Foreign Minister Marise Payne.

--5.170.46.255 (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You criticize a six word post by an editor for pointing to an opinion article, then claim you show this to be wrong by taking a large amount of space to express the opinion of one Australian group. O3000 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Want another [[15]]?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It was really no need to confirm that you can't understand difference beetwen opinions and facts.
Opinions is that for somebody Assange is not a journalist, the facts is that is a journalist, from years before 2010 (this is by 2010 Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance declarations, which incorporate Australian Journalists Association).
So goodbye, i can't add more if you can't understand what you read. --5.170.45.68 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that's a very good article, thanks for sharing. It states my view of Assange far better than I could. Guy (help!) 12:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Now it's really clear why this encyclopedia article on Assange is not very neutral: the administrators who condition his writing hate Assange because according to them he made Hilary Clinton lose and Donald Trump win. The fact that Trump now "repays" him by seeking his extradition obviously does not cause them any perplexity: a question too complex to enter their field of vision.
Personally I wonder if Assange, rather than Trump, is being persecuted by some sort of puritan-feminist lobby (see the fake allegations of rape from Sweden, the grudge of many pro-Hilary Clinton female activists, and a questionably excessive "success" as a lover by Assange), but fortunately I am not an admin in wikipedia, so I do not condition the writing of the articles in this sense.
--5.170.44.234 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's what the sources say happened, and I believe the sources. If you want to pretend that Russia did not hack the US election in 2016, and use Wikileaks as a conduit, via Kremlin cutouts communicating with Assange, then that's your prerogative, but don't expect Wikipedia to endorse that as a valid view given the available evidence. Not liking a fact doesn't make it any less of a fact. And bear in mind that this is absolutely neutral on Assange. He may not have known he was dealing with Kremlin cutouts, he may, for example, simply have been motivated by his obvious animus towards Hillary Clinton due to the proceedings against him in the US. Guy (help!) 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources echoing the somewhat contradictory results of an inquiry which may or may not have been botched? It's immaterial whether any of us actually believe what particular sources say, though I'd say that putting full faith in what the news media write about anything controversial, given their patchy track record, would be rather naive or gullible.     ←   ZScarpia   12:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, you have to be really determined not to see the obvious in order to characterise Mueller's findings like that. That's probably why reliable sources don't. There's no realistic informed dissent from the core facts around Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks, the DNC and Podesta hacks, the Kremlin's involvement, the use of Assange and WikiLeaks as a conduit, Assange's deep personal animosity Hillary Clinton, and the timing of WikiLeaks' releases to cause maximum political damage to Clinton. You can see these facts disputed are in far-right US media and Russian propaganda, but not in reliable sources - even those that consider the prosecution of Assange to be grossly illiberal and dangerous. Guy (help!) 13:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What is going on here? An opinion piece is clearly not an RS, and an admin should understand that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I am surprised it has been included and supported by highly experienced editors, it is very clearly labelled as *an opinion* piece and has absolute zero merit in this discussion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are both revealing your ignorance of policies. Opinions published in RS are allowed as content, and the RS we use for content need not be neutral. Rather, it is editors who must be neutral in their editing. They should faithfully include the biased content from the sources we use without getting in the way. We generally attribute opinions, and we use opinions as content all the time. I've been here since 2003 and that has been our policy all that time. So please stop complaining about opinions and non-neutral sources. We use both all the time, and editors who do not understand that should study policy and learn from those who are far more experienced. Guy is correct. -- Valjean (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting an opinion as an opinion is good; to report opinion as a fact is bad. --5.171.0.197 (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, and reporting facts as opinions is also bad. -- Valjean (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with calling Assange a journalist is that he doesn't fit the ordinary definition the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks of: "a person who writes news stories or articles for a newspaper or magazine or broadcasts them on radio or television." (Cambridge Dictionary)[16] The reason he and his supporters call him a journalist is that that is a class of people the U.S. Supreme Court has determined to be protected under the U.S. First Amendment, which protects freedom of the press. The sources that refuse to consider him a journalist do not believe he is protected. WP:V says, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." So I think we need wording that does that. TFD (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, we are talking about the topic of this thread
If you see below, there are also proposals to combine this article with the one on wikileaks; this would lead to reducing the already small amount of information on Assange's life (outside and before wikileaks), while if this section was enlarged (years ago it was larger), it would be seen that in the past of Assange there are many elements according to whether he is a journalist.
Having removed from the incipit that Assange was / is a journalist is obviously something biased, not at all neutral. --5.171.0.182 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We can just redirect Wikileaks to this article and merge missing content. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump pardon?

Washington Post: Assange lawyer claims congressman offered pardon on behalf of Trump in exchange for absolving Russia in WikiLeaks DNC case
SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done It has been added to Julian_Assange#Extradition_hearings. NedFausa (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Further [17] [18] [19] [20] SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Are you proposing that those four links be added to the existing paragraph? If so, I am opposed. Please bear in mind Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Unless you are adding new content, the existing link to The Guardian, a WP:RS, is sufficient. NedFausa (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. I saw the press secretary's frequent Trump denial "I don't know him" and then looked for information as to whether this is plausible. It would require further article text, but I believe that we can't just juxtapose it without SYNTH. So basically, I was adding these for editors' background reading. If this turns out to be significant, there will be RS references that discuss the entire matter in context, including Trump's denial. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Now confirmed by Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher confirms the offer in an interview per Michael Isikoff [21] SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much information

I think there is already too much information about this minor point.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor?? SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a minor point. Assange's legal team has charged that the President of the United States, through a proxy, offered Assange a quid pro quo that would have dramatically changed the course of the life of the subject of our BLP. That makes it noteworthy enough to deserve full explication. Once the extradition hearing begins, you can expect this story to expand, not contract. NedFausa (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This claim has been denied by Trump and by Rohrabacher. It could just be a misunderstanding or memory lapse by Assange. There are many points that have been pivotal in Assange's life. In this case, it is purely speculative. Even if he had been pardoned by Trump, he would still have faced conviction for skipping bail. And we don't know what will be made of this point during the hearing.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim has been denied by the White House but not by Rohrabacher. To the contrary, as reliably sourced in our article, Rohrabacher in 2017 confirmed the 16 August meeting, saying he and Assange talked about "what might be necessary to get him out" and discussed a presidential pardon in exchange for information on the theft of DNC emails. On 20 February 2020, Rohrabacher confirmed that conversation anew. "I spoke to Julian Assange", said Rohrabacher, "and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails, I would petition the president to give him a pardon." If you think this is just going to go away, you're in for a surprise. NedFausa (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, Rohrabacher has said that he never spoke to Trump. He was just speaking to Assange in a personal capacity, he says. You are distorting the issue. And, no, we shouldn't try to anticipate what is going to be big news.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If trump and rohrabacher both deny it, we are dealing with a rumor/fake news situation. How much weight do we give in other AP2 articles to this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Naturally we would expect them both to deny it even if it were true, since it makes them look bad. That doesn't mean it's "fake news." -Darouet (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant The Donald's 'fake news' wink wink. I just mean we are dealing with unsubstantiated info, probably we shouldnt give too much weight (but we should include). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see Rohrabacher has a motive to lie. He is an Assange supporter.[22]--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again your opinion on if someone is a supporter or an opponent of Assange is your OR. Content gets included based upon sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Way too much personal opinion, Jack Upland. There is nothing minor about Rohrabacher acting in a role analogous to Giuliani's in soliciting personal political benefit for Trump in Ukraine, now confirmed. We don't need to anticipate what's next, it cannot be dismissed. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think this is just going to go away, you're in for a surprise. How about now? Does anyone object to me trimming this down?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No objection from me. A long paragraph about Rohrabacher is undue. One or two sentences should be enough to summarize the issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree. Complicated and contentious matters require more detail. This is a significant charge and is significant in Assange's defense arguments. If you want to change it, because of the DS sanctions, you should do it here first and see if we can create a consensus version so that the new version will stick. -- Valjean (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for whole paragraph

Many who have !voted above to keep the content also agree that the wording isn't the best. I believe the whole paragraph contains jumbled and non-chronological information that isn't always clearly related to Assange. There is also important information that is missing in the current paragraph:

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

New version with more relevant information that flows in a better chronological order. (I recognize that some of this will also need to be added to the body first.):

During the 2016 presidential campaign, part of the Russian government's interference in the 2016 United States elections included a hacking campaign targeting candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Twelve Russian GRU intelligence officers were later indicted on criminal charges for those attacks. The Special Counsel investigation found evidence on from Assange's computer that the Russians then, using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0, transferred the documents to WikiLeaks, which then leaked the stolen documents. Assange and WikiLeaks have consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks and accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria". The Mueller Report stated that those denials about the source of the stolen materials were "dissembling", and that the "file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks's claims about the source of material that it posted."

BullRangifer (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of this content relates to wikileaks or has no connection to Assange. I support deletion, not a re-org. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you need to read more carefully. Assange=WikiLeaks so much that evidence from Assange's computer proved that he was personally involved in the transfer of stolen documents from the Russians to WikiLeaks (himself). The Mueller Report mentions Assange by name in this connection, and the evidence on his computer, as well as other evidence they found, proved that he was lying when he made his denials. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looks better. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Where is this statement coming from: "found evidence on Assange's computer"? Burrobert (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The Mueller Report, p. 47, which is what the rest of the quote is referring to (the "file-transfer evidence described above" p. 48). -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Let's take this one step at a time. Did the investigator have access to Assange's computer? Burrobert (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Of course. We want to get this right, hence my proposal here, rather than just editing without discussion. Here's the whole paragraph from page 47:

"An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172 The WikiLeaks site also released PDFs and other documents taken from Podesta that were attachments to emails in his account; these documents had a creation date of October 2, 2016, which appears to be the date the attachments were separately staged by WikiLeaks on its site.173"

That, with the later comment on p. 48, indicates to me that investigators had access to Assange's computer and other evidence from the WikiLeaks' site. The wording is purposefully vague, and some wording is blacked out as "Investigative Technique", but what's readable is pretty clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant, its what the official investigation found.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Steven, to whom is that directed? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought the indentation made that clear, not you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

At the time the investigator made their report Assange’s computer was located in the Ecuadorian embassy. How did the investigator examine the computer? The passage you quote shows the investigator didn’t know what operating system Assange used so obviously they didn’t have assess to the computer. Apart from the documents published by Wikileaks, the only other tangible item mentioned in the excerpt from the report is “metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site”. There is no mention that the investigator claimed to have found anything on Assange’s computer. Burrobert (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably the same way that Putin, Assange, et al got a hold of the stolen documents? Or maybe the Ecuadorans were already having mixed feelings about their famous guest using their network, possibly to commit crimes? It's not our job to guess how it was known. C'mon. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

There's this thing called "hacking", which gives great "access" to a computer. I strongly suspect that the "investigator(s)" have some of those skills, and that the Ecuadorans might have even helped. We don't know, but physical possession ("access") of his computer wasn't necessary to know how it had been used, and I wouldn't put too much weight on that little bit of knowledge about the operating system.

Anybody who has a website can get that information about everyone who accesses their website (and the search terms they used to find it), all for free and without hacking. I suspect he uses multiple operating systems, and elaborating on that subject was unnecessary detail for the report.

What we do know is that they knew exactly how "Assange's computer" was used. That's in the Mueller Report, so we shouldn't speculate beyond that, but just use that info without any OR.

If the proposed wording "found evidence on Assange's computer" is problematic, we can change it to "found evidence from Assange's computer". Whenever Assange used his computer to upload content to the WikiLeaks website (Assange=WikiLeaks), that computer left a lot of evidence about the computer, evidence that's accessible to anyone who hacks the website or computer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The passage you provided doesn’t say that the investigator found anything on Assange’s computer and in fact shows they didn’t have access to it. The passage is also from a primary source so you need to be careful about interpreting what it is saying. If you have secondary sources which support your proposed version you should provide them. Burrobert (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Burrobert Agree. Late here, but ‘about’ the computer and ‘possible operating system’ means they didn’t have actual access to it. So it’s not info “on” or “from” that computer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Read my last paragraph immediately above. Does that meet your concerns? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source (Associated Press) which refers directly to this matter. I haven't read it yet:

• WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange threaten with charges from Mueller report.

It's originally from the Washington Times, which isn't always a good source, but still interesting reading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

From the AP News source:

• "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report specifically implicates WikiLeaks’ founder the now-jailed Julian Assange in the direct cybertransfers of stolen Democratic Party documents from hackers in Russian military intelligence to his anti-secrecy group."
• "Mr. Mueller brought an indictment in July against Moscow’s elite cyberwarriors who conspired with WikiLeaks..."
• "Mr. Assange repeatedly denied receiving thousands of emails from Russia and suggested his source was a Democratic insider. The Mueller report accused him of lying by using such words as “dissembling” and “implied falsely.”"
• "The special counsel’s 448-page report confirms the Russia-WikiLeaks alliance in a narrative that suggests U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications."
• "How the Mueller-FBI prosecutor team obtained its information is contained in this partially redacted paragraph:

"“The Office was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by GRU. Assange had access to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England.”"

"The next sentences are blacked out with the explanation “Investigative Technique.”"

BullRangifer (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I still can't find where it says that the investigator found evidence on or from Assange's computer. What evidence you are referring to? Is it a photo, document, screenshots etc.? If you let us know what evidence you mean it will be easier to work out from the sources where the investigator says they found it. The source mentions a "a narrative that suggests U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications". Perhaps you should phrase it with a level of uncertainty that matches the source. Burrobert (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The evidence seems to have been "file-transfer evidence" in the form of dates. Here's the source material:

"An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails).172" p. 47

"d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen Materials

"As reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian government emerged, WikiLeaks and Assange made several public statements apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing. The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks's claims about the source of material that it posted." p. 48}}

From that I understand that metadata about dates was created when files were transferred between the GRU and Assange's computer, described on p. 48 as "file-transfer evidence described above". -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The mention that "U.S. intelligence was intercepting Russian and Assange communications" might be the "how" of how they gathered this information, but that information is not essential to the topic at hand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: In response to concerns about undue weight being given to details of the US investigation into Russia, you're proposing giving even more weight to those details. You're also adding in a fair bit of dubious original research about "evidence on Assange's computer". Your proposed text would seriously exacerbate the problem with undue weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern, although I don't agree with the view being pushed by several here that Assange's involvement in the Russian interference (specifically the attacks on Clinton, whom Assange hates) should be downplayed. My proposal is just that, a proposal we can work on and improve. That's why I didn't make an edit, but decided to see if we can come up with a concrete improvement here on the talk page.

The current content does not adequately portray the full role played by Assange. I also recognize that some of it must be mentioned in the body of the article first, as it is woefully lacking there. The Mueller Report contains important matter on this which we don't mention at all.

Right now my main concern is to get it right. After that, we can discuss how much to put in the lead. I suspect it can be summed up and made shorter. Does that make sense to you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with BullRangifer on this. The fact that editors continue to deny the mainstream RS narrative of Assange's complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 elections indicates that the article's text needs to be strengthened, so as to make that point unambiguously clear. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an issue of weight. You haven't presented any systematic review of sources to show that Assange's relation to the Mueller investigation - let alone the GRU indictments - has received proportionally more coverage is RS than we give it in the article. This article can't cover every detail of the Mueller report, not only because this article is specifically about Julian Assange, but also because we have to maintain balance between different aspects of Assange's life. You're proposing adding a lot more detail about the 2016 US Presidential elections and the ensuing Mueller investigation to this article, but a number of editors feel that this article already spends too much space covering these issues, compared to aspects of Assange's life that have received much more RS coverage and international attention (e.g., WikiLeaks' 2010 publications). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we're all done responding to straw man arguments against consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no one is "proposing adding a lot more detail about the 2016 US Presidential elections and the ensuing Mueller investigation to this article." I think my proposal adds one or two more sentences. That could result in a few more sentences in the body, but there is far more 2010 material in the article, so your due weight argument doesn't weigh much. Your fears are unfounded.

Even if we added a ton more 2016 material, policy would still allow that, and then, because it might create an undue weight situation, policy provides the WP:SPINOFF solution where we'd spinoff a large part into a sub-article. We do that after the actually is so much content that it creates a problem. We aren't even close to that yet.

There is also the argument that the 2016 matters have overshadowed the older 2010 matters, and thus the 2016 stuff has more due weight. That is often the case as newer stuff overshadows older stuff. C'est la vie. Old stuff tends to lose its luster and weight with time. In this case it's still alive and not dead yet, but that doesn't mean other matters have little weight. The 2016 matters have a lot of weight, so let's see where this goes before you cry that it has too much weight. If that happens, we can spin it off. We can't know until it's actually in the article. We must never try to prevent the creation of reliably-sourced content, but sometimes we do try to channel its location. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the US indictment against Assange and his current extradition battle does not relate to the 2016 US election; it relates to the "old stuff". I suggest editors read the article and educate themselves before proceeding further.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. There is far more stuff related to 2010 than 2016. What we need is better organization chronologically, and in the headers. 2016 is mentioned in a header, but we need a header that mentions 2010. Would someone please do a bit of organizing? There is also a bunch of content about his reputation and support without any heading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As Jack Upland says, the current extradition battle relates to the "old stuff," WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. This is what almost all current coverage of Assange is about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia says, WP:NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of that are you relying on?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Due weight doesn't tabulate how many indictments Assange racks up. It evaluates mainstream coverage and narratives. As B.R. says, the basis of notability can change as it did in the case of O.J. Simpson, an infamous American felon formerly notable as a star athlete. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Mueller report is a primary source and represents the position of prosecution. It is not even remotely neutral. The other source you provided from AP simply says "the Mueller report says." We can attribute these claims to the Mueller report, but we cannot put them in wikivoice for a multidue of WP:RS and WP:NOTCOURT reasons. Under no circumstances would we put info on a BLP in wikivoice coming from a primary source. Your suggestions reflect continued POV pushing on this talk page, please stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Jtbobwaysf, the Mueller Report is an eminently RS. It is cited widely here, and we can also cite it for straight facts (its statements are treated as facts), but not for editorial opinions. We don't do that. Opinions and interpretations about the Mueller Report which are found in secondary sources can be used here. That's what the AP News source is all about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. A false equivalence between RS and Russian disinformation? Still nonsense. Not how we source content around here. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: As Jtbobwaysf says, the Mueller Report is a primary source. Among other things, it makes claims of criminal activity which would have to be substantiated by a court. As we all know, legitimate judicial systems don't automatically take the prosecutor's word as truth, and we shouldn't be in the business of repeating allegations made by prosecutors as fact on Wikipedia. Attribute claims and source everything to reliable secondary sources (e.g., news articles that discuss the Mueller Report, rather than the report itself). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Already answered above. Attribution is provided. We agree.

It's rather remarkable that the editors who defend Trump and Assange now object to using the Mueller Report, but they had no objections to using the Mueller Report for adding the following Trump-favorable content to several articles here:

"In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

We have long used that content from the Report in several articles, and those editors who don't like Trump did not object. Stop and think about that. Objections to the inclusion of properly-sourced content violate NPOV and the principles described at Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.

Claims of criminal activity (which were proven by the evidence uncovered) are handled like any other BLP claims and by following WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We know how to do that. We use RS, not unreliable Russian propaganda. There is no equivalence.

Certain types of "the sky is blue" claims can now be stated in wikivoice. The facts that Russia interfered in the elections and that Assange coordinated with Russian GRU agents to transfer and spread stolen documents (and he lied about it) are two of them, but we still provide sourcing. They are settled and established facts, backed up by myriad very reliable sources.

We should not discuss those events as if there is any doubt, and we consistently remove words like "alleged" when they are added. I really think we should sanction experienced editors who dare to use the word "alleged" about those events after they have been warned. That's a newbie mistake, but when made by experienced editors it's disruptive, tendentious, advocacy.

Those who doubt the RS we use at the English Wikipedia should edit at the Russian Wikipedia where sourcing standards are different. They should not bring their disruptive doubts here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From the WP:Publicfigure section:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.

Burrobert (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct. That's for unproven allegations. Later, when there is proof, we also include the evidence and treat the matter differently, as do RS. We follow their lead. The event has then become a fact and is no longer a mere allegation, and to continue to call it an allegation is to deny the facts. We do not allow that, and we stop allowing the use of "alleged". When RS treat something as fact, so do we. Wikipedia always sides with the narrative in RS when there is no longer any doubt among RS. OTOH, as long as there is still serious disagreement in RS, we continue to call it an allegation. BTW, the last sentence is my addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

And the proof is? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You have already been informed about this, so I'm not wasting more time on you. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Both proposed paragraphs fail to note that legal claims against Assange for his 2016 publications were thrown out of a US court, with prejudice, because the judge found that Assange did not engage in wrongdoing in acquiring the documents, and per many other prominent cases in US legal history — including the Pentagon papers — he committed no crime in publishing them. In fact, BullRangifer, the proposed text insinuates the opposite of these facts. -Darouet (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, that's a different topic than the one under discussion. What you're describing might be added, but has no bearing on this discussion. We are not talking about any allegations of criminal activity by Assange, but about his coordination with GRU agents and then lying about it. Assange not only lied about it, he tried to frame Seth Rich, a dead man who was totally innocent. Those false accusations have caused great grief to his family, and they are suing Fox News for spreading those lies.-- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• The text Assange and WikiLeaks have consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks and accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria". needs to go: that appears only in one of the three sources, and it's Fox News, so is unreliable for content connected to the Clinton 2016 campaign. Guy (help!) 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Guy, even if that wording is removed, something about his denial should be included, as Mueller responded to it and showed it was a lie. Seth Rich had already been dead four days when the GRU transferred the files to Assange, so he knew it couldn't have been Rich who gave him those stolen emails, yet he persisted in trying to frame an innocent man. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, no, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't have to give the subject the last word, especially when it's WP:MANDY-level denials in the face of overwhelming evidence. Guy (help!) 08:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not giving him the last word. We are giving the facts the last word. Sadly, there are many people, even here on this page, who believe his denials and seek to turn this article into a hagiographic defense that ignores those facts. When RS debunk notable lies, we give RS the last word and silence those who would repeat those lies. -- Valjean (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The assertion of "neo-McCarthy hysteria" is his opinion and not a fact. The facts, in as much as they can be established at this point, are that the Kremlin stole emails from the DNC and Podesta, fed them to Assange through cutouts, and Assange, who hates Clinton, released them at a time that was damaging to her campaign. There are a very large number of reliabel sources that agree on this, and the main source of dissenting views is an unholy mix of Kremlin propaganda and far-right websites. The "neo-McCarthy hysteria" turns out to be robustly supported by evidence. Guy (help!) 15:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you are responding without addressing my point. We are totally agreed about the facts, and it may be that the "neo-McCarthy hysteria" wording is a bit much, but his denials are very notable (we don't have to quote them, but state it and provide a couple RS), as myriad very RS have addressed them, so we should mention that he denies his involvement and then give RS the last word by debunking his lies. Please read what I wrote above. We should not ignore the matter. The denial(s) and their debunking(s) should be covered in the body and briefly mentioned in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looks worse, and NOT THE QUESTION. The question at RFC was whether the *lede* of Assanges bio article should have two lines about Russians and Wikileaks or if it should have a third of specific details about those Russians. The writing here doesn’t look better to me, because it overlinks and jumps back and forth in time plus topic, plus is stating untried legal matters as if fact. But the question isn’t the writing, the question is still what belongs in an Assange bio versus more appropriate articles exist. Seriously, whatever Mueller said or Russian convictions - Assang played no part in those convictions or report, and is not affect3d by them so what kinds of things here and why is the question. Trying better wording with wrong things is not the question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's look at the limited info from that which does belong here, as it is about Assange:

Using an "analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site" and "information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system", the Special Counsel investigation found evidence that the Russians, using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0, transferred stolen emails to WikiLeaks, which then leaked the stolen documents. Assange and WikiLeaks have denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks. The Mueller Report stated that those denials about the source of the stolen materials were "dissembling", and that the "file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks's claims about the source of material that it posted."

Source for some of that: "An analysis of the metadata collected from the WikiLeaks site revealed that the stolen Podesta emails show a creation date of September 19, 2016.171 Based on information about Assange's computer and its possible operating system, this date may be when the GRU staged the stolen Podesta emails for transfer to WikiLeaks (as the GRU had previously done in July 2016 for the DNC emails)." Mueller Report, page 47

That's about Assange/WikiLeaks, and since he made a big deal of denying it (many RS), we should mention the denials and the RS which say he was lying. -- Valjean (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Wikileaks ?

RS tell us Wikileaks is more or less Assange with smoke and mirrors, credible as a distinct entity only to Assange's promoters and the most credulous among us. We could defuse a lot of the denial on this page by merging the two articles? Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This might have merit. All of his activities that are related to WikiLeaks could be moved there, leaving a much shorter biography behind, with a short summary section which links to the WikiLeaks article. There is far too much content here about WikiLeaks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

maybe i'm wrong, but.. appear as Valjean are not noticed that he's claiming the opposite of what Specifico is proposing. (???)
By the way: i think is not good to joint the two article; Assange had life before wikileaks (and in this article what Assange have do before must be expanded). --5.171.0.197 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What has he claimed that is "opposite"? -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

as far as I understand, Specifico is asking to have only one article about Assange and Wikileaks (both together), while you are asking to keep two different articles, as it is now. These are two opposite things for me. --5.170.47.201 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh! I totally misunderstood you. Forget what I wrote. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are each obviously notable enough to have their own separate pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What else is he known for, then? Guy (help!) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We have an entire article about Julian Assange that you can look through, if you're interested. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

for being a nuisance for Guy and Specifico. --5.170.47.201 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A total merge, with the elimination of this article, would of course not be allowed, but moving (likely) most of what's here would be good. We should avoid duplication. -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not appropriate? What was he notable for prior to Wikileaks? Another slacker hacker, a troubled childhood? His notability dates to his crimes. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why I suggested moving "most" of this article. It would leave a very small article here, but I think that would be justified. What is not justified is that so much of this article is related to WikiLeaks. We should just have a short section with a summary and a hatnote "main" link to WikiLeaks.

Assange=WikiLeaks:

"WikiLeaks is usually represented in public by Julian Assange, who has been described as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest".[49][50] Sarah Harrison, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates of Assange who are currently living."

Assange would still be named a whole lot there because RS do it that way. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

At the moment there are no dates on which he commits crimes, if you mean the events of 2010 and later, there are accusations; perhaps those could be put on the United States page, and removed from here. --5.170.47.201 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, he pleaded guilty but he did not commit crimes. Got it. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

For what i know, are the verdicts that define the criminals and the honests. I really don't know about someone judged criminal that don't go in prison just by saying "i'm innocent". --5.170.47.201 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges ..." -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, i think you mistake in understand what was the topic of this dialogue; Speficico refer to "crimes" the 2006/2010 and following facts, has he say nothing is relevant about Assange before this: "What was he notable for prior to Wikileaks? (...) His notability dates to his crimes. SPECIFICO".
So reply has been that 2010 and later wikileaks actions is not something that is neutral to call crimes, and so is wrong say that Assange do crimes on doing that. Is a question of neutral point of view, that is very missing in most admin that usualy rule the edit of this article. --5.171.0.182 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

His crimes date at least to the early 1990's, and possibly to the 1980's. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The right thing to do is to eliminate duplication. That can be done without any RfC or decision to merge. It's what we should have been doing all along, so everyone, just go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is that better than redirecting Wikileaks here and merging/trimming the content? SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Because a proper merge loses no information, and there is information here that does not belong in the WikiLeaks article. This article should remain, but much smaller, as explained. I shouldn't have to repeat myself to you. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I said we extinguish the Wikilinks article. "Wikilinks" is Assange Enterprises. It is not a distinct institution. The trims are a separate matter, not required for the merge. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• The majority of the content on this article should be merged with wikileaks leaving the biographical info. As the head of an organization wikipedia allows for BLP creation. Same rule applies for CEOs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have RS that describes Wikilinks as an organization? It's basically Assange and a few hangers on, sometimes paid, in most discussions I have seen. What's the basis for calling it an organization. Did it operate from its head office somewhere while Assange was hiding in the Ecuadoran Embassy? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Debating if wikileaks is or is not an organization is not suitable for this talk page. Maybe you could bring that up over at the wikileaks article. Sounds like POV pushing again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Debating?? I merely asked whether you can cite a source for your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLUDGEON apply to your comments in this section and on this talk page. I concur Jack Upland (talk · contribs) suggestion below for you to create a proper merge discussion with relevant template if you want to discuss merge. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No. That page has a different content to this one. No compelling reason for a merge has been given.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why is there so much duplication and use of content about WikiLeaks here? That content should be moved/merged to WikiLeaks. -- Valjean (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There is some overlap. But this page is a biography, and that page isn't. I support making this article more biographical in focus. And it seems premature to get rid of the WikiLeaks article at a time when Assange is largely incapable of taking part in WikiLeaks. If the organisation survives, it will definitely need a separate page. In any case, it would be better to have a proper merge discussion rather than this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks is still functioning. It published the OPCW documents between October and December 2019 and the Fishrot files in November 2019. It continues to tweet and make statements, usually through its editor-in-chief. It is likely to have quite a lot a work to do publishing documents that come out of the current crisis. Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a HUGE overlap. The truly biographic content here is very limited and there is no justification for so much duplication of content about WikiLeaks. I also agree that this is not a proper merge discussion, and it's not a good idea to get rid of either article. -- Valjean (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only parts of this article that could be described as not biographical are "Founding WikiLeaks" (though the founding itself is bibliographical) and "Yemen War and CIA leaks". Basically everything else seems to be directly related to Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

the silence of the British press on Assange's (irregular) imprisonment

menafn.com/1099947007/WORLDVIEW-When-the-UK-press-stays-quiet

( menafn.com/mf_about.aspx )

from:

newsroompanama.com/world/worldview-when-the-uk-press-stays-quiet

i think something about British press on Assange's (irregular) imprisonment require to be reported on this article. --5.171.0.145 (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure this is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an unattributed opinion piece. We cite several British sources about his imprisonment. I'm not sure what improvement to the article is being proposed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)