Talk:Julian Assange

Arbuthnot

I have removed this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burrobert (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. has a partner who was affected by Wikileaks releases

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

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

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

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

6. continues to supervise the legal process as chief magistrate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

“Murder of Seth Rich” section

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

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

To

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No need to change anything in that section, this was widely reported on. For example, Facing accusations from high-profile members of the Democratic Party — including Hillary Clinton — that Russians helped WikiLeaks acquire the emails, Assange suggested Rich may have been the source of the leaks in August 2016, USA TODAY reported. His suggestion launched several conspiracy theories. [2]. Geogene (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

True, but for Wikipedia's purposes, the procedure is to give the most WP:WEIGHT to the most significant viewpoint. And this is a fairly ubiquitous viewpoint, for example that NPR piece I just mentioned contains this As you notice, Assange doesn't quite say that Seth Rich was his source for the DNC emails. He's suggesting it....But Assange was cleverly and quite cynically trying to throw people off from where he got the emails and pointing to this dead guy in Washington, D.C., who was killed in a botched robbery. [3]. Geogene (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, since some are partially quoting Assange's interview transcript, it should be pointed out that it was Assange that brought Rich up. Here's another part of the interview, from NPR [4].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Google Trends page for the "Julian Assange" search query show that interest in Assange and the Seth Rich conspiracy theories are closely linked. [5]. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Julian Assange's involvement in the Microchipping conspiracy

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

"long standing" counts for nothing in content disputes

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

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

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

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

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

The emphasis is in the original.

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

Whatever you think about Assange, Julian Assange#Honours and awards, and statements by the United Nations [6][7][8][9], Human Rights Watch [10], the American Civil Liberties Union [11], and legal experts [12][13] support the Wikipedia template warning, and demonstrate that it shouldn't be used for Assange. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@SPECIFICO: I've lost track of the times you've changed your opinion on silent consensus. You were topic banned from this page just a few months ago ([14]) for gaming the system ([15]), by flipping between opposite interpretations of the "consensus required" restriction. But regardless, this is clearly a BLP violation, so your personal opinion about Assange being the criminal of the century notwithstanding, we actually have to remove the infobox in order to comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC Criminal

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

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

---

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just how serious of a crime is skipping bail? Apparently bail jumping is sometimes the state of Wisconsin's most committed "crime" [16]. In the UK alone over 13,000 people are "on the run" having skipped bail [17].

Our bio doesn't give Assange's conviction for skipping bail much weight, and neither should the infobox. In 2016 the United Nations determined that Assange's detention in the UK was and remains arbitrary and that he should, by international law, be released [18]. The UN wrote that "a bail violation in the UK [is], objectively, a minor offense"[19]. Assange is being held in order to face espionage charges in the US for publishing classified documents, and the UN's rapporteur on torture has concluded that this was always the purpose of Assange's detention: "There is only a single explanation for everything... They wanted to apprehend him so they could extradite him to the U.S."[20].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick search of "assange" "breach of bail" "conviction" finds many articles that refer to a conviction for the criminal offense of breaching bail, although I couldn't find a source that looks like an official record of a conviction. [21] Does the UK government publish the proceeding of criminal prosecutions? Rks13 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I already provided sources above [22][23][24][25], which you appear not to have read. Here's more on the topic.

• UN News, 15 February, 2016 [26]:

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

• NPR, 5 February, 2016 [27]:

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

• Sydney Morning Herald, 5 February, 2015 [28]:

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

The UN Rapporteur on Torture went so far as to describe the UK's actions as effectively "lawless" [29]. There is no doubt as to the UN's position in this case: their statements and rulings have been consistent across a number of bodies. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

RFC result

I see that "Criminal status" is still in the infobox.[30] Per the RfC close above, shouldn't that be removed? Richard-of-Earth states: "... the criminality parameters should not be used as he has not been convicted of any more serious crimes." See Template:Infobox person#Parameters. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've now removed the "criminal status" parameter from the infobox: [31]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Criminal status again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Pelican

Operation Pelican was the name of the British government's push to get Ecuador to drop its political asylum protection of Assange. Alan Duncan wrote about the plan in his recent book In the Thick of It: The Private Diaries of a Minister. Some excerpts:

Friday, October 19: The Ecuador Ambassador says they have taken away [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange's cat. After living in their embassy for five years [where he'd sought asylum], Assange has today launched a lawsuit against the Ecuador government for violating his human rights, but probably for restricting his internet rather than taking away his cat.

Wednesday, March 13: Ecuador Ambassador Jaime Marchán is determined to get Assange out of his embassy, but President Moreno requires a final push in order to be persuaded to press the button.

Thursday, March 28: I think I am nearly there with Ecuador to get Julian Assange out of their London embassy. It has taken months of delicate negotiations, but nearly, nearly . . .

Thursday, April 11: Suddenly it's game on: I'm told Assange will be sprung from the [Ecuador] embassy today. So I drop everything and head to the Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office. Operation Pelican is go — suitably assisted by one official wearing a pelican-motif tie. We watch a live feed which ironically was available on the web from Russia Today. Bang on 10am, two or three plainclothes policemen enter the embassy. We were expecting Assange to be brought out very soon after their arrival, but texts to the Ops Room revealed he had caused a bit of a commotion and had been screaming and bawling while edging towards the Ambassador's office — at which point he was forcibly restrained. Then, with military precision, six police officers marched up to line each side of the entrance steps, to form a protective corridor through which Assange was bundled out at about 10.20am. By this time Russia Today had twigged something was afoot and cut the live feed. So, job done at last — and we take a commemorative photo of Team Pelican. It had taken many months of patient diplomatic negotiation, and in the end it went off without a hitch. I do millions of interviews, trying to keep the smirk off my face.

Burrobert (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for whatever edit you are suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Alan Duncan's memoirs are being serialized by the inimitable Daily Mail, which had the honor of being the first tabloid to be deprecated on Wikipedia (I think?). We need reliable sources to cover that to be used here. -Darouet (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's in Alan Duncan's book. Isn't that a reliable source? Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it may be a source for his claims, but in the quoted passages, I see no explanation of what operation Pelican is or was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The "claims" of the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, who apparently was running the operation to remove Assange from the embassy ("I think I am nearly there with Ecuador to get Julian Assange out of their London embassy. It has taken months of delicate negotiations ... "), should be of some interest. The name isn't particularly important and we can probably leave out the bit about the cat. Operation Pelican may be the name of the whole thing or it may just relate to the end-game where the police enter the embassy and extract Assange. it doesn't particularly matter. The more important point is that Alan Duncan, on behalf of the British government, was conducting "delicate negotiations" with the Ecuador government to remove Assange from the embassy for months. As far as I can tell, we haven't mentioned what the poms were up to during Assange's time in the embassy and his extraction comes out of the blue. Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So then you do not know what operation Pelican is, so no we should not add anything about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Forget about the name. Consider the rest of what I have said. Burrobert (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems both encyclopedic and written by a notable author. Seems WP:DUE to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is what is being cited [32], a brief mention might be useful. -Darouet (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but the "red herring name" implies there was a deliberate plan to force Assange out, that is the implication. Does the source say this was the case? What do you want to use the source to say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Forget about whether there was a name. That is a red herring. Red herring is a red herring. What about something like: "In the months leading up to Assange's arrest, Britain conducted an operation to pressure Ecuador to drop its grant of political asylum and allow British police to extract him from the embassy"?

Other suitable words can be substituted for "operation" and "pressure". However, Duncan does say "President Moreno requires a final push in order to be persuaded ". "Push" and "persuaded" suggest that this involved more than negotiations. For precision, it might be better to use Duncan's exact words. Burrobert (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure the text supports that, maybe "to get them to release him", in fact only one of those quotes even says that "It has taken months of delicate negotiations,". So we can (if we not already say it) use this to support text that says "Britain tried to negotiate his removal from the embassy".Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Britain tried ... " - why only "tried"?
• The text says this (whatever we want to call it) went on for months. We can mention that.

Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Because there is no evidence from your source it was these efforts (rather than Assange's own actions, for example) that was succefull. And again, it does not say there was any operation, but rather "negotiation". Time for others to chip in, I have had my say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Tried"?? The source says that Britain conducted "months of delicate negotiations". It didn't say Britain "tried to conduct months of delicate negotiations". Later on the source says "It had taken many months of patient diplomatic negotiation, and in the end it went off without a hitch". Burrobert (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jtbobwaysf above that it is WP:DUE, encyclopedic and written by a notable author. It should br included as per Burrobert "In the months leading up to Assange's arrest, Britain conducted an operation to pressure Ecuador to drop its grant of political asylum and allow British police to extract him from the embassy" What Assange may have or may have not done simply does not change the reliably sourced fact that Britain conducted an operation to pressure Ecuador. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this adds much to the article. The British government was open about wanting to arrest him from the start, and this is included in the article. Is there a source for "In the months leading up to Assange's arrest..."? I think if we include Operation Pelican, we have to know more about. If we just want to say Britain pressured Ecuador, well, we've already said that. We don't need to labour the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to referencing "Operation Pelican," it may be simply untrue that this was an operation to influence the Ecuadorian government. In that case, the proposed text would be false. As others have noted above, there are two salient points: Duncan said that convincing the Ecuadorians to give up Assange required months of negotiations, and on the day UK police removed Assange from the embassy, Duncan referred to the extraction as "Operation Pelican." I think that noting these points can be done briefly while attributing claims, properly, to Duncan. What about text like this?

In his memoirs, UK Minister Alan Duncan wrote that convincing the Ecuadorian government to revoke Assange's asylum required months of negotiations on his part.

And when describing the police detention of Assange,

According to Duncan, the removal of Assange from the embassy was dubbed "Operation Pelican."

Does this seem accurate, given the quotes provided above by Burrobert? -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Edited per comment below -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I realize my own text isn't even accurate: Duncan appears to be referring to months of negotiations on his part. Given the UK government's obvious displeasure at the granting of asylum in the first place, Duncan is almost certainly not referring to the UK government's own efforts overall. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is already a long article. Maybe include it in Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Jack, this is absurd proposing the content is moved to a different article when the diplomatic issue has nothing to do with either the arrest or indictment of Assange. Burrobert, please propose some text, maybe a sentence or two at most (my idea at least). We can run an RFC if needed, seems sometimes that is the only way to reach consensus on this article, unfortunately. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is our current narrative describing the British regime’s efforts to arrest Assange after he entered the Ecuadorian embassy:

1. The UK government wrote to Patiño stating that the police were entitled to enter the embassy and arrest Assange under UK law.

2. Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service were stationed outside from June 2012 to October 2015 to arrest Assange for breaching the bail conditions and to compel him to attend court to face the Swedish extradition appeal hearing, should he leave the embassy. The police guard was withdrawn on grounds of cost in October 2015, but the police said they would still deploy "several overt and covert tactics to arrest him". The cost of the policing for the period was reported to have been £12.6 million.

3. In 2015, La Repubblica stated that it had evidence of the UK's role via the English Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in creating the "legal and diplomatic quagmire" which prevented Assange from leaving the Ecuadorian embassy.

4. The UK said it would arrest Assange should he leave the embassy.

5. On 11 April 2019, the Metropolitan Police were invited into the embassy and arrested Assange … Moreno stated that Ecuador withdrew Assange's asylum after he repeatedly violated international conventions …

What was Britain up to between points 4 and 5? The explanation by Moreno about why Assange was abandoned to the British jackboots gives the impression, which we now know to be false, that the abandonment had nothing to do with any actions of the British regime. By omission, our story implies that the British regime woke on 11 April and were unexpectedly told by Ecuador to come and get Assange. We should use Duncan's diaries to fill in the blanks. Burrobert (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a proposed wording, I think @Darouet:'s suggestion above is a good start. He does make the point that his first sentence does not account for the fact that the Brits may have been up to other nastiness in addition to pressing Ecuador diplomatically. His second sentence is fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think your summary of the narrative proves we have LOTS of information about the British government's activities.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: I don't agree with your removal of UN expert commentary, and have restored that [33]. My edit also shortens the section on Assange's arrest, while fixing one of the references, adding a comment by UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard [34], and making space for a brief note about Duncan's diplomatic efforts (once they are published by Harper Collins and we can check that the reference there checks out, in a week). -Darouet (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree that between 4&5 was an operation and we have sources for the name of that operation. A sentence or two is DUE. I guess I dont have a strong opinion as of now on how it is written, only that it is included. It would be absurd to omit this detail about a coordinated operation. We know the US was putting pressure (diplomatic and covert in terms of spying), now we also know the UK was using its own tactics. This must be included however it is worded. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf Duncan's comment does indicate his own role in a diplomatic exchange between the UK and Ecuador, with the purpose of removing Assange. I suppose that shouldn't surprise anyone: the UK always made its displeasure concerning the asylum known. But Duncan's comment doesn't implicate the US in any direct way, and it doesn't tell us that an effort to remove Assange from the embassy was, beyond the days leading up to his re-arrest, called "Operation Pelican." Also, this material cannot be inserted into the article until Duncan's memoir is published on the 15th, at which time we can confirm any of these details. The Daily Mail is not useable as a source at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, lets wait for the release of the book. I am confused about your description of the term "operation pelican." The book doesn't say the name of the operation used that name? Or it just doesnt say when the term was used? Or we are waiting to figure that out from when the book is released. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear from the extracts above whether Operation Pelican is the name of the whole thing (pressuring Ecuador, extracting Assange and whatever else the Brits were getting up to) or whether it only relates to the part where the British police enter the embassy and extract Assange. The book may clear that up but, ultimately, it is not an important point. Burrobert (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is included, I think the details of Operation Pelican are important. Otherwise it's just a weak statement that Britain pressured Ecuador. Of course they did.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here and why you think it is important that we know the name the Brits gave to whatever they were doing. Our article currently says (by omission) that they were doing nothing and Assange just fell into their laps. Burrobert (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This article says no such thing, and your own summary proves that. But this is an article about Assange, not about the British government. If all the activities of the British, US, Swedish, Australian, Ecuadoran, and other governments relating to Assange were written down, yes, we would need another article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Removals

Jack Upland, since there's been some back and forth about the material you removed, and because the removals were quite substantial, can you explain your thinking a bit more? Is this a balance issue? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

For reference, these are the removals I'm referencing: [35]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I will caution you to review ONUS & CONSENSUSUS, and observe that evasion of 1RR by tag teams is likely to be sanctioned, if reported. Highly visible and not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

caution you, ONUS, CONSENSUSUS (sic), evasion of 1RR, tag teams, sanctioned, reported. Highly visible, not constructive. It seems Jack has started an mini edit war and a war of words with his bold removal of long standing content. The article has been stable for a while now so it is unclear what triggered the sudden burst of boldness. Anyway, in the future, ex abundanti cautela, would it be a good idea to discuss major changes on the talk page before implementing them? Burrobert (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack did not start an edit war. They just removed text and I objected to the removal. That's not an edit war. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the text — as I explained at the time — because it was repetitive. Yes, we should note the opinions of Melzer and Doctors for Assange, but we don't need to repeat essentially the same opinions multiple times. We certainly don't need to include trivial details such as how many doctors were involved each time. I don't see this as a major change. It is just trimming excessively verbose text in an overlong article. The text is not really "long standing" and has just accumulated over the past few years. If you want it to stay, please do some copy-editing to make it less verbose and repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I support complete removal. This nonsense was opposed by many less insistent editors from the beginning. It was never important to mainstream narratives. And news flash. He's still alive despite the world disregarding the alarm. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You all would benefit from reviewing the policies and guidelines. ONUS NPOV WEIGHT and CONSENSUS are policies. BRD is not, and furthermore is varied in its interpretation and application. @Awilley:. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to Jack Upland for breaking the edits up into small chunks with edit summaries. And to Darouet for only doing a partial revert. The path forward is discussion combined with more smaller edits with detailed edit summaries. Not more 6,923 byte reverts. ~Awilley (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd also say that I think the text is labouring the point when the issue has now moved on. Assange's health is being contested in the courts. I don't think there was any serious doubt Assange was unwell. The question is how that affects his extradition.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Jack's division of editors (see below) into supporters of Assange or apologists for the US-UK regime is too simplistic and doesn't represent the views of all editors working on the page. One way of dealing with Melzer's views (and the views of others) is to create a "Reception" section for the views of all commentators. Currently there is as "Assessment" sub-section which is strangely placed within the "Founding WikiLeaks" section. I would suggest moving the "Assessment" section to a more appropriate place and revamp it to include opinions such as Melzer's that are currently spread out through the article. Currently Melzer's name appears five times in the body because his contributions are spread out. If we reduce that to one mention of Melzer's name, that is 24 characters saved. Burrobert (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have never made such a division of editors, and I don't fit it to it myself. (The comment below referred to the book edited by Tariq Ali.) I don't think we want a jumble of responses to everything that has happened to Assange since 2006. This article is way too much of a WP:QUOTEFARM. Look at articles on other famous people: actors, politicians, artists etc. There are occasional quotations by commentators, but these are selective. Here, every time a VIP says something about Assange, some editor inserts it here, even if it is repetitive or inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you have disowned that position Jack. Have you also stopped beating your wife? What about the revamp suggested above and the odd placement of the "Assessment" subsection? Burrobert (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly there are many Assange supporters editing (like you). I don't disown that. The "Assessment" subsection is placed there because it is an assessment of WikiLeaks at that point in time. Your suggestion would create a jumble of various reactions by various people to various things, as I said. I think it is reasonable to have assessment of events as they happen. I think the problem here is quoting Melzer etc repetitively. Commentary should be selective. It shouldn't be all-inclusive. The commentary shouldn't drown out what is happening with Assange, as it does in the "Imprisonment in the UK".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Darouet: is there a reason you moved this — "On 10 March 2020, the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, IBAHRI, condemned the mistreatment of Julian Assange in the US extradition trial." — back from the "Hearings on extradition to the U.S." section to the "Imprisonment in the UK" section? As far as I can see, it relates to the extradition trial.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Jack Upland: actually I think neither section is appropriate, but I might be wrong. Though their statement was published on March 10 [36], the IBAHRI comments relate to treatment that occurred immediately following Assange's arrest. This indicates that the end of the first paragraph of Conviction for breach of bail would be appropriate. Specifically,

According to his lawyers, Mr Assange was handcuffed 11 times; stripped naked twice and searched; his case files confiscated after the first day of the hearing; and had his request to sit with his lawyers during the trial, rather than in a dock surrounded by bulletproof glass, denied.

Seems most relevant there. Those are details of what IBAHRI calls mistreatment that we would certainly consider notable for a prisoner being held in another country, and what is why, according to IBAHRI, it's notable here (perhaps even more so, since one would expect greater protections in the UK). -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement clearly says the IBAHRI "condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020". His arrest was on 11 April 2019.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jack Upland — I stand WP:TROUTed. I'll move the text as you've requested. Thanks for catching this, and my apologies for my error. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Narcissist a trope?

Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist," reproducing a common media trope.

I don't see what the addition to this sentence (in bold) adds to the article. Does the cited source actually say that the judge was echoing the media? If so, who actually said that? Could it be that the judge said it because it's true? I don't think we need sniping by Assange supporters at every point — if this is what this is supposed to be. I have undone the edit because the full quotations from the judge, which were removed, are important. Textual criticism of the wording he used is not.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds right. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland - the use of the term "narcissist" to describe Assange is discussed in four chapters in the book, edited by scholar Tariq Ali and civil rights lawyer Margaret Kunstler.

• Chapter 3 is by journalist Alan MacLeod. MacLeod notes that the term is used by an opinion column in The Week, and is mentioned in various contexts by a host of other papers. MacLeod writes, "The narcissist accusation is a common trope thrown at enemies of the US establishment."
• Chapter 14 is by human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson. Robertson says, simply, that "the judge, not being a psychiatrist, had no business" to call Assange a narcissist.
• Chapter 15 (titled "Responding to Assange's Critics") is by journalist Caitlin Johnstone. Johnstone writes that accusations Assange is a "narcissist" amount to a smear used by opponents who have no arguments at their disposal other than ad hominem attack.
• A late chapter in the book "Endgame for Assange" is by artist and author Angela Richter. Richter writes that it is difficult to get Assange to talk about himself: "difficult. I hardly know anyone who says “I” as reluctantly as Assange, which is amazing considering how often he is described as a narcissist and an egomaniac in the media."

My summary of these four references was [37], "...reproducing a common media trope." Is there some other way you would summarize this information?

My edit also removed the second half of the judge's comment regarding Assange, "who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest." We should remove the text because it adds nothing to the judge's charge that the Assange is a "narcissist." The judge doesn't have an editor in the courtroom to let him know that he's simply defining the term he used a second before, but his repetition doesn't need to be reproduced here. By contrast, the four chapters I cited above offer different and less hostile appraisals. Given that this is a biography of Assange, it's appropriate to replace the judge's second, identical attack with a differing viewpoint of the issue more sympathetic to the subject of the biography. -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You also removed the judge's comment about Assange not having a reasonable excuse, which I think is the important part. These quotations were taken from the source. I don't think we should get fixated with the term "narcissist". Of what you've quoted, only Roberton's comment is directly relevant, and your opaque "summary" doesn't reflect what he said. I don't accept that every negative comment about Assange should be counteracted by a chorus of his fans.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There may be a perspective problem here. If literally five words "...reproducing a common media trope" to summarize a whole book amounts to a "chorus," then any text however concise and necessary can be considered unreasonable. In this case, simply reproducing more of the judge's text misleads readers regarding appraisals by experts. Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson is correct that the judge wasn't competent to call Assange a narcissist, and multiple psychological evaluations during his trial did not determine he is one. Citing the book here instead enriches the judge's quote by providing another view and resource that discusses the term "narcissist" in depth and so only helps readers and this article.

As to the remainder of the judge's comments, "...no excuse...," it just doesn't belong in the article. Assange skipped bail to receive political asylum and avoid extradition to the US on charges of espionage that are universally decried by international human rights [38][39][40][41][42] and journalistic organizations [43][44][45][46][47] whose evaluations contradict the judge's comment. -Darouet (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the judge's comments is no reason to remove them.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

...Sure, but that's not what I wrote. -Darouet (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Early publications paragraph

I have removed this:

WikiLeaks first came to international prominence in 2008, when "most of the US fourth estate" filed an amicus curiae brief—through the organizational efforts of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP)—to defend Wikileaks against a DMCA request from the Swiss bank Julius Baer, which had initially been granted.

Virtually none of this is supported by the sources. The source cited does not say Wikileaks first came to international prominence in 2008. I can't find the quotation "most of the US fourth estate" in the source cited. Or reference to the RCFP. Or a DMCA request.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the part about coming to prominence in 2008 comes from the quote "Mr. Elmer, who helped bring WikiLeaks to prominence three years ago when ... " which was from an article written in 2011. The Julius Baer item is an important part of the Wikileaks story which should be told. I will have a look at some sources and come up with something. It is time you started looking at the bloated section "2016 U.S. presidential election". Burrobert (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A suitable reference to support the text you removed is at WikiLeaks#2006–08. The source says

• "The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion protesting the censorship of Wikileaks, and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) assembled a media coalition that filed a friend of the court brief on Wikileaks' behalf" ("friend of the court" = "amicus curiae").
• "The media coalition comprised almost all of the major US newspaper publishers and press organisations, including -- in addition to the RCFP -- the American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, The E.W. Scripps Company, the Gannett Company, The Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Association, the Newspaper Association of America, The Radio-Television News Directors Association, and The Society of Professional Journalists". This could be summarised as "most of the US fourth estate" or you could just list them all.
• Not sure about the reference to DMCA. Perhaps replace that with "injunction" which does appear in the source.

Burrobert (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an article Bank Julius Baer v. Wikileaks, which should be linked to more openly here. The NYT is a US newspaper comments on a US case: it doesn't say that the case first brought WikiLeaks to "international prominence". I think it's better to leave this out. I think "most of the US fourth estate" is a rhetorical embellishment that doesn't belong here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You must be hard of hearing. I said:

• "I think the part about coming to prominence in 2008 comes from the quote "Mr. Elmer, who helped bring WikiLeaks to prominence three years ago when ... " which was from an article written in 2011"

and

• "This could be summarised as "most of the US fourth estate" or you could just list them all.

Burrobert (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I read what you said. There's no point in being repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert and Jack Upland: what do you think about this edit [48]? It brings in some part of Assange's political/economic philosophy, and mentions the Baer case while, I hope, addressing Jack's concern that the earlier text wasn't supported by sources. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not perfect but close enough. Why didn't you use the article in The Inquirer which supports most of the previous version of the wording? Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Was the Bard correct?

Would someone mind doing some regression on these data points to see if there is a pattern? They seem to indicate a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

• Assange’s bio should include the sentence: "During the time of the custody dispute, Assange's brown hair turned white".
• Assange’s bio should also include the sentence: "According to David Leigh and Luke Harding, Assange may have been involved in the WANK (Worms Against Nuclear Killers) hack at NASA in 1989, but this has never been proven".
• We shouldn’t mention that Wikileaks first came to prominence in 2008 when Swiss Bank Julius Baer sued Wikileaks for publishing allegations of illegal activity at the bank and Wikileaks was defended in court by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and "almost all of the major US newspaper publishers".
• We shouldn’t mention what the British Minister of State for Europe and the Americas said the Brits were up in the months leading up to Assange’s arrest.

Burrobert (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The change in hair colour indicates the trauma Assange went through. Arguably, we should have more about this episode, as it seems to continue to affect him. His prematurely white hair is a prominent part of his appearance and explaining how it came about is of interest. This is only a brief mention.
• The NASA hack is well-sourced speculation and is part of Assange's notoriety in his early day.
• No one has said we can't mention Julius Baer. The problem was with the sources used.
• No one has said we shouldn't mention Operation Pelican.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: I saw your edits but I agree with Jack Upland here. It seems to me that readers should be aware of those earlier episodes. The comment by Leigh and Harding - who is known to be very hostile to Assange - is properly attributed. As to the issue of his hair color - is this incorrect? I agree with Jack that this is a meaningful event in Assange's life. -Darouet (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Did it turn white or was it bleached? HAs any MEDERS source commented on this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5405161/Secret-of-Assanges-hair-revealedSlatersteven (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I mentioned the hair colour and WANK items in the context of other actions. They are not important by themselves.
• Interesting point about the change in hair colour possibly requiring a MEDERS source. I'll let others comment on that.
• Regarding Julius Baer, I found the source. You only need to tweak a few of the words as I described above.
• Regarding the actions of the British regime leading up to Assange's arrest, that is good to hear.

Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well as there is a claim that his hair colour was the result of an accident. Yes we need a source even saying it has changed while During the time of the custody dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A source is provided.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Missed it, I think the claim needs attribution as the source does.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• bump* Burrobert (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, I don't understand what your concrete proposals are: in the bullet points you've given above I have no idea what you're arguing for or against. From the edits back and forth at the time of this dispute it seemed to me that Jack's sources and arguments were reasonable, but here on the talk page I can't even tell what's being disputed. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I was commenting on what I thought was a lack of consistency in the editing. The outstanding points from this section are:

• The resurrection of Julius Baer using the source I provided and with the change in wording that I mentioned in an earlier section.
• Describing what the British Minister of State for Europe and the Americas said the Brits were up in the months leading up to Assange’s arrest. I believe we are waiting for the publication of Duncan's book in order to cover this point.

Burrobert (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll comment on the Julius Baer bank issue in the section above. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Burrobert (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Assange's white hair (see above), there seem to be two different accounts: either his hair turned white after the custody battle or it was a high school experiment gone wrong. The photo in this article shows that his hair was light brown at aged 23, so I don't think the high school experiment claim is believable. It could have been a joke made by Assange. The custody battle explanation is given by his mother in a New Yorker article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

4.1 Entering the embassy -> Political asylum

I tried changing the title of this section to [49] "political asylum." Jack has objected [50], writing, "Asylum is only one issue here. We have to acknowledge breaching bail." However, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated [51] that a bail violation in the UK [is] objectively, a minor offense, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that.

I therefore propose that we acknowledge the more important aspect of Assange's biography — that he was granted political asylum — and change the name of this section to the shorter and more informative Political asylum. -Darouet (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange. The section is about entering the embassy — and political asylum is only part of that. There's not a great difference in length.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he was granted asylum is a much more significant aspect of this episode than the breaching of bail, which is a relatively minor offense. The text should describe the breaching of bail, but putting it in the section title is gratuitous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: minimizing a major event in someone's biography - being granted political asylum - in order to give greater weight to an objectively minor offense is totally inappropriate, full stop. A reader should be able to scan the table of contents and quickly find this episode in his life. -Darouet (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources calling so-called political asylum significant? Very few. Sources noting the crime of bail-jumping: Numerous. Let's skip the OR. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Entering the embassy" is a neutral heading which reflects the contents of the section. "Political asylum" is not a neutral heading and does not reflect the contents of the section.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Seth Rich claim

Assange made a false, self-serving claim. Thats why NPOV cannot say "comment". Please restore. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see this text and cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We haven't mentioned any claim by Assange in this paragraph. We say "Assange implied that ... " and "Assange's comments were highlighted ... ". What is the claim being referred to here? Don't leave our readers in the dark. Burrobert (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source. SPECIFICO talk 05:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the statement about his comments being highlighted isn't supported by the sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Statement" would be OK, too. But "comment" repeats his lie. SPECIFICO talk 05:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I will let you work out whether Assange made any claim and what that claim was. Once you have done it, you should put it into the article so that readers also know what it is. Regarding Jack's comment about "highlighted" comments, the Vox story, that is used as a source for this point, does not mention Assange at all. It also does not mention any statements made by Wikileaks about Rich. It isn't a point I am particularly interested in. However, isn't it synthesis (or possible OR) to draw a conclusion from two separate sources that is in neither source? I'll leave you work on that as well. Burrobert (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is an unsupported claim at the moment. I haven't checked Network propaganda yet. It seems odd to suggest Assange brought attention to the issue when the journalist in the interview (quoted above) knew exactly what Assange was talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Coverage expanded to broader media outlets only after Assange, on August 9, tweeted a $20,000 reward for “information leading to the conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich” and implied on Dutch TV that Rich may have been the source of the DNC email dump and that his death may have been tied up with that fact". From The Network Book. Burrobert (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have taken out the "highlighted" sentence as it is unsupported and rather unnecessary. I have altered the sentence sourced from Network propaganda to fit the quotation quoted above.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

10/10 for effort Jack. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is it unnecessary to note that Assange's intentional promotion of Seth Rich conspiracy theories prompted mass coverage in rightwing outlets? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is already covered by sentence from Network Propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't advocate removing any of the essentials, but the 2016 U.S. presidential election section with three separate subsections still remains way too long. There have been repeated efforts to trim it in the past. Can we please come back to that? This material can definitely be covered in a single section, with references and links provided to readers who are curious and want to know all the details. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the highest profile issue that Assange was ever involved in should not be trimmed. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Who said it was the highest profile issue? And, anyway, does it need multiple headings?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Assange is not best known for his comments on Seth Rich. One can get a very rough idea of what he's best known for from the timeline on Google Trends. Based on that timeline, Assange is best known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (the US diplomatic cables, and Iraq and Afghan War logs), followed by his extradition battle, then for the 2016 US Presidential election broadly and his political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not delegate editorial decisions to an unknown Google algorithm. If it did, we could all retire. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Some time back, I put together set of sources from a range of countries which address the topic, "Who is Julian Assange?" The Guardian doesn't mention the 2016 US election.The BBC also doesn't mention the election.SBS of Australia does mention the election. The LA Times mentions the election.The Sydney Morning Herald doesn't mention the election.NBC mentions the election.CNN mentions the election. My conclusion is that media sources outside the USA generally don't see Assange's involvement in the election as a major part of his life. I invite other editors to find other examples.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember that, and it was helpful. To add to your list: the BBC did another profile Who is Julian Assange and what is Wikileaks? [52] that talks about the US a lot, but doesn't mention the 2016 elections once (the only legal case against Assange related to the elections was thrown out of court on first amendment grounds [53]). Instead, the BBC profile focuses on what Assange became renowned for internationally - massive leaks in 2010-11 - and that are now the basis of the US espionage case against him. A Columbia Journalism Review article on those charges also doesn't mention the elections once [54]. -Darouet (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mulleur investigation is a primary source here on a political article, certainly not reliable to override an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You are free to cite any of the thousands of RS secondary and tertiary discussions of Muelller's findings. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is the sentence I took out previously: "Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[293][292] and set off a spike in attention to the murder". As noted above, the Vox source doesn't mention Assange at all. The NBC source mentions InfoWars, but it doesn't mention Fox or the Washington Times. NBC seems to place more weight on the reward rather than Assange's comments. The second part of the sentence has no citation at all. Based on these sources it seems that attention was drawn to the murder by a number of people, including Roger Stone. That's why I would say this sentence fails verification.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have removed the subheadings from the 2016 US election section, as no one has advocated retaining them. This brings this section into line with the rest of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to claim that Assange "implied" that Rich was the source of the leak, then we should include his clarification as reported in the article by Alex Seitz-Wald: “We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications.” I don't think Assange implied anything, but understand how one might draw that conclusion. TFD (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Rich was not previously suspected of leaking, and after Assange's weird, gratuitous comment, it was widely reported both that he'd made this disingenuous remark, which fed a frenzy of right-wing narratives. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, how did the journalist know who Rich was?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've previously referred you to the Seth Rich article. If you have no knowledge of the matter, you should not be making "bold" edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Snopes article that Seitz-Wald cites says, "Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich’s death." We can use Google search to see if anyone mentioned this before the interview. TFD (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Murder of Seth Rich article makes clear that the conspiracy theory was alive before Assange made his comment. I have checked Network Propaganda, and its analysis of the saga shows that Assange's comments — and the reward — caused a brief surge in interest in the story, but major coverage didn't start till 2017. Therefore I feel that the sentence based on Network Propaganda also fails verification. It seems to have been written to make Assange's role in the saga more important than it actually was.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is second guessing reliable sources. And it's pointless, because plenty of other reliable sources can be produced for this As Isikoff’s reporting makes obvious, it’s in fact much more accurate to pin the broad embrace of Seth Rich conspiracies on WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange — and on U.S. actors like Infowars’ Alex Jones and Fox News’s Sean Hannity. [55]. Geogene (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

How is it second guessing? The point of reliable sources is to quote them correctly. This isn't happening here. The article you cite is entitled, "Don’t blame the Seth Rich conspiracy on Russians. Blame Americans." Assange is obviously not an American. This article doesn't really help your cause.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a failure of reading comprehension on your part, then. It says what it says whether you understand it or not. Geogene (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This minor sub-section is draining more editor time than it deserves as Jack pointed out above. I woke from my slumber to complete Assange's quote since the abridged version obscured an important point. Not sure why this would be regarded as "UNDUE detail" and I can't make sense of "RS give summary accounts". BtW the recent addition doesn't satisfy Jack's earlier objections. Burrobert (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Kindly specify your concern and why you believe that long quote is the best way to address it. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary was not very informative so let's use the Socratic method to see if we can find the truth (which will, as you know, set us free):

• Was the addition of the quote "and they become concerned to see things occurring like that" undue. If so, why?
• Was the addition of the longer quote inside the citation undue? If so, why?
• Was my change to the introduction ("When asked whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder", Assange answered, ...") undue? If so, why?
• What does "RS give summary accounts" mean?

That will do for a start. We can look at the parts of the section that fail verification later.

Burrobert (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the accusation is that Assange was misleading in order to conceal his source. There seems little reason to expand beyond that. We can say that Assange played a part in spreading rumours, but that's all the sources indicate. This isn't an impeachment debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Burrobert (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Re this edit [56], the two quotes come across quite differently:

(1) "No. There’s no finding. I’m suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

(2) "No. There’s no finding. I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

In the full quote (1), Assange says that Wikileaks sources might be fearful seeing someone like Seth Rich Killed. In the truncated quote (2), Assange appears to be saying that Seth Rich died because he was the source. If you believe there's no difference in meaning that's fine: surely you wouldn't object, then, to having the full quote (with 10 extra words) available? -Darouet (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with TFD that we should include Wikileaks' clarification [57]:

"We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications."

-Darouet (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you will read the hundres of RS that discussed this, both contemporaneously and to this day, you will learn that this was not received as a good faith "clarification" but rather as a doubling down on the deflection, dog-whistle conspiracy theorizing, and self-serving lie. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, I see you have restored the disputed text. You say in your edit summary "per" @TFD: suggestion, while ignoring three other editors who argue the contrary here. Please self revert and pursue consensus here on talk. @Awilley:. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to include the full quote. As far as I can tell only one editor has objected to including the full quote and that editor has not yet clarified their objection by answering the above questions. Burrobert (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Did anybody oppose TFD's suggestion? Also, I saw that you disagreed with Burrobert adding the full quote, but I agree with Burrobert, and Jack's statement appears ambivalent (Jack correct me if I'm wrong here). SPECIFICO it's hard to even know what consensus or edits you're referring to if you don't take the time to use diffs to explain yourself. Lastly, why are you constantly pinging Awilley? Other editors here take the time to link and quote from sources, and build consensus. I think that's the best way to go about things. -Darouet (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If necessary, we can consult an Admin. Geogene, Jack, and I did not agree with TFD. If you were a less experienced editor I'd think you did it in error. Please read WP:ONUS and please pursue consensus for your view on talk. There's no rush, but edit warring on a DS article is not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is still unclear what you are disagreeing with and your reasons.

• Do you disagree with the addition of the quote "and they become concerned to see things occurring like that"? If so, why?
• Do you disagree with the addition of the longer quote inside the citation? If so, why?
• Do you disagree with the change to the introduction ("When asked whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder", Assange answered, ...")? If so, why?
• Do you disagree with the addition of the quote "We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications"? If so, why?

Burrobert (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I disagree with inserting quotes into this paragraph. It is a minor incident in Assange's life and should be dealt with briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

United Nations

The opinions of people working with the UN are referred to more often than the English judges. Agnes Callamard is cited twice. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is cited three times, twice saying that skipping bail is a minor offence. Nils Melzer is cited four times. Isn't this undue weight?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a suggestion above about how to deal with multiple quotes from Melzer which could also be used to deal with multiple quotes from others. Take the quotes out of the timeline and roll them into a separate section dealing with "Reactions". Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This would take the opinions out of context. For example, the statement by the Working Group on 5 February 2016 is related to his time in the Embassy. It would just be confusing to lump this together with comments about his imprisonment in Belmarsh. And I'm not sure what problem this would solve.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Then you have made a rod for your own back. By the way, while you have your measuring stick out, can you compare the amount of space devoted to the 2016 US election to the amount of space devoted to the release and impact of the Collateral Murder video or the Vault 7 files? Burrobert (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: part of the problem is that there are multiple UN bodies that have gotten involved in the Assange case, alongside all the other human rights groups. According to these groups, the fundamental issues at stake are serious — treatment of political detainees, due process of law, freedom of journalism and speech — particularly important since the countries prosecuting Assange (US, UK) are some of the more powerful in the world and set the standard of what can be done to journalists or whistleblowers everywhere.

Otherwise, I disagree Burrobert with the idea of taking out these various declarations by human rights groups or officials and having a separate "reactions" section. With that separate section, a reader curious about Assange's circumstances at Belmarsh would have no idea of the descriptions and statements of on the topic, by institutions the world has established to monitor human rights and incarceration. Often, the very facts that are relevant to Assange's incarceration, and his biography, might be made known only because of an investigation and report by those bodies. -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Who, other than a few insistent Wikipedia edtors, puts any credence in the proclamations of a UN factotum? Note that Melzer is a qualified expert in legal affairs, not medicine or personal health. With proper sourcing, his analysis on the legal issues regarding Assange may be DUE WEIGHT. Otherwise, none of it belongs in the article. I note again -- Assange is still alive. Somebody got it wrong. Maybe the physicians whose opinons Melzer relied on? SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Who, other than a few insistent Wikipedia editors, gives any weight to what the US regime says happened in the 2016 US election.
• Nils Melzer is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• We already have a "Reactions" section. It is called "Assessments" and is placed, oddly, under the "Founding WikiLeaks" section.
• Two of the four references to Melzer appear in the same paragraph and all are in the same "Imprisonment in the UK" section. It should be easy to roll these references into a sub-section of that section, perhaps under a title like "UN Rapporteur's assessment of Assange's imprisonment".
• These sentences are about the whole process that Assange has been subjected to and not only about Assange's imprisonment. There may be a more appropriate location: "In a later interview with The Canary, Melzer criticised the "secretive grand jury indictment in the United States", the "abusive manner in which Swedish prosecutors disseminated, re-cycled and perpetuated their 'preliminary investigation' into alleged sexual offences", the "termination by Ecuador of Mr Assange's asylum status and citizenship without any form of due process", and the "overt bias against Mr Assange being shown by British judges since his arrest". He said the United States, UK, Sweden and Ecuador were trying to make an example of Assange. He also accused journalists of "spreading abusive and deliberately distorted narratives".".

Burrobert (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am deeply sceptical about the how and the why of this proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I was only trying to help you reduce the length of the article. Personally, I am happy with the way it reads now. Burrobert (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just the length. It's the weight given to the opinions of UN personnel. I don't believe they should be ignored, but I don't think we need multiple comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack has stated the central point. Melzer is not even UN personnel. He's an unpaid consultant with a strange and unusual generic title and a limited brief that does not include medical diagnosis. It also does not include a law school prof choosing and re-stating whatever his chosen physicians may have said to him. That does not make either his or their medical judgment notable in this matter. Once again I note -- Assange is still alive months after this proclamation. Melzer is arguably a notable expert on the law in these matters. Nothing further. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the two mentions of the comments of United Nations Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard can be rolled into one item. They stem from the same article.
• Nils Melzer is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• There is a more urgent weight problem that needs to be addressed in another of our sections.
• British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is quoted twice within three sentences saying almost the same thing.
• We devote a paragraph to something that didn’t happen (one of Jack’s pet hates) - Assange agreeing to go to prison in exchange for clemency for Chelsea Manning.

Burrobert (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

not responsive or substantive to this thread. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't worry too much about the weight of a petite looking UN while one of our sections is morbidly obese. Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Who, other than a few insistent Wikipedia edtors, puts any credence in the proclamations of a UN factotum? Let's see:

• The New York Times: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]
• The Washington Post: [63] [64] [65]
• The Guardian: [66] [67] [68]
• The Independent: [69]
• The Financial Times: [70] [71]
• The BBC: [72]
• Le Monde: [73]
• Le Figaro: [74] [75] [76] [77]
• El Pais: [78]
• Sueddeutsche Zeitung: [79] [80]
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: [81] [82] [83] [84]
• Deutsche Welle: [85]
• Xinhua: [86]
• South China Morning Post: [87]
• The Globe and Mail: [88]
• Sydney Morning Herald: [89] [90] [91]

It looks like every major newspaper in the world cares. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)