Talk:Julian Assange

Embassy headings

I don't see the point of having so many headings in this portion of the article. Many of the headings are followed by a single short paragraph. It is also illogical to have a section headed "Ecuadorian embassy period" which doesn't actually cover the entire period.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about "Ecuadorian embassy period", though this was my change. I thought that what was there before was a little awkward and overly long for a header. As far as I am concerned, feel free to change it to something else. I am doing something else right now, but as I recall I also thought there might be too many headers. Elinruby (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ah, are you talking about the "Early years" section? I kind of agree, but this is something I wanted to run by you guys. I felt the section was basically a timeline and sort of a salad of procreation and policy positions and immigration bureaucracy. It's the simplest basis of organization but not necessarily the best one for this topic. What do you guys think of grouping by theme rather than chronology? Those headers were really there to help me sort the paragraphs out, and I don't insist on this particular architecture, but wanted to post here before making major structural changes to an article that seems rather contentious. LMK Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

for example, the early years header could go away right now, for a start Elinruby (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Early years" heading was put there by me to parallel the "Later years" heading, which you seem to be ignoring. The reason to divide it into early years and later years (however entitled) is because of the 2016 US election section. We therefore have material before the election and then material after the election. Chronological order is recommended by the Manual of Style for Biographies (MOS:BIO), is basically the way the article has been constructed over time, and is easy to follow. The problem with "theme" is that it is largely arbitrary. You seem to have lumped various things together in order to make categories. Any other editor would probably come up with a different arrangement. I think abandoning chronological order will get confusing. If we are just listing "WikiLeaks publishing", I think that belongs on the page List of material published by WikiLeaks.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually that might work. One question I have is to what extent Assange=Wikilinks. My impression is not always. I'd be ok with summarizing here and taking the detail there. I would have to look the MOS section up, but I've copy-edited a boatload of bios and I have yet to see one that intersperses affairs and personal status issues throughout a list of works. Thinking here of Marc Chagall and all the other painters who had to flee Paris when the Nazis arrived. For people with a well-defined career path chronology is probably the way to go, I agree, but putting procreation in the same section as an impact on a war or helping a whistleblower to flee kinda trivializes them both, no? It seems to me it turns narrative into a laundry list. Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Leave it for a day or two? I will come back to this Elinruby (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, in relation to procreation, there is a section on "Children" at the end of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

So maybe move that bit there? I am thinking I should draftify a copy of this and work on it to the side for a minute, the better to demonstrate what I am suggesting. I am not ignoring the later years section; I stopped to discuss. Currently distracted by something but will get to this soon. I personally am fine with you putting all of the children together, if you want to do that. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what your editing is design to do and what problems you are trying to solve?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Easier to just demo it elsewhere. I have found it a waste of time to argue with those determined to misunderstand. As far as I can tell you have been trying really hard to have an argument, here and on my talk page. But. Preoccupied right now with something else Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you to move the non-bio info and reorg a bit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am past the couple days I asked for, so update on this: when I tried to edit a copy of the page in my sandbox, I got very very lagged and had to quit. It is tough to cut and paste in those circumstances. I had identified a couple of non-critical things in the lede, but I should probably start afresh in some other editor when I come back to this. Or, deleting old stuff from the sandbox might possibly work. However, in any case, I have gotten sucked into a breaking news story with a lot of upset new editors, and as an experienced editor who has already somewhat researched the topic (but not the article) I should probably prioritize that over this. I will also be tied up in real life for a couple of days. I will try to further what I started here with the sub-headings around all that, but welcome any other help or discussion meanwhile.

I think we may have consensus for moving the birth of the child from the early embassy section to the section on children, see @Jack Upland: comment above. In broad strokes, what I was wanting to suggest was a structure more along the lines of bio, WikiLeaks, importance (1st Amendment vs national security, etc), then a summary of the legal situation, then further down a more chronological account of events, possibly as a separate timeline. That's also over-simplified, but since I won't we working on this for several more days at least, that's the heart of it.

The most important MoS quibble about the lede is that the link to Collateral Damage on YouTube should be in External links, and replaced in the lede with a secondary reference. Also, someone should research the version -- it seems that there are several, some with more editorial comment than others. YouTube is of course usually discouraged, but imho this is a good case for including it; in External Links however. Later Elinruby (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think any discussion of the embassy period has to mention he had children at that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why? Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it is one of the most major events in the period.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Asylum

Jack Upland has repeatedly objected to my use of the word "asylum" in the article headings, stating that the use of this word would not be neutral. However, the granting of Asylum is merely a fact. It is not neutral to omit the term from the article headings when this is one of the most momentous events of Assange's life, effectively defining his most recent decade.

If there's no consensus here on the talk page about using the term in the headings, I'd like to launch an RfC:

Should we change the article heading "Ecuadorian embassy period" to "Political asylum," and the subheading "Entering the embassy" to "Entering the Ecuadorian embassy" (Yes or No)?

If there's consensus here to make this change, we don't need an RfC. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is also a fact that he skipped bail. The question is what heading to use. (And please don't confuse this with the issue of the subheadings).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Ecuadorian embassy period -> Asylum is an improvement. On the other hand, I dislike "entering the embassy" simply because it does not really convey that he not only entered, he stayed. Open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Seems to me a good compromise would be keep the main heading title “Ecuadorian embassy period” but rename the first subsection “Asylum”. This gives due weight to a central issue without using the term “political asylum” which some here seem unhappy with. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Naming the first subsection "Asylum" would be confusing because he was under asylum the whole period. "Entering the embassy" describes exactly what the subject of the first subsection is, which is more than getting asylum. It is patently obvious he stayed in the embassy. "Entering the embassy" does not imply it was temporary.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Omit "asylum" SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Asylum is a central issue in this phase of Assange’s life and IMO deserves at least a sub heading. To dismiss the suggestion so curtly seems a little inappropriate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested. It is the reason that he served a year in prison and the reason he continues to be denied bail. Not every issue needs a heading. "Ecuadorian embassy period" sums up this phase perfectly well. It is neutral as it doesn't favour either the British or Ecuadorian governments' legal position.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Assange he sought asylum, not because he wanted to avoid arrest for skipping bail (which usually involves a short sentence, if any) but to avoid extradition to Sweden and then on to the U.S. where there was talk of very long sentences or worse. Subsequent events tend to support Assange’s claim on this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

What? Of course, he didn't seek asylum to avoid arrest for skipping bail!!! It was his decision to avoid extradition to Sweden that led to him skipping bail!!! This is a seriously twisted take on events.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your wording ie: “Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested” was perhaps a little vague – it seemed to imply you thought the act of skipping bail was the reason behind his asylum request. Anyway I’m not sure that two sets of rather angry looking three exclamation marks where warranted. Anyway we seem to have had a misunderstanding - back to the issue: “Skipping bail” was merely part of a complex set of events which resulted in Assange seeking asylum – as such I personally don’t see it demands a sub heading but would not object strongly if someone thought such an arrangement could be worded to clarify/focus the narrative. I think the case for an “Asylum” sub heading is stronger as Assange spent several years under the protection of a form of asylum – in that sense it defined this stage of his life in contrast to the preceding period where he was free but subject to the law – and the following phase where he has been/is not free and subject to law. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The exclamation marks were because it was such a bizarre proposition. The best term for that phase in his life is "Ecuadorian embassy period" (or something similar). "Asylum" implies that he was a refugee from political persecution. That is in the eye of the beholder. We now know there was no US indictment when he entered the embassy (that didn't happen till 2018). He was facing extradition to Sweden regarding allegations by two women. Political persecution? The Ecuadorian government may have thought he deserved asylum, but many more did not. The British government did not accept the grant of asylum, and therefore he was not able to travel to Ecuador and take up asylum there as he had intended. The "asylum" that he had was therefore not universally accepted — in fact, not accepted in the country where he was — and was of a very limited form. He could stay in the embassy as long as the British and Ecuadorian governments agreed to let him stay there. As I said earlier, he did not receive "territorial asylum" because he never never reached Ecuador. Staying in the embassy, he received "diplomatic asylum" which is controversial, unpredicatable, and not generally recognised by international law.[1][2] "Asylum" is not a neutral term and is potentially misleading. On the other hand, "Ecuadorian embassy period" captures exactly what happened and doesn't imply that Ecuador was wrong to offer him asylum or that the British government was wrong to try to arrest him. It is simply factual, and that's the way we ought to stay.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I accept the “Ecuadorian embassy period” as a valid title, and said so earlier in this debate/section (fourth contribution I think). There I suggested “Asylum” as a sub-heading because of its sheer significance. Hopefully we can agree that the word “asylum” cannot be avoided when dealing with this period? Unless you are proposing to banish the term completely from the article then questions about what the word implies become somewhat moot ie it’s the significance not the validity of the term that is in question here. The use of the word “Asylum” as a sub-title is not an acknowledgment that Assange necessarily qualified for it – that it seems to me is a debate for elsewhere – it is about recognising the key significance of the concept in the Assange story at this time (be you for or against) which surly warrants at least a sub-heading. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Asylum" appears 14 times in the article. I don't think there is any subsection in the article that is all about "asylum", but if there is I have no objection to it being described as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems a very reasonable approach. I, and hopefully others, can look into that as a way forward. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the use of "asylum". SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Perhaps you could give your reasons? Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion of that word. Asylum is a political refuge. That's not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime. Pretty simple. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Just to be clear - that word [asylum] is already included several times in this article. I have already given good reasons why it deserves to be used as at least a sub-title - the onus, I would suggest, is now on you to refute those reasons or accept them. You said “Asylum is a political refuge.” This statement is not correct: asylum means refuge from harm – you may choose to say, in Assange’s case, that the most serious harms he faced where from politically motivated quarters, or otherwise – but there is no doubting there were plenty of people who wanted him punished – he sought a place of protection from harm ie “asylum”. Terms like “Political Asylum” or “Diplomatic Asylum” have their own specialist legal/technical meanings – the world “asylum” on it’s own does not. So when you say “[Political Asylum’s] not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime.” You are inadvertently using a straw man argument (just to be clear, if repetitive, I’m arguing for the sub-title “Asylum” not “Political Asylum”). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I would completely oppose using "asylum" in an ambiguous or vague sense. Clearly, we are talking about "political asylum" here. The implication is that Assange was a refugee from political persecution.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Any application of "asylum" in this article presents an absurd and misleading narrative -- one that Assange himself has gone to great lengths and lies to promote. WP is not here to promote the false narratives of a fugitive. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Given that Assange has been, for years, locked in a maximum security facility (along with some of the most dangerous people in the country); that he faces the real possibility of spending the rest of his life in similar conditions; that this situation was initiated, and continued by US government agencies, I cannot see how the narrative, that he faced an extremely grim future at the hands of the US system, can be denied. I think we are beholden to give living people the benefit of any doubts in their Wiki articles – you perhaps should bare that in mind. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland Some of the key themes in Assange’s life and the way it was debated during that period, where questions like: “Should he have sought asylum?”or “Should he have been granted asylum?” Assange and his supporters claimed that if he had not been given “asylum” he would eventually face extradition to the US and potentially very severe treatment at the hands of federal agencies. The actions of the US State since then seem to bear out this claim. The word Asylum has it’s own meaning which is quit specific enough to be used as a subject heading (or sub-heading) there is nothing to prevent further clarification within the article regarding what kinds of Asylum the various actors thought they were dealing with. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Criminals tend to be imprisoned. Not by Wikipedia, but by the appurtenant jurisdictions. Any conjecture you may have about the US and what might happen if he were to be tried in the US is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I responded to your statement “Any application of "asylum" in this article presents an absurd and misleading narrative -- one that Assange himself has gone to great lengths and lies to promote. WP is not here to promote the false narratives of a fugitive.” Subsequent events clearly demonstrate the political appetite, in some parts of the US establishment, to make an example of Assange, so that when he sought asylum, he seems to have assessed and expressed his predicament accurately ie he correctly assessed that he was in danger of harsh treatment. He did not go to “lengths and lies to promote” a “misleading narrative.” I said earlier that Wiki is obliged to give some benefit of the doubt to living people in it’s articles – so far from that, your assessments seem to betray an utter contempt, bordering on hatred, for the man. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't take the POV of article subjects. I believe this thread has long since exhausted any constructive purpose. I suggest you turn to other areas for article improvement. Perhaps trim the lengthy and redundant text on the UN volunteer "rapporteur" about Assange's health. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We have rather drifted from the issue. Perhaps I could put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers:

1/ Did Assange seek “asylum”?: Yes.

2/ Did the Ecuadorian government offer him “asylum”?: Yes.

3/ Was the word “asylum” commonly used in connection with Assange during his time in the embassy?: Yes.

4/ Are people to this day still arguing about whether he should have been granted “asylum”: Yes.

The word “Asylum” links all of these issues and is worthy of at least a sub-heading, I see no reason to step down from that perfectly reasonable position. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage. I think it should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The accuracy of Assange's narrative has been raised several times. Let's see. He called the Swedish allegations a radical feminist conspiracy and said the women were lesbians. Not many people have endorsed this view. He claimed he faced US prosecution in 2012, but there was no US indictment until 2018. He claimed the US government would find it easier to extradite him from Sweden than from Britain. There seems to be no evidence for that. He repeatedly claimed that because WikiLeaks was a media organisation he was protected from prosecution. This has never stood up in court. He expected to be allowed to travel to Ecuador from London. This never happened. I accept that Assange sincerely believed at least some of this, but to say that it was "accurate" is nonsensical.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland I will try to address some of your points: You said “Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage.” I don’t think it helpful to repeatedly use accusations of bias. Points should be dealt with on merit unless someone is being grossly unreasonable. Regarding Assange’s “reliability” I don’t wish to hang my case on this, because I don’t know what information he had available at the time – maybe his notion that agencies of the US state wanted him severely punished was just a lucky guess. You said “I think [asylum] should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.” If the word is ok to use repeatedly in the article and in several contexts, I don’t see why it can’t be used in a sub heading that pulls some of those contexts together. Perhaps now I could return to previous post where I: “put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers”. You have not addressed any of my four points/questions which, I suggest, demonstrate the central role of “asylum” in tying together several stands of the Assange narrative – and hence the aptness of the word in a subtitle (if not full title). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete proposal for improving the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest just swapping the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy” with “Asylum”. This works because four of the six Paragraphs in the sub-section already directly talk about - and use the word - “asylum”. Regarding the remaining two paragraphs (2 & 4) they both refer to events directly related to Assange’s bid for asylum. The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That's already been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I believe you are mistaken – the previous suggestion was “Political Asylum”. For reasons gone into elsewhere (and brushed on in this thread) that was considered unacceptable by some editors. I’m proposing simply “Asylum” and have dealt above with the issues for which “Political Asylum” was rejected and how and why the lone word “Asylum” is different and less problematic. As I said in my last contribution: ““The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy.”” If you re-read the article sub-section I suspect you will agree, but if not, I’m happy to debate the issue further. Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with you. You are shouting at the wind here. The article is not going to reflect your POV when you have no consensus. That's about it. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy”. I think the opposite is true. Only paragraphs 1 and 6 deal with Assange's asylum application in any detail. Assange made the decision to apply for asylum instead of "surrendering to the court" in order to be extradited to Sweden, hence breaching his bail conditions. The asylum bid and the failure to surrender are two different sides of the same decision, but they are conceptually different. The actions taken by the British state against Assange described in paragraphs 3 and 4 relate to his failure to surrender, not to his asylum application. As discussed recently, it wasn't illegal for Assange to apply for asylum. Paragraphs 2 and 5 are explanations for Assange's decision. They can equally be seen as explanations why he failed to surrender, as to why he applied for asylum. In my view, the heading "Entering the embassy" "neatly" sums up the contents of this section, because that is what the section is all about, including various repercussions of this step. The heading "Asylum", on the other hand, would gloss over the issue of his failure to surrender to the court. It would misrepresent the contents of the section. It would lend weight to the misconception that the British state was penalising Assange for seeking asylum. It would also suggest that Assange had achieved what he wanted and that he intended to be holed up in the embassy indefinitely. The overarching fact here is that he entered the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland . I’m not clear why you talk about the concept of “surrender” – I’ve not seen that proposed as an alternative title – If you wish to do so I’m happy to discuss it’s relative merits, but seems a poor contender. On other points: I don’t think that every single paragraph in a subsection has to deal “in detail” with what is in the subheading (I’d have to do a study, but suspect that would invalidate half the subheadings in Wiki). As for the existing subtitle: “entering the embassy”, only one sentence directly mentions “enter[ing] the embassy” and that’s talking about the police entering it, not Assange, none of the paragraphs deal with that activity “in any detail” so by you own reasoning “Entering the Embassy” is a dead loss. In other points you made, it seems to me you are conflating the terms “political asylum” and just “asylum”– every paragraph deals in some way with the latter (the suggested subtitle heading) and as I said four of the six use the word explicitly. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to be confused between the textual use of words and the content of the section. "Entering the embassy" describes the section. It is irrelevant that the prose of the section doesn't use the phrase. "Early life" never uses the terms "early" or "life"!!! As I said, you seem to think the word "asylum" is a trump card, and that the repetition of the word proves something. It doesn't. Secondly, no one has suggested "surrender" should be part of the heading. That is another red herring. Thirdly, if other headings are misleading, they should be fixed. Yet another red herring. Fourthly, it is clear in this context "asylum" means "political asylum".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your last point first. You said: “it is clear in this context "asylum" means "political asylum”. Yet, in comments made elsewhere on this page, you yourself talk about Assange’s status re. “Diplomatic Asylum” and “Territorial Asylum” as well as “Political Asylum”. On your: “confused between the textual use of words and the content of the section” – I think not: If a word is used repeatedly in a section of text then it is reasonable to assume there is significance to the subject being talked about (unless we are talking surreal poetry maybe) – there are whole branches of studies which analyse how frequently various words are used in various settings and draw conclusions from those stats. So yes, if the word Asylum is used repeatedly in the section I have no difficulty in claiming that adds to the case for it’s use as a title. However I have made a number of other cases in this thread (many of which you have not yet addressed). To those I would add that the phrase “Entering the Embassy”, in it’s most literal sense, describes just a moment in time – it is in no way an elegant description of a whole period/series of events. Asylum on the other hand describes a persistent state and relates to a raft of concepts related to Assange’s position at that time – I typed into Google “Asylum synonym” and in the first entry (dictionary.com) got:

“shelter, sanctuary, haven, refuge, mental hospital, preserve, hideaway, harbor, cover, port, safety, den, hole, hideout, security, retreat, institution, madhouse, sanatorium, ivory tower.”

Why it could be mistaken for a poem about Assange’s predicament at that time. Sorry but “Asylum” is just better. Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, "asylum" is not a trump card as I said, but a talismanic term to be sprinkled over the article while you conduct your druidic rituals and mutter your Icelandic surrealist poetry. It is clear there is no agreement about what "asylum" means in this context, no agreement about the function of headings in the article, no agreement what this article is actually about, and no agreement about the function of language in general. Given this, I can only hope you and the pixies live long and prosper and that the dolphins carry you to an affordable motel. All we have achieved in this conversation is that we both disagree with Darouet's original proposition.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland I don’t particularly “disagree with Darouet's original proposition”. My first contribution to this debate was an attempt at compromise. I remain open to input from other parties but it seems that you and I have reached an impasse for now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You and Darouet have no consensus in favor of either "proposal." Quite the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How about "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" (first heading); "Skipping bail" (second heading)? Without prejudice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Asylum in an embassy implies political asylum, which is just Assange's self-serving claim. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I accept that “Asylum”, in the context of this most recent suggestion, implies “Political Asylum” (though not exclusively). However the term “Political Asylum” already appears in the article and will almost certainly stay put. The question of whether a term happens to suit Assange’s interests is not the overriding concern; otherwise the terms like “sexual assault” would not appear in subheadings. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That is utterly unresponsive to the point I made above. "Asylum" is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum. The article text does not say Ecuador granted political asylum. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, on reflection I accept that the suggestion "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" is a poor option. I’ll stick with my short and simple “Asylum” as my nomination (I’ve explained why it’s less problematic above). If nobody else likes it/agrees I’ll just have to live with that (for now). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Good. You already know that nobody agrees with you. How about "refuge" "hideout" "avoiding arrest" -- much more descriptive. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: 'Asylum' is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum. The Ecuadorian government granted Assange asylum. In its official statement explaining why it granted Assange asylum, the Ecuadorian government repeatedly referred to political persecution. For example,

Thus, the Government of Ecuador believes that these arguments lend support to the fears of Julian Assange, and it believes that he may become a victim of political persecution, as a result of his dedicated defense of freedom of expression and freedom of press as well as his repudiation of the abuses of power in certain countries, and that these facts suggest that Mr. Assange could at any moment find himself in a situation likely to endanger life, safety or personal integrity. This fear has driven him to exercise the right to seek and receive asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK. (emphasis added)

Here's how the AP described this decision:

Aug. 16, 2012: Assange is granted political asylum by Ecuador.

I have no idea where SPECIFICO got the idea that Ecuador did not grant Assange asylum, or that it did not do so because of possible political persecution, but SPECIFICO is simply wrong here. The Ecuadorian government and countless news articles (just a few: BBC, NPR, WaPo) refer to Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, so that's obviously how we should refer to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I wonder if we might consider one of the suggestions SPECIFICO has just made? Namely: "refuge". Seems to me it has many of the advantages of “Asylum” regarding Assange’s predicament at that time. Hopefully, since it came from one of the main opponents of using “asylum” we might make progress – just a thought. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose that wording. It is simply a fact that Assange was granted political asylum in the embassy, and news articles consistently refer to Assange's "asylum" in the embassy. The argument being put forward above, that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because that might reflect positively on Assange, is just not grounded in any way in Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I too would rather use “Asylum” in the subheading and I dislike the current "Entering the embassy” but was getting nowhere with consensus. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Asylum" is obviously the correct word, and those arguing otherwise have to provide a legitimate reason for not using the word. Saying it reflects positively on Assange is not a legitimate reason not to use the word, and outright denying that Assange received asylum is frankly bizarre. So unless some new, compelling argument is brought up, I think we should all agree to title the section something like "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 Yes, that works for me Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying it reflects positively on Assange... Of course, nobody except Thuc has said such a thing. Since when is a rape indictment a political persecution? The weight of RS discussions of his refuge in the embassy do not describe it as political asylum. Refuge is descriptive and NPOV. Asylum is the narrative of interested parties. WP goes with NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Asylum is factually what happened. If you have an issue with Ecuador's decision to grant Assange political asylum, take it up with Ecuador, but we can't change what happened because you disagree with Ecuador's reasoning. Ecuador granted political asylum, the media widely referred to it a such, and that's the word we should use. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think "refuge" is a sensible compromise (for the first heading in question).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually factually: Our job here is to inform readers with all degrees of prior knowledge or understanding. Asylum is a loaded word that will mislead a substantial proportion of readers among all the people of Earth. Refuge is NPOV and does not adopt the dubious and/or false POV that Assange is a political prisoner -- contrary to the beliefs of some editors here (see recently added film link on article page). SPECIFICO talk 11:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Compromise between what two positions? Assange was granted political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. That's simply a fact. Neither you nor anyone else has yet given a reasonable argument as to why we should avoid the word "asylum". If I've understood your argument, you're saying that the word reflects positively on Assange, and should therefore be avoided. Since when is it our job to censor facts that might reflect positively on the subject of a BLP? SPECIFICO, meanwhile, has denied that Assange even was granted asylum, despite the fact that - you know - he was granted asylum. I'm sorry, but "asylum" is the correct word, and the one that's used widely in the press and by the Ecuadorian government itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been more than a week, and still, no even halfway reasonable rationale for not using the word "asylum" in the section title has been given. Assange had political asylum. The news media widely described his "asylum" in the Ecuadorian embassy. "Asylum" is simply the correct word here. Unless there are objections (please, only real objections with some sort of plausible reasoning), I will change the section title to "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" in the next few days. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that, so any such edit would be reverted. Feel free to mount an RfC if you feel strongly. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a rough consensus here for using the word "asylum" in the section title. Remember that consensus is not a vote, and that simply saying "no" is not an argument. If you can present actual reasons why we shouldn't use the word "asylum", then by all means, please do so, but the arguments you've given so far are transparently false (e.g., claiming that only Assange has called his stay in the embassy "asylum"). Unless there's any serious objection, we have a consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Surely, you do not expect to close a discussion and declare consensus as an involved editor here. Seek uninvolved review if you are set on pursuing this. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have an objection to using the word "asylum" that is based in fact, then you're free to raise it. But simply saying "no" (or even worse, raising objections that are clearly factually incorrect, as you have done above) and then demanding an RfC is disruptive.

Above, you claimed that "asylum" is only Assange's description of the events. I quoted not only the Ecuadorian government's own announcement that it was granting "asylum" to Assange, but also newspaper articles that discussed Assange's "political asylum". I would think that after being shown that your objection was incorrect, you would change your position and drop your objection. But instead, you continue to object, for unclear reasons, and demand an RfC. I'm sorry, but this just looks like a blockading tactic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

i support the use of asylum in the heading: it is what everybody called his stay there (as has already been stated and documented by Thucydides411) and so I think it is just natural to refer to that period of his life this way. "Asylum" is not "loaded", it's what he asked for, what he was granted, and what was later revoked. So please name it as it is in the article and use adequate titles for sections and subsection. --Qcomp (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The term "asylum" is used multiple times in the article. However, it is a loaded term, as the British government did not accept his claim of asylum and under British law he was treated as a fugitive from justice. He only had "diplomatic asylum" within the embassy, not "territorial asylum" in Ecuador. "Ecuadorian embassy period" neatly sums up this portion of his life. I haven't heard many objections to this. It seems to me the only reason to put "asylum" in the heading is to give Assange's move more legal legitimacy, to deny that he had committed any crime, and generally to confuse readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Asylum" is not a loaded word. Assange had asylum. That's simply a fact. News articles repeatedly discuss Assange's "asylum" or "political asylum". The Ecuadorian government announced that they were granting Assange "asylum". You're explicitly arguing that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because you think that might grant "legitimacy" to Assange's actions. That's a purely political objection, and it has no place here. Assange was granted asylum, regardless of how you feel that reflects on him or might make readers view him. We don't obfuscate central facts about the subject of a BLP because we're afraid readers might view those facts positively, and any suggestion that we should is outrageous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Since you've not gained consensus on this talk thread, I suggest you waste no further effort before launching an RfC. You would need fresh eyes to present a more persuasive rationale than has been mounted here thus far. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin

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

---

An interesting article has just been published on Forbes. It covers a topic that is not mentioned in the current version of Assange's bio. Here are some quotes:

Assange once commenting that “bitcoin is the real Occupy Wall Street”.

Assange sits in Balmarsh Prison for the third year without an official sentence. This is the harshest prison in the United Kingdom, usually reserved for violent repeat offenders, many of whom have committed rape or murder — it is hard to justify why a non-violent activist would be here aside from sadistic extension of state power.

The threat model for Wikileaks was simple and yet devastatingly powerful: the most powerful state collective in the world was likely to go after them eventually, if not now, then sometime in the future. ... One of the first things he commented on was Assange’s continued belief in bitcoin, his love for a tool that made it possible to do his work. The way he thought about cryptography fighting the inevitable centralization of repression made his thought process a natural complement and extension of bitcoin’s fight to remake classical economic and financial systems.

People who support bitcoin should be concerned about Assange’s imprisonment not only because it reflects the betrayal of bitcoin’s ideals in the specific case of Assange — states tying themselves into pretzel knots in order to undermine a non-violent disseminator of information — it also makes vulnerable the principles of true transaction neutrality that underpin bitcoin, creating the most pressing version of the “wrench attack”. If you cannot go after the system, you must go after the person.

As the Internet’s gatekeepers get more and more actively involved in the Internet itself, often forced by nation-states (such as the United States leaning on payment processors to cut off payments to Wikileaks), the Internet itself becomes a shadow of itself.

The hope remains, as Assange himself noted, that new technologies will be able to mediate the unblunted power of many states — rather than consolidating their ability to control the discussion and their citizenry at scale.

Gabriel Shipton and his father John (who is Julian Assange’s father) are now engaged in a tour of the United States to help unite many different groups dedicated to the freedom of Julian Assange — and as a way to counter the consolidation of analog power online. As a concrete way to support the cause, people are asked to donate money in bitcoin ...

Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not an article, that's a blog posting (see WP:FORBES) pimping cryptocurrency by latching onto Assange's name. Completely useless and irrelevant here. --Calton | Talk 13:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Ad hominem and bad faith arguments?

Seems to me remarks like the following should be avoided on this page:

“The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange”

“Nor should editors try to soften the wording to make Assange look better”

“You seem to be editing the article based on your opinion, rather than sources”

“It shouldn't be removed simply because it is unfavourable to Assange.”

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there are editors who take sides re. Julian Assange pointing the fact out during debates merely makes matters personal. Let’s, wherever possible, stick to the issues not the personalities. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It would depend on context.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully my qualifying “wherever possible” allows for that. The context for the quotes I provided can be seen on this page and IMO would have been better unsaid ie sticking to the issues Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Those sound like valid issues to me. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO That’s a little ambiguous – are you saying that you think my points are valid or that you believe the remarks I quoted are valid? Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The latter. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO The matter of bias in the article is very much a matter of opinion – some will consider the article to be very hard on Assange – and one could just as easily reword those quotes thus:

“The problem is that it's part of a pattern of maximising information unfavourable to Assange”

“Nor should editors try to harden the wording to make Assange look worse”

“It shouldn't be removed simply because it is favourable to Assange.”

A significant number of contributors would say “Those sound like valid issues to me”. That would still though be less helpful than sticking to the issue in hand. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have issues with users conduct report then at wp:ani or ask them to defend themselves on their talk page. We comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

My point is about the way we “comment on issues” on this page, but if other editors have no problem with what I’m seeing as Ad hominem insinuations, or don’t think this is the correct forum, then I guess I’ll have to drop the issue. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am saying if you see issues ANI is where you take it, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t enjoy Wiki’s complaints and appeals processes - so won’t be going there unless forced at gunpoint. I’ve said my piece – seems that editors think it ok to cry bias in order to push their arguments - so at least I know one of the ground-rules now. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the account of the hearings into extradition to the US covers the defence arguments, but very little of the prosecution arguments. The substance of the Swedish allegations is glossed over here, and in the main article. And we have 16 sentences dealing with Assange's health since he was arresting in the embassy. So, yes, the article does seem biased to Assange. Of course, you could make it more biased...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion – it happens to be my sincere opinion that the article, overall, is strongly biased against Assange - however this may not be the time and place to deal with that Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're done with this, please hat the thread before any more time is devoted to it. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What does hat the thread mean? And how do I do it? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I would actually like to see some examples of where this article is strongly biased against Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hat generally means in Wikipedia parlance that you pull your woolly beanie over your encrusted eyelashes, make like the boyos in the hood, pull down the white cone of silence, and shelter in your anorak in the nearest mud igloo. Or you could be Black Hat the Spy and hoodwink the Ravenmaster. I prefer to follow the Cross.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, hide off-topic posts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the issue of WP:BIAS is not "off-topic".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually they are policy is clear, you comment on the content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty international reaction to US assurances

I have been asked by SPECIFICO to seek consensus for the inclusion of a sentence noting that Amnesty international are not satisfied with US “assurances” re. Assange’s prison conditions, should he be extradited. Here’s the whole paragraph (from section: “Appeal and other developments” third paragraph):

Following the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States," in July 2021 The Biden administration provided assurances to the UK Crown Prosecution services that: "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States has also provided an assurance that "the United States will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him." However, an Amnesty International expert responded saying “Those are not assurances at all” because US government reserves the right to break their promise.

Since the first two sentences have been left in place by SPECIFICO in his last (second) intervention I must assume them to be acceptable. So the question is do we keep the Amnesty international sentence? I would say yes because the get-out clause included by the US in their assurances is significant – people need to know that Assange could, after all, be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX if he breaches some, so far poorly defined, conditions. People outside of Amnesty have also criticised the get-out clause in the US “assurances”, however I felt Amnesty international are the go-to organisation for matters of this sort – there opinion is respected and noteworthy. Hence my short sentence on the subject. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. Really, you should self-revert the challenged content until you have consensus. Repeated additions after your edit has been reverted for cause are not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I completely rewrote the sentence in question, and replaced the reference, following both the occasions you deleted them. On both occasions I responded, as best I could, to the very short edit summaries you provided. As I explained to you on my talk page I want to leave the sentence in the article for now so people can clearly see what’s being talked about in context – If anyone had put forward a serious problem with the current edit eg that it is factually wrong, infringes copyright etc I would of course have removed it immediately. If you have an objection of that nature, please let me know. Otherwise just for now I’d like to leave it until you have at least fully explained you objections (after all this paragraph has so far caused me quite a bit of work and carefully attempting to meet your needs, whereas you have so far simply erased chunks of work and given two 4 word edit summaries) Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Witness Recants

Let's discuss this text which has appeared in our hero's bio:

On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported a key witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Assange had admitted to making up accusations in the U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated accusations that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament and other accusations. Thordarson confessed to working with the Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the U.S. agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to Iceland prosecuting him for threatening the "security interests" of Iceland. According to his own admission, Thordarson continued his crime spree while working with the FBI and having the promise of immunity from prosecution.

The text was reverted a while ago with a reason of "Not RS - later corrected by Washington Post. Pertained to Manning, not Assange. Please use RS for BLP". Most of this is incoherent to me but may mean something to other editors. I know nothing about Stundin so can't comment on its reliability. The Stundin report has appeared in other sources. Should this text, or an alternative version of it, appear in Julian's bio? Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the article in the WP? If the contradicting article hasn't actually been supplied and its existence only vaguely alluded to the content should be restored. Cambial foliage❧ 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That part wasn't explained and my search didn't bring up any articles in wapo about the Stundin report. The reference to Chelsea is also perplexing. Burrobert (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you know where the interview is published on Stundin? The article says Thordarson "...made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin" but there is no link to the published interview, presumably published in Icelandic. Cambial foliage❧ 18:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure. There is a subscriber-only Icelandic article, published on the same day as the English article linked here. The text appears to differ from the English article. Burrobert (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly inclusion on the retraction is WP:DUE in the article. I am not sure about the long discussion about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes the version above is not necessarily the best way of summarising the issue. The main two points are the importance of the witness codenamed "Teenager" to the US case and the retraction. Apparently the story also appeared recently in Private Eye, which has not been particularly kind to Julian previously. Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue may be an issue here, as none of these are exactly top line sources. Remember this is a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the relatively low profile of reliable sources necessarily means an issue is not important enough to be included. The fact that a key witness in the U.S. case against Assange has said he was lying on significant counts certainly is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery".

• What are the other significant viewpoints related to this issue? Has anyone said that "Teenager" didn't recant his testimony? Has anyone said that "Teenager"'s testimony was not significant to the US case?
• WP:Due does not mention that due weight for BLP's is any different from due weight in other articles.

Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything about BLP is different. You will need far better and more extensive sourcing if you believe there should be article content about this matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One reliable source is usually considered sufficient even on a BLP page (indeed many editors get grumpy when more than one citation is put up). This information is newsworthy and appears in a reputable newspaper (even if it is from a small European country) Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:AC/DS. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The WP, in two articles filed by its London bureau chief, reports on the Stundin Thordarson interview; they clearly consider it newsworthy, and consider Stundin reliable. They note that individuals including Edward Snowden have argued that the interview undermines the criminal case against Assange. They also make the incorrect claim that "the Icelandic article...contains no direct quotes from Thordarson". I know standards have been slipping at the WP since the Bo Jones era but such a glaring error is extremely poor. The relatively brief condensed English article doesn't use any translated quotes, but the (4x longer) article in Icelandic contains numerous direct quotes from Thordarson supporting Stundin's reporting. The Wapo reporter's view is that Thordarson's interview "does not touch on the core allegations against Assange." It's appropriate to include a very brief summary of the Stundin article, and the WP's reporting on Snowden's and their own take on its potential legal implications. Cambial foliage❧ 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well done on finding the missing Wapo articles. I am still waiting for an explanation of the rest of this edit note: "Not RS - later corrected by Washington Post. Pertained to Manning, not Assange. Please use RS for BLP". Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Why are you waiting for such an explanation? None will be forthcoming, especially given that the latter part of that statement about Manning is clearly a total fabrication. I suggest trimming the final sentence and restoring the text, changing "confessed" to "said", and adding a citation to WP with Snowden's and WP view. Cambial foliage❧ 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the sentence, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. At this stage his extradition has been blocked. The trial may never take place.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We are all hopeful Jack but after 10 years of this process we also need to be realistic. There is a hearing later today to determine the grounds on which the US appeal. Here is a twitter thread from Mary Kostakidis explaining what it is about. She will be live tweeting as an observer in the hearing. Regarding the disputed text, I try to come up with a suitable wording using CY's suggestions. Burrobert (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but we should wait and see if the trial happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC

It seems clear from what is said above this was removed on invalid grounds going by the edit comment. There seems to be no Washington Post article relevant to this. Also it is from a reliable source, and it is very relevant to the topic. The only real problem seems to be that it has not been widely reported elsewhere - in fact there is a rather strange lack of interest as far as I can see despite that it would provide a newsworthy item even to debunk. I shall therefore reinstate it and then see about updating according to the comments above. I think also any conclusions should be attributed to Studin because it is not wiely reported. Please provide a reference to the relevant Washington Post article if removing again based on it not being related to Assange. Certainly I fail at the moment to see how that can be so. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Was the bit in the Washington Post where they say it does not affect the criminal case supposed to be the reason for removal? That is more a case for adding the Washington Post article saying that. Plus the editorial in Private Eye saying the opposite. Not that either of them are lawyers. I do not have access to either so if someone could read them and put in something that would be good. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The oral testimony of the Icelandic Interior Minister about the FBI sting mission in consortiumnews certainly is alarming. I'm not sure though about whether that can be used - wouldn't that be considered a primary source and Wikipedia need some newspaper or other reliable source to comment on it to give it due weight? It is incredible there has been so little reporting. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the most noteworthy thing about this looking at the references is that mainstream media have not reported on it. I think I should add that as people might wonder why they don't see it if they search them. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I got to see what the Washington Post said. It would be good to include one major media outlet at least commenting on it but as noted above they do say there was no statements by Thordarson in the article - which indicates they did not do any basic research, so it is hard to give the usual weight of Washington Post to their comments. I don't know how to fix up something suitable for inclusion. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Good work and welcome. You can view the Private Eye article from the source titled "Private Eye story posted to Twitter" in the list below. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought the US indictment against Assange was primarily or exclusively related to Assange's work with Manning. I haven't been following this case closely, but I had never heard of Sigurdur Thordarson until I read that he recounted his testimony. Is it possible that the lack of coverage from larger media outlets is because Sigurdur's testimony wasn't important to begin with? If so, this article should note the recanting, but I don't think this article should imply that the US case against Assange is now in danger of falling apart. Rks13 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

From the various sources below (note that many describe Thordarson as a key witness):

“the initial indictment for Julian Assange related only to the publications back in 2010, 2011, the Chelsea Manning publications. It was a second, superseding indictment, introduced by the Trump administration, which was based upon Thordarson’s evidence”.

The superseding indictment was lodged in June 2020 and “refers to Thordarson as a “teenager” and Iceland as ”NATO Country 1” and says Assange encouraged him to, among other things, quote, “commit computer intrusion” and steal audio recordings of phone conversations between Icelandic officials”.

“The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well. This activity was said to include attempts to hack into the computers of members of parliament and record their conversations”.

Burrobert (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

See WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment. This seems to me to be practically entirely dependent on the testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson. The Assange defence in the extradition hearing tried to contest the testimony but that was ruled out by Judge Baraitser. That was before the retraction but it is entirely possible that it will still not be considered and they'll decide on extradition based solely on the basis of the original hearing i.e. on whether Assange would suffer mental harm. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've put a link to a Washington Post article on it which says Thordarson's testimony is just backround to his interaction with Manning. However the superceding indictment clearly talks about criminal hacking charge in a NATO country rather than anything much about the original charge which the Washinton Post seems to be alluding to. The charge is also supposed to back up that he encouraged Manning to crack a password - something Manning denies and seems very improbable from other evidence and there is no evidence of ever having done. I just can't get myself to write something that is clearly wrong into the article based on them even though the Washington Post is mainstream. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Forced myself to write a short sumary of what the Washinton Post was saying. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Our coverage of the second superseding indictment could perhaps be improved to make the significance of Thordarson clearer to readers. One of the many disturbing aspects of this is that the United States seeks to extradite an Australian citizen for, among other things, acts against the Icelandic parliament that it alleges he did while living in Iceland. Has any source discussed this bizarre scenario? Burrobert (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

There are a few shortcomings on our coverage of the superseding indictment.

• Our coverage is based on a primary document from the US Department of Justice.
• We don't state that the superseding indictment does not add to the charges against Assange (we seem to imply it contains 18 charges). The new indictment only adds detail to the charges by attempting to show Assange is a hacker. This is where Sigurdur Thordarson's is important. It would be worth outlining why the US needed to provide this extra detail. I believe it relates to what has been called the "New York Times problem": It would be difficult for Assange to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, because the Justice Department would not be able to do so without also prosecuting media organisations who do the same. One way of getting around this problem is to show that Assange was a hacker and this appears to be the intent of the superseding indictment. One part of this strategy involved showing that Assange conspired with Manning to hack a computer. This charge was evidentially weak because Manning courageously would not co-operate. She spent 18 months in prison for contempt and received a huge fine for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. The US obviously believed it needed Thordarson's testimony to strengthen this part of its case. Burrobert (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: In extolling Chelsea Manning for "courageously" refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury, you seem to have missed this in our BLP:

In June 2021, Chelsea Manning said her grand jury resistance was not contingent on Julian Assange being the target, and that she was not even sure he was. "I treated this no differently than if it was for a protest or for some other grand jury—if it was a grand jury in general, I would respond the same way. But it did appear that this one was about, specifically, the 2010 disclosures; the media was speculating, but our legal team and ourselves, we never got full confirmation as to whether that was the case."

Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. I remember when it was recently added.

• I imagine she had a very good idea what the grand jury was investigating. On what planet would you need to be living not to put the two lots of 2 together to get 4.
• Her action was courageous even in the extremely unlikely event that she had forgotten that the man to whom she had leaked her documents was under political asylum in London with a US sealed indictment awaiting him (accidentally revealed in November 2018).
• Her view on the grand jury process is also admirable: "we've seen this power abused countless times to target political speech. I have nothing to contribute to this case and I resent being forced to endanger myself by participating in this predatory practice". She "believe[d] this grand jury seeks to undermine the integrity of public discourse with the aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of power by this government".

Burrobert (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: Chelsea Manning's opposition to the secrecy of the grand jury process is a matter of record. What is not supported by WP:RS is that she resisted this particular grand jury expressly to protect Julian Assange. That conjecture should not be introduced without proper sourcing. (As an aside, it's worth noting on this Talk page that Chelsea Manning has never publicly opposed Assange's extradition or condemned his incarceration.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments above were for the enlightenment of other editors. I wasn't proposing adding any specific information to the article.

• As I stated above, it is almost certain that Manning was aware of the intent of the grand jury. News articles about her subpoena had titles like "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation".
• Whatever Mannings' motive was for refusing to testify at the grand jury, her action was noble and courageous.
• Whatever Mannings' motive was for refusing to testify at the grand jury, the US regime was not getting any evidence from her to help it with its case against Assange.
• "Chelsea Manning has never publicly opposed Assange's extradition or condemned his incarceration": I can neither confirm nor deny this as I haven't made a thorough search. If it were true, I don't think we could draw any conclusions from it.

Burrobert (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: A news article titled "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation" in no way demonstrates that she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange. As she herself said, If it was a grand jury in general, I would respond the same way. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This text from the New York Times may give some insight into Mannings decision not to testify in the grand jury:

"During her court-martial, Ms. Manning took responsibility for her actions and said that Mr. Assange had not directed them.

“No one associated with W.L.O.” — an abbreviation she used to refer to the WikiLeaks organization — “pressured me into sending any more information,” she said at the time. “I take full responsibility.”

Because that account would seemingly be helpful to the defense, she said she wondered if prosecutors wanted to try to get her to back away from it. She would not do so, she insisted, while criticizing the secrecy that surrounds grand jury proceedings.

“I am not going to contribute to a process that I feel is dangerous and could potentially place me in a position where I am forced to backtrack on the truth,” she said".

Burrobert (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: That text from The New York Times changes the focus entirely. Chelsea Manning's concern is clearly not with Assange, but with how the grand jury's investigation might affect her personally, as with issues of double jeopardy and perjury. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I gave an example of a news article in order to show that the reason for the grand jury was obvious. Why are you focused on the statement that "she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange"? Where does it come from? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: On 15 August 2021 you commented at this Talk page that Chelsea Manning spent 18 months in prison for contempt and received a huge fine for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. That is false on two counts. First, she was in jail for 12 months, not 18, on the contempt charge. Second, there is no WP:RS that she went to jail for refusing to testify against Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes the term of imprisonment was less than I remembered.
• This is what we know:
• 1. Chelsea Manning refused to testify in a grand jury
• 2. The grand jury was investigating Assange.
• I am not interested in playing pointless word games so I'll let you come up with a suitable wording that covers those points.
• I am still not sure where the phrase ""she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange" comes from.
• Burrobert (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: Please, let's take a step back. I respectfully ask that you state, as succinctly as possible, what you are now recommending to improve this BLP? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The initial point about whether we should mention Thordarson's recanting seems to have been settled. Our coverage of the superseding indictment could be improved to explain its purpose and how Thordarson fits it. I made some comments about that above which could be used a starting point for discussion, including:

• Mentioning that the superseding indictment does not include new charges.
• The new indictment only adds detail to the charges by attempting to show Assange is a hacker.
• Mention why Thordarson's is important to the US case.
• Mention why the US thought it needed to provide the extra detail in the superseding indictment. This relates to

1. the "New York Times problem"

2. that Manning would not provide any testimony against Assange (however you want to word that)

Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Manning didn't need any hacking help, she had full access to all the documents she leaked. The case is really qute astonishing. It makes you wonder what kind of stuff is being planned in America to get over the glaring holes in the case, it would need to be held in camera and various bits of testimony disallowed to get anywhere. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Manning may have had full access to all the documents she leaked, but we are talking here about documents she did not leak because she could not access them without Assange's help. In its second superseding indictment (June 2020), the U.S. Department of Justice alleges:

The encrypted password hash that Manning gave to Assange to crack ... was stored as a "hash value" in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the encrypted password hash that Manning then provided to Assange.

Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

So has this development has an impact in court yet?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, we are getting way ahead of ourselves. As it stands now, Assange's extradition to the USA has been blocked. If his trial in the USA ever goes ahead, we have no way of knowing what evidence will be used. In addition, it is somewhat perverse to argue here that "Teenager" was a key witness when (I believe) he hasn't been mentioned here before. There is no point on speculating about this in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea it is a bit odd he was such a key witness only now are we mentioning him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

“Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned no fewer than 33 times in the 48 page June 2020 U.S. District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” (the current one) (linked found here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment ) Whether he’s been mentioned here before (and frankly he should have been) is beside the point – He is a key witness. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it is claimed he is. One reason why more mainstream RS have not picked this up is (maybe) he is in fact not all that important? Indeed this raises an issue of wp:undue, we have a lot of minor sources saying he is important. Not a lot of major ones. So at best (I would argue) we would need to say "according to... he is a major witness".Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please be reasonable, only Chelsea Manning is mentioned more often that “Teenager” in the Indictment. Since Manning has refused to testify she cannot be counted as a witness. Here’s the stats: “Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned 33 times: “Sabu” 23 times: “Hammond” 22 times: “Laurelai” 15 times: “Kayla” 10 times: “Topiary” 6 times “Jabber” 4 times. The indictment more than once talks about witnesses acting or passing messages “through Teenager” in other words he’s a go between as well as a key actor. It would reasonable to describe Thordarson as the star witness on these grounds let alone just “a key witness”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In one document, out of how many? And no it is not reasonable to call him a star witness unless RS do, and if only some RS do it may be undue to take only a few as the whole. If he was a star witness how many times was he mentioned in court?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I should have acknowledged Jeremy Hammond, who also courageously refused to testify before a Virginia federal grand jury which was investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. He was also found in contempt. Regarding the suggestions I made above, some of the points are covered by reliable sources:

• Why are we relying on a press statement from the department of justice to describe the superseding indictment? It should be easy to find a reliable source stating that the superseding indictment added no new charges and only added details to the previous indictment.
• We currently include some text which goes close to describing the "New York Times problem": "The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as WikiLeaks also without government authorisation. It said it was not clear how WikiLeaks' publications were legally different from other publications of classified information". Reliable sources have covered the issue and quoted state officials from the Obama regime.
• Regarding the grand jury, we currently mention that "Computer expert David House ... testified for 90 minutes before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia in July 2018" and also mention Manning's refusal to testify. We don't mention Hammond's refusal to testify. Reliable sources have covered Hammond's refusal.

Burrobert (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven you said “In one document, out of how many?” But this is not just any old document, we are talking about the District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” the most up to date indictment which details the basis of the US case against Assange. It is just unthinkable that, profound doubts regarding the honesty and suitability of a (perhaps the) the key witness in the proposed case, should not be properly covered in the article Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"perhaps", exactly. We do not really know how important he is to the case, as he has not (as far as I know) even been mentioned (unlike some others) in court. When (and if) the case collapses due to the loss of this key witness this will be significant, until then it's all speculation from some bottom draw sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

baraitser spent quite a lot of space discussing Thordarson's evidence in her judgement. Thordarson is given the code-name "Teenager". He appears in paragraphs 23,24,25, 26, 27, 85, 87, and 100 of baraitser's judgement. In the main paragraph on Teenager she says:

"On or before summer 2010, Mr. Assange put Teenager in charge of WikiLeaks’s Internet Relay Chat (“IRC”) channel. He also asked Teenager to hack into computers to obtain information including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials, including members of the Parliament, of the government of “NATO country1”. It is alleged that, in September 2010, Mr. Assange directed Teenager to hack into the computer of a former Wikileaks associate and delete chat logs of statements made by Mr. Assange. When Teenager asked how that could be done, Mr. Assange told him that the WikiLeaks associate could “be fooled into downloading a trojan,” and asked Teenager about the operating system the WikiLeaks associate used".

Burrobert (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Both reliable sources and straightforward logic and court document as shown above show 'key' witnessis correct for inclusion. And it is simply wrongto delete the entire section on the basis of not liking one word. I will reinstate the edit. Judge Baraister saying that and disallowing any questioning of the source is pretty typical of that extradition. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• I support keeping this content [3] and am opposed to removal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support keeping it too. I see SPECIFICO has removed it with no reason and no comment here. That looks like edit warring to me. I see from his page that he has been topic banned elsewhere. It should be in. It is reliably sourced and very relevant. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've worked out "wp spa" means that it was reverted because they consider that I am not entitled to reinstate the edit because the main thing I have edited here is this article. Might I suggest that deleting the text hardly shows neutral point of view and that is actually against Wikipedia's policies. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And yes I was brought here by this rather glaring omission. But it isn't myonly interest in Wikipedia, it did bring me to commenting on the distribution of wealth article, there also seems to be a gaping hole in Wikipedia in it's treatment of recent theory on wealth inequality which is similarly rather strange. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes SPA stands for Single Purpose Account. The reference at WP:SPA is an essay, not policy. It does have some good advice: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards". Good luck with your editing. Burrobert (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Where we stand

This talk page section was created on 5 August 2021, and has attracted considerable discussion. I believe the time is ripe for a tally of where we stand.

INCLUDE

1. Burrobert
2. Cambial foliage❧
3. Jtbobwaysf
4. Prunesqualor billets_doux
5. Jack Upland
6. 86.20.127.101
7. Rks13
8. Marcywinograd [original addition]
9. Cambial Yellowing [restored removal]

EXCLUDE

1. Slatersteven
2. SPECIFICO

Given this headcount, and considering that editors have had 11 days in which to comment, I propose that we acknowledge consensus to include the report that a key witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, admitted in an interview with the Icelandic newspaper Stundin to giving false testimony in the superseding U.S. indictment against Assange. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the two editors who have previously deleted this content in its entirety—Slatersteven (once) and SPECIFICO (twice)—refrain from doing so again. Naturally they and other editors are welcome to continue editing the text. But I hope we can move past wholesale removals. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable approach. Burrobert (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it's quite that clear cut? Some of the INCLUDE's include people saying it needs a rewrite (which means it should not be included until it is rewritten).I think everyone who has commented here should be asked to just give a direct response for clarity.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Include text as wriiten

For pragmatic reasons am going with “include text as written”. No wording/edit is ever perfect – this like all others can later be honed and worked on in the normal way. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Include text with rewrite

• I think it should be one sentence which doesn't call "Teenager" a "key witness" or a "star witness.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to document the disagreement since sources do say the testimony is key and the Washington Post say it isn't. That doesn't balance out to a low level of keyness, it is a straight and relevant disagreement. And by the way I think it would be best to include the commentry by media critique sources on nthe lack of coverage in mainstream sources. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'm definitely not saying that just because I think the text culd be a bit better that there should be wholescale removal till it is perfect by my reckoning! 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Famous supporters and detractors

I recently added a short subsection to the article which listed some high profile supporters of Julian Assange. Here’s the content (which went under the title “Famous supporters”):

Notable individuals who have publicly supported Julian Assange include: Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei, Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, MIA, Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, Tulsi Gabbard, Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood, John Pilger, Peter Tatchell, Michael Moore and Ken Loach.

My addition was deleted with the following edit summary “:

“Remove unencyclopedic, UNDUE, and unspecified text. Without statement as to what in Assange's long saga they support, it is also a BLP violation with respect to those listed.”

I accept the need to address those concerns. However, it seems to me desirable to mention these names in the article. After all, the people listed are high profile public personalities who have gone out of their way to make public statements in support of Assange (some might say risking their own reputations by doing so) - surely nobody would dispute that their public support is noteworthy. However, I now accept a need for balance demands that: we also list the names of some high profile detractors. I also accept that the blanket term “supporters” was too vague in this context.

So I would like to offer the following rewording, which I hope addresses the problems:

Re-titled to “Famous supporters and detractors”

Over the years many notable people have made public their views on Assange, his actions and his treatment. Those who have in some way spoken out in his defence or against his continued imprisonment include: Jeremy Corbyn, Ai Weiwei, Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, MIA, Roger Waters, Pamela Anderson, Tulsi Gabbard, [[Bianca Jagger Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood, John Pilger, Peter Tatchell, Michael Moore and Ken Loach.

Notable public detractors and critics have included Lenin Moreno, Mitch McConnell, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton

I am of course open to suggestions here (including more examples of detractors) but strongly feel something of this sort is warranted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the supporters have already been mentioned, together with specifics of their support, on the current version of the page. Those who have not yet been mentioned are Alice Walker, Roger Waters, Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Chrissie Hynde, Vivienne Westwood and Peter Tatchell, all of whom are notable. For obvious reasons it is harder to find critics of Assange. Criticism of Assange by the ones you mention is not on the current page. Burrobert (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this is relevant, so what if Pammy thinks he is great?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert Yes, fair point. One way forward could be to work some of my proposed material into the existing section “Assessments” - where a list of past supporters and detractors, and their statements/opinions are already included - instead of creating a new section. However a problem there is the position of the “Assessments” section in the article narrative/timeline – the section begins “Opinions of Assange at this time were divided” - the opinions quoted/discussed all derive from the 2010/2011 pre-asylum, pre U.S. indictment, pre imprisonment period. The Notables I listed are people who are, at this time, campaigning/speaking out about Assange’s predicament (imprisonment and potential extradition). Seems to me, that may warrant the separate section near the end of the article and repeating some of the names in that context. Slatersteven We can certainly drop Pamela Anderson from the list if you feel strongly on the point. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

She was just an example, why are any of these peoples views significant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven These are bright, well informed, and talented people who have put a lot of time and energy into fighting for causes – seems to me their opinions are at least as important and noteworthy as those of many other commentators quoted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Government officials and layers have expert or informed knowledge that is of value. As to any of the others, I think it has long been argued we already have to many talking heads.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Even though many of these figures may well be bright, well informed, and talented people, few articles are improved by the addition of a list of unrelated or non expert supporters and detractors. Its like if we included Assange in a list of names who supported or criticised MIA's, Roger Waters', Pamela Anderson's, Bianca Jagger's, Brian Eno's, Chrissie Hynde's, Vivienne Westwood's careers; Assange is bright, well informed, and talented, but his opinion about their careers is not very useful and adds nothing. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

References

We have discussed this before. We need to discuss his supporters and detractors when and if it is important to the narrative. This article is already excessively long. Some people like Jemima Goldsmith and Donald Trump were supporters at one point and detractors at another. We cannot predict the future and say someone is going to be his supporter forever.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is so far from NPOV that it's no surprise to see a section on his "supporters" without any consideration that the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory. When I have time, I'm going to go to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN and ask for some fresh eyes on this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

“the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory” – I would love to see your evidence for that claim – unless you are only counting the opinions of tired, bought and sold, hacks working for the plutocrat owned press corps (who have plenty of reasons of their own to dislike Assange). I think the article is biased against Assange - however we have drifted from the issue – The Article has information about people who want Assange extradited and imprisoned but not much about the wider protest movement that wants to see him released - some of those are celebrities, the mention of whom might make the article a little more interesting for casual readers and students of modern culture etc . Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

In my edit summary removing this text, and then a few days later in my talk page message to you, I cited the applicable WP policies and guidelines that you are ignoring. It's WP:IDHT for you to repeat your unsupported and erroneous POVs and suggested approach while failing to read and understand those policies. If you continue in this mode at some point it will need to stop. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You said: “In my edit summary removing this text ...”. Your statement is misleading – If you read the above you will see I am proposing new text here and actually acknowledged your removal and edit summary, quoting it and saying “I accept the need to address those concerns”. I did read at least some of the material you referred to, and when composing my new text, took into account points made on those pages. So it seems to me I am trying to work collectively, to find a way forward – maybe invite some positive suggestions or compromise –it seems to me that your, yet again, making threats (even if more veiled than usual) is out of order here. Please try to be a little more constructive, and deal with specific issues regarding the text in hand Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven As you say; “Government officials and la[w]yers have expert or informed knowledge that is of value.” However they are not the only people who’s opinions are noteworthy or worth taking into account. They do of course, sometimes have agendas - or work for people who do - which may bias there pronouncements. – I think that particularly pertinent in the Assange case where he has stepped on a lot of toes and undermined some very powerful vested interests. I think it healthy and worthwhile to draw into the debate some people from outside the usual establishment bubble. I would also say that a short list of notables who have weighed in on the issue won’t add much to the length of the article and will add interest on the level of social/cultural impact of the Assange case Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Bodney You said “few articles are improved by the addition of a list of unrelated or non expert supporters and detractors”. I think there may be a case for saying the Assange issue is one of the exceptions: For a notable person to come out in support of someone usually considered to be highly controversial, is noteworthy in itself. Also note these are nearly all seasoned campaigners for human rights issues; Informed people know this and are interested in their opinions. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Again why? Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think? What does it tell us about Assange, that some people like him? In addition this is just a list, its not informative. (and we already do have (for example Pammy) views mentioned here). The article already sufferers form this kind of bloat, adding a list adds nothing other than words.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

You said “Why does it matter what a bunch of celebrities or failed politicians think” - I don’t buy your dismissal of these people – “Pammy” as you refer to Pamela Anderson, may well be a lightweight (I don’t really know a lot about her, but I early on in this debate conceded we could happily drop that name) the others though should not be dismissed so easily. As I’ve said most are seasoned campaigners for human rights issues and informed people know this and are interested in their opinions.Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is the list. We have many of these opinions already, lots of them (arguably too many). What we do not need is a puffery list. We need to reduce the number of words here, not increase them especially when it does not in fact tell us anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but how can you say “it does not in fact tell us anything” – It tells us that, some bright, well informed people – who have a very high public profile and a track record of fighting on human rights issues - have troubled to stick their necks for this cause, The fact is that literally millions of people around the world will be interested in what these people have to say, even if you personally are not – If you want to be consistent you might want to get the name Jane Fonda removed from pages concerning the Vietnam war or Joanna Lumley off the Gurkhas page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Or it tells us some celebrities think they will get a bit of kudos or free publicity. By the way, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As I said, we already have many of these views (the views, not just a list of names) here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Re. WP|OTHERSTUFF, I’m always a little disappointed when people share whole long wiki articles at me, when they could outline the specific statements/clauses which are relevant to the issue at hand. I do accept your “just a list of names” argument up to a point – I did give a little context with the “list of names “ grouping them as “notable people have made public their views on Assange, his actions and his treatment” and saying “[they] have in some way spoken out in his defence or against his continued imprisonment” – but yes this is rather vague language and I’m sure can be improved upon. I was rather hoping for some positive suggestions? Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made my views clear, I do not see a need for a list of names, either supported or detractors. We need to reduce the amount of fluff in this article, not increase it. So I will now bow out for now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven it would add very little of substance so there is no need for it. It will simply not improve the article. If we listed relevant political or human rights organisations or real experts that would maybe be different. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree too. This has been discussed before and rejected. I don't think we need a list. If we mention supporters and detractors in should be in the context of Assange's life. For example, Jemima Goldsmith was a supporter, but she didn't support his failure to surrender to the court. Lenin Moreno was a supporter until he turned against him. Trump was a supporter, but then his government indicted him. Etc. We can't just classify people as supporters for all time. There is also a long list at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. We don't need to reproduce it here, especially given that this article is overly long.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack, since you are here: You'll recall I tried to implement what I understood to be your suggestion that we trim the UNDUE emphasis given to the volunteer attorney called the "UN rapporteur", who seems to be an ardent supporter of Mr. Assange. A tag-team edit war quickly ensued to quash that edit, even after the extensive talk page discussion that supported it. At any rate, perhaps you might feel like turning your attention back to that and attempting something along the lines of what you were saying about that content. With the passage of time, it's even more clear that such content was out of all proportion to its significance. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the position of the requesting and extraditing states as parties to the UN treaty which affords Melzer his position, and the extensive RS coverage, the emphasis is not undue. Any talk page discussion that supported it exists only in your imagination. There was no consensus to remove part of said material. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you review the talk page thread on this matter. Nobody suggested removal of Melzer, just giving it DUE WEIGHT commensurate with the sparse secondary endorsement of his views and lack of ongoing coverage of his advocacy. See the talk page discussion here SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As I’m posting in this section I’ll give my tuppence (cents). A list of "famous" people who are supporters of a political prisoner is pointless and silly and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. We only give an individual's views where the individual is notable specifically for their views on that particular issue. It’s not pertinent whether TV stars or rock musicians support a cause. Cambial foliage❧ 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok - Not sure that I’d accept that the suggestion was “silly”, after all this is an encyclopaedia and not a court hearing: so that matters of social interest as well as legal and political technicalities seem to me acceptable (within reason) – However, I can see there are issues, and have pretty well accepted this is not going to fly – with no support, this one’s not worth pushing for. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I disagree on information about support (of a person or a cause) being generally "pointless": it is part of the "assessment" or "reception" and, actually, part of what make one person noteworthy and another maybe not. That being said, I think a "list of supporters and distractors" is not the encyclopedic way to handle that. In my opinion, it is done here fairly well [Julian Assange#Assessments|in the early part of the article], where noteworthy assessments of Wikileaks are summarized. (Similar paragraphs exist at the end of sections on "arrest", "espionage indictment", and "imprisonment" . If important voices of support or critique are missing, they should be added there (or in a similar manner regarding other aspects of his biography) rather than in a isolated list, which obscures when and regarding what the support or critique was expressed. --Qcomp (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Qcomp Those are all fair points - Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that is valid. Also, if it is worth mentioning a person, it should be worth mentioning what they say, and if it's not worth mentioning what they say, it isn't worth mentioning the person. For example, in discussion extradition, we mention Noam Chomsky, but don't mention what he said. That is pretty pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Russian intelligence officers working with WikiLeaks?

The intro section includes the following sentence:

“In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the material”

The citations provided do not support what is being said here regarding Russian intelligence officers working WITH WikiLeaks. A later CNN article notes:

“Mueller reasoned that Stone and Assange could have been liable for the hacking conspiracy because they had helped to disseminate and maximize the impact of the stolen documents. But ultimately, Mueller wrote, the Justice Department "did not have admissible evidence," such as proof of an agreement and knowledge that the hack was ongoing, to secure conspiracy convictions.”

I consequently changed the intro text from “...and working with WikiLeaks...” to “...using WikiLeaks...” (in line with the evidence/citations). And added the CNN supporting citation. My edit was reverted to the unsound version with the edit summery: “This is not an indictment” (I cannot work out what that has to do with the issue). Seems to me this needs addressing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)