Talk:Julian Assange

Afghanistan war logs

They were originally called Afghanistan War Diaries.

This is old and should be archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Julian Assange location and condition

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.

---

This edit [1] (which adds below quoted text) is suitable for the lede:

Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk.

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (location and condition)

• Suitable location and health condition of WP:BLP subject is standard content for WP:LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Note additional source [2] has come out after above source, adding additional coverage to the subject as 60 more doctors signed some sort of petition on the subject addressing weight issues some editors have noted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Cherrypicked UNDUE opinion. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for lead - The special rapporteur's opinion is already mentioned in the body of article, which is more than sufficient. It would be WP:UNDUE for the lead section, as many have pointed out. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable, perhaps with modifications: I don't understand the objection to stating that he is in prison and in ill health so long as it is done in a neutral, accurate way.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable, single opinion not - Mentioning specifically where he is incarcerated is uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Mentioning one specific person's uncorroborated opinion is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable : I don't think anyone has disputed Melzer's statement. He has the necessary experience to be able to make that assessment. His assessment has been reported in numerous sources (duckduckgoing the phrase 'nils melzer assange life at risk' brings up reports from ABC (oz version), New Indian Express, Yahoo News, MSM, The Statesman and others. Other people who are close to Assange such as John Pilger and Pamela Anderson have said something similar. It is important enough to include in the leading paragraph. Burrobert (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for the lead, at least as far as the opinion goes; the location alone could be included. If there are other reliable sources saying this, add them; but as presented it's just one person's opinion, and especially when dealing with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about high-profile subjects, the requirement for an opinion to be WP:DUE for the lead is very high. It could be mentioned in the body, but there's no particular indication that this is WP:DUE for the lead given the lack of secondary coverage. EDIT: The list of sources below is good, but going over them, most of them (when summarizing Melzer's words) don't even mention the "life at risk" aspect that we're discussing putting in the lead; and the parts that do mention it make the lead summary we're discussing look misleading, since they emphasize that it could be the result of his treatment (whereas the disputed lead wording gives the impression he could be killed, which is not what Melzer was saying.) It's obviously appropriate for the body - where we can give it more in-depth context - but not the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for the lead per Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable, as we don't generally provide health statuses in the ledes of BLP articles. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Tend to agree it looks like a cheery picked quote form one person.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Unsuitable: per Neutrality, et al. Seems to also be a deviation from the norm of not providing health statuses in the lead, as Grandpallama notes. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• mixed I don't see a problem with mentioning where he is currently incarcerated, or with mentioning that he is in poor health, or even saying that a human rights official has criticized the conditions of his detention, but the phrasing here gives the impression he's at risk of being assassinated. Nblund ^talk 15:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not just suitable but necessary given that policy requires that relevant material in the lead of a WP:BLP not be suppressed: Assange's deteriorating health is highly relevant to his biography, has now received attention from the United Nations on multiple occasions, and is amply documented by the highest quality news sources in countries all around the world. For example:

• New York Times
• The Guardian
• Reuters
• The Washington Post
• Newsweek Op-Ed by Melzer
• Sydney Morning Herald
• CNN
• The Brussels Times
• Repubblica
• The Independent
• Business Insider
• Al Jazeera
• The Financial Times
• The LA Times
• The Hindustan Times
• The Times
• The International Business Times
• The Irish Times]
• Express
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The Hill
• Liberation
• USA Today
• La Presse
• Deutsche Welle
• Counterpunch
• Salon.com
• The Globe and Mail
• Xinhua
• Bloomberg
• Le Figaro
• Le Monde
• Der Spiegel
• France 24

Furthermore it is typical that designations ("alleged torture... show trial... political prisoner") by international bodies be noted in the leads of detained political figures, and not uncommon that poor health or alleged torture under detainment be noted as well, typically with appropriate attribution, e.g. Dong Yaoqiong, Gao Zhisheng, Kareem Amer, Gu Zhun, Han Dongfang, Hu Jia (activist), Huang Qi, Liu Xiaobo, Wu Zuguang, Yu Dongyue, Mamdouh Habib, Murat Kurnaz, Anna Politkovskaya.

Though I must say, in none of the cases above do you see documentation by international reliable sources nearly as good as in the case of Melzer's statements about Assange.

To whoever closes this: please give some regard to policy and extraordinarily flippant attitude being taken by a number of the comments here. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

To whomever closes this, I hope you'll take note that the multiple examples provided by Darouet don't, in fact, provide health statuses of the articles' subjects; they provide relevant details about the nature of the captivity or significant events that occurred during said captivity/imprisonment. Including them as if they are equivalent is, like, flippant. Grandpallama (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet, That is WP:SYN. We have no medical evidence, only the opinions of supporters. Guy (help!) 12:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, what is WP:SYN? And are you arguing that the OHCHR text The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” [3] is incorrect? Do you have any sources or evidence showing that the UN expert and medical experts that accompanied him are supporters, not professionals? I really have no idea where you are getting this from. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• First part (prison name) is OK, "life at risk" is not OK. The first problem is that 'life at risk' suggests that the authorities are harming, torturing or trying to kill Assange, which needs to be much better sourced. Secondly, if Assange's health is merely bad (which seems to be the case), then the text should state that, rather than imply that the authorities are trying to kill him. In other words, the suggested text (which is incendiary) gives an imprecise take on what Assange's situation is like... is he just a prisoner in ill health or is he being killed? Third, the "life at risk" language is one UN rapporteur's assessment. Not only is it undue, but the credibility of this guy can seriously be questioned in the case of Assange. The same UN rapporteur accused the British authorities of "torture" at the time when Assange was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is very loose and incendiary language: "Mr Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture."[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: This has been reported all over the news, and your opinion about how newspaper articles and statements by UN officials or their medical teams appear vaguely dubious should not have an impact on content decisions. From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” and demanded immediate measures for the protection of his health and dignity... As predicted by Melzer, shortly after the Special Rapporteur’s visit, Mr. Assange had to be transferred to the prison’s health care unit.

There is no policy basis for trying to exclude this content from the lede. -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Location (prison name) OK; "life at risk" opinion not OK – per Snoog, who explains it well. – Levivich 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I tend to favor ledes that are short and to the point, so I'm already kinda unhappy with the state of the current lede which appears to try to summarize Assange's entire life. That being said, I think it's OK to mention where he is currently incarcerated in the lede and also to document what the UN guy said further down. Omanlured (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lede — there's no policy-based reason to exclude this from the article, but the phrasing of the proposed addition to the lede is sensationalist and misleading by omission. Is he at risk of getting shivved? Of the CIA assassinating him and disguising it as a jail-yard shivving? Or is his health poor, in a way potentially aggravated by his conditions? In addition, the passage in the article which reports Melzer's statement is a copyvio of [5]. It also gives an unbalanced presentation of Melzer's findings. Quoting the Guardian piece linked above, “Physically there were ailments but that side of things are being addressed by the prison health service and there was nothing urgent or dangerous in that way,” Melzer said. [...] Melzer said that Belmarsh was an old prison and had issues about that but he described it as well maintained, adding that characterisations of it as a “supermax” or “the Guantanamo of Britain” were unhelpful. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And, plucking another source from the pile, the CNN story quotes Melzer as saying, My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That's a serious statement, of course, but it's not fairly summarized by "his life is at risk where he is now". XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lead - Life at risk is OK in the body as an opinion along with a response from the authorities. O3000 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• This article gives far too much weight to Nils Melzer's opinion. The entire Imprisonment in the UK section is just Melzer's opinion on the matter, and the third paragraph uncritically repeats his claims in a very unencyclopedic manner. "As predicted by Melzer" and "according to this expert" are technically attributions of opinion, as is proper, but in a way that accords his opinion the status of unquestionable fact. Clearly a lot of sources discuss this guy's comments on Assange's imprisonment, so it should be mentioned in the article, but this is going way too far. Neither he nor his belief that Assange's life is at risk should be mentioned in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable, but i would only include the fact that he in incarcerated. The rest of the information shouldn't be included in the lede, but it could be included in the body. Cook907 (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not Suitable for the lead to say more than that he is incarcerated. That is ok, the rest, not. The body, yes. The lead, no. POV. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not Suitable wording for the lead as this psychological assessment seems impressionistic and is prone to error and the wording seems to imply he is being harmed by his incarceration. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Seems like agenda-driven attempt to make a point in the lead of the article. It's not an important aspect of the man's biography to warrant top placement in the article. Leave it in the body, that is fine. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Barring any other stances on the risk or non-risk of his situation, adding the opinion of one person, even if that is repeated by multiple RSes, is clearly UNDUE for the lede, lacking any context to be in there. If it were the case that Assange's life has been threatened as to give context to the statement, that might be reasonable. --Masem (t) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: This isn't the opinion of one person. It's the assessment of a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. That assessment was based on a medical examination by "two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment" ([6]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Suitable: This is an assessment by a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and it's been widely reported. From those saying this is too minor to be included in the lede, I'd like to ask for some consistency. The lede contains excessive detail on the Russiagate scandal, including this factoid which is largely irrelevant to Assange's biography: "twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller". I'm sorry to say that I don't think the simultaneous packing of the lede with extraneous Russiagate material and the exclusion of the widely reported expert medical assessment of Assange are unrelated. They both flow from the same political agenda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Then that also should be removed as irreverent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an assessment by a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture — except it isn't. What the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said and what the proposal claims he said are completely different. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: The proposal nearly directly quotes from the UNHRC press release: "The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, has expressed alarm at the continued deterioration of Julian Assange’s health since his arrest and detention earlier this year, saying his life was now at risk" ([7]). I'm open to improving the wording of the proposed text, but it does correctly represent what the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said.

@Slatersteven: Can I take it then that you'll support the removal from the lede of clause about GRU agents being indicted? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude from lead. It's opinion, and it is alarmist (this is England we're talking about, not Kekistan). Guy (help!) 22:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Does the fact that this statement is being made by a UN team that specializes in investigating torture matter? You or I may disagree with the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur and his team, but they do carry some weight in and of themselves, and because they have been widely reported in dozens of highly regarded newspapers around the world. Whether or not you or I (as anonymous Wikipedia editors on the Internet) think the findings of the UN team are "alarmist" is really irrelevant. What's relevant is Wikipedia's inclusion critera: WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it's not "a UN team", it's one person within that team, and it's his opinion not based on medical evaluations. Again, this is an English prison, we're not some banana republic. Guy (help!) 12:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: What you're claiming is directly contradicted by the sources: "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment. The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment" ([8]). Please read the sources before commenting in this RfC. Your (or my) opinion on whether the UN team is correct or incorrect is irrelevant here. To whomever closes this RfC, please discount votes that claim this is one person's opinion, or that there was no medical assessment. The people making these claims have not read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude clause about life at risk as worded. As it is currently this is just UNDUE and misleading and would leave the reader with more questions than answers (like what does this have to do with torture?). Melzer is plainly a political sympathizer of Assange and this by his own choice of words colors why exactly he feels the incarceration is unjust. However, since the lead should reflect the overall content of the article and Melzer's opinions do take up a fair amount of space, I might not be opposed to a different phrasing that did not insinuate there is a consensus or accepted evidence that Assange is being tortured to death. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location acceptable, 'life at risk' unsuitable. Agreed on undue. Ifly6 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable. Opinion that life is at risk not suitable. First of all, it's one person's opinion. Secondly, it's WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable: As it there is significant coverage from RS about Assange's worsening health condition as pointed out by Darouet and thus should be noted in the lede.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable if slightly rephrased: I think given that this is a United Nations source, it would be problematic not to include it. That smells to me like we'd be doing that because we happen to think Assange is unsympathetic. However I agree with Nblund that the current phrasing sounds like he is at risk of being assassinated. I would rather say Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said he is being kept under unacceptably poor conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokiTheLiar (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• suitable it is reliably sourced and there is no reason to remove it. It is not UNDUE.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable Thoroughly sourced. The arguments against it are incredibly stupid and biased.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable. Opinion that life is at risk not suitable as UNDUE and proposed phrasing is wholly inapt and misleading. It implies risk of assasination or torture, where the actual claim is that the WHOLE process has damaged his mental health (ie including period in embassy, not directly as a result of Belmarsh/British incarceration). Credited the claim could go in body with fuller account. I endorse arguments of Aquillion, Nblund, DIYeditor and others. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable The location of incarceration can be included but the risk to life part is not. There is an Imprisonment in the United Kingdom section, let it be cited there. It appears that this particular information - regardless of the long list of reporting publications - only used one source - the U.N. rapporteur. Second, it is ambiguous. As previous posts stated, it could imply an assassination attempt, suicide, and, of course, physical torture (given the title of the UN official). It leads to a lot of speculation. It will also not strain credulity to say that any prisoner deprived of his freedom and gets interrogated for his crime (since Assange obviously knows a lot of information crucial to security) would suffer psychologically. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable - Doesn't belong in the lede. Yes, it's been reported on by multiple reliable sources, but it's still represents a single assessment; belongs in Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_in_the_United_Kingdom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable All Areas. Due weight. ——SN54129 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lede I see no issue inlcuding this information in the body, but one opinion seems a bit undue in the lede. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for lead as to the rapporteur's opinion on his health risks. Should be in the body. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable The UN has said similar things HAL333 16:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternate text (location and condition)

@Pincrete, Nblund, Aquillion, and DIYeditor: I appreciate your comments in that you're trying to engage with the sources. Based on the widely reported upon OHCHR statements on health, arbitrary detention and torture [9][10], and today's news that 60 doctors are warning Assange may die in prison [11], is there text, either for the body or lead or both, that you think these sources (or RS that report upon them) could justify? I'd be really curious to know what specific proposals you'd have. -Darouet (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that the previous UN statements on arbitrary detention, torture, and health received support from Human Rights Watch and the ACLU [12][13]. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not helpful to namecheck the names of other reputable organizations who are not involved in the Assange matter. Also, please place discussion in the section captioned...Discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to get the opinions of the editors I pinged, if you don't mind. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I said what I have to say about it, if it is worth doing to you then come up with something I might agree with. LokiTheLiar's version wasn't bad but I would not be ready to support it without reading more arguments in its favor. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I don't see why new wording in the body would be a problem. I believe one of the sources said that JA is currntly being held in the 'medical' wing of the hospital and not in the high security part, which should be included along with the rapporteur's assessment - which along with the medical experts testimony makes clear that any (mental or physical) ill health is as a result of the extended period of stress/isolation, including the time in tha embassy. I think readers can, and will, make up their own minds as to who is responsible for JA having been 'on the run' in the embassy for so long. It is the misleaading and very selective slant to the present wording which is a primary objection of mine.Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (location and condition)

• This article is subject of WP:POV pushing and it would be useful if it is added to more editors watchlist's. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think this issue could be fixed if the statement about Assange's health was attributed to a few reliable sources. I think that could easily be done, because it's not controversial.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is also subject to wp:undue, this is one mans opinion which may not (as far as I can see) even be an official statement made in his official capacity.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

These are official statements made in Melzer's official capacity, published in the news section of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: [14], [15].

The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” and demanded immediate measures for the protection of his health and dignity... As predicted by Melzer, shortly after the Special Rapporteur’s visit, Mr. Assange had to be transferred to the prison’s health care unit.

Unless, Steven, you have evidence that Melzer and his medical team visited Assange on their own time, in a personal capacity, for fun? I can't wait to see those links. -Darouet (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The HRC oversees 44 thematic and 12 specific country mandates for which it can assign special rapporteurs. The UK is not among them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is one of those 44 thematic mandates, and Nils Melzer is the special rapporteur responsible for that theme: [16] [17]. The fact that there are specific country mandates in addition to the thematic mandates is completely irrelevant here. The thematic mandates cover all countries, not just countries for which there is also a special mandate. Melzer is the special rapporteur on torture in all countries, not just 14 specific countries. But don't just trust my opinion. This is what the UNHRC says about its mandates:

Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. -[18]

What's more, the findings of Melzer and his team were announced in a UNHRC press release, so they're not just some personal opinion he formed in his free time: [19]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet there is not one word form the medical experts, where is this medical report? As I said what we have is one persons opinion. IN fact at no time is there ever "and it is the finding of the UNHCR" type statement either, they never take ownership of anything in that press release.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from another UNHRC press release:

Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment.

The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment. -[20]

It says very clearly that an expert medical assessment was conducted. Re: "they never take ownership of anything in that press release", I don't know what you expect. Nils Melzer is the UN's official rapporteur on torture. The UNHRC has repeatedly publicized Melzer's findings in official press releases. What do you mean by not taking ownership? That just sounds like yet another excuse to try to dismiss this material. See WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I know what it says, I also know it does not contain one quote from the medical experts. As to what I would expect it to say, how about "in a report commissioned by the UNHRCR...", in other words they take ownership of it. In fact there appears to be no report, just a press handout, one that is worded so at to say "in Melzer's opinion".Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter that the UNHRC press release doesn't directly quote the medical experts? It says that they examined Assange and made an assessment. You're just inventing arbitrary requirements as an excuse to keep this information out of the article. First you made up your objection about there being no special rapporteur for the UK. When I showed that that objection was spurious (there is a special rapporteur for torture worldwide), you moved on to the next spurious objection: your suggestion that there wasn't any real medical examination. When I showed that objection to be incorrect (medical experts conducted an examination), you move on to the next spurious objection: they aren't directly quoted in the press release. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If UNHRC quoted the actual doctor and showed all the test results we could do some WP:OR to determine if the report contained sufficient WP:MEDRS to be an RS for this article ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course this is a medical statement made by someone who is not a medical expert. By the way not quoting every objection at once is not the same as moving on to new made up ones. From the start I said this was just his opinion, nothing that has been provided gives any indication that its not just his opinion, the press release even says it is his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. It says the "United Nations special rapporteur visited." It does not say an individual visited. And the opinion of that title is the opinion of an organization, not the opinion of an individual. This is WP:OBVIOUS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Its also a Letter of allegation as far as I can tell. It is not a formal finding (as I said no report has been made yet). In fact (I note) that the Communications report of special procedures for 42nd session September 2019 (which covers the period in question) seems to contain no reference to this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

References

@Slatersteven: "this is a medical statement made by someone who is not a medical expert." No, it's an assessment made by a team that included two medical experts. The UNHRC said, "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment" ([21]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Except it does not quote (or even name) them, just him. This is my whole point, this is his opinion of what they found.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of text and interpretation -

• OHCHR: The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” [22]
• Slatersteven: it does not quote (or even name) them, just him... this is his opinion of what they found [23]

So "The Special Rapporteur and his medical team" becomes "just him," and their "report" becomes "his opinion." Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This just deflects from the rejected narrative that Darouet and Thucydides are tag-teaming here. Further, as has been noted, the guy was in self-imposed solitary confinement at the embassy for years. Introducing the mention of the prison is wildly SYNTH and feeds a fringe narrative unstated by any source about various governments that seek to adjudicate various actions of Assange. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet showed that the sources support the text - by citing the sources directly. @SPECIFICO: Do you have a fact-based response to that? Calling everything "wildly SYNTH" (it's not synthesis - it's a direct comparison of what the source says with what the proposed text says) or "fringe narrative" (it's the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, cited by dozens of highly regarded newspapers around the world) isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing mentioned about previous time at the embassy. More WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The notice from back in May stated, In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy [24]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• With the relation to location, which few people have commented on, I think it is handy to note where he is imprisoned. He has been in the usual situation of being subject to criminal proceedings from three different governments. His legal team was also asked for bail. It is good for the reader to see at a glance that is he in a British prison at the moment. I think that noting a subject's location is unusual, but this is an unusual situation.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As we are just going round in circles I will bow our now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, one last try. His health declined due to his choice to hole up in the embassy for years on end. His life was at risk by the time he was extricated, before the British prison. There's plenty of RS reporting about the conditions in which he chose to live. The mention of the prison in a single lead sentence without that context is a nasty POV push via UNDUE and SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what RS are reporting, and that argument is directly contradicted by not only multiple UN statements [25][26][27][28], but also by statements from Human Rights Watch [29], the American Civil Liberties Union [30], and other legal experts [31][32].

According to the HRW general counsel:

Let’s be clear: the issue is not Assange fleeing Swedish justice; he has continually expressed his willingness to be investigated by Sweden. What he won’t do is risk eventual extradition to the United States, which would like to prosecute him under the Espionage Act.

-Darouet (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. not that its WP:RS, but it should illustrate the point]. Please address the only point I made above. The simple fact that there's no statement that his health was AOK and fell off a cliff under the British prison watch. But that is what your proposed text SYNTH and without proper context suggests to the reader. Please respond to the points others have raised and do not introduce names of other organizations that are irrelevant to the specific item under discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That article you linked is a good one, and quotes from a series of experts who support what various UN officials, other human rights officials, and doctors are all saying: that prolonged arbitrary detention has caused Assange serious medical and psychological harm. That includes harm endured within the embassy, and now at Belmarsh. Otherwise I don't understand what you're asking for: all I've shown is that international and American human rights groups reject your personal legal interpretation of Assange's condition. -Darouet (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You asked for a link to a source that backs up what everyone knows -- my assertion above that Assange's health declined during his self-imposed confinement in the embassy. The article text you are pushing supports a false POV that it is due to mistreatment by the Brits in their prison. Clear enough? I'm done. I suggest you carefully review the comments of the many editors who have refuted every single point you have made on this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not attached to any specific article text, and your wholly correct point - that Assange's health was declining long before his incarceration at Belmarsh [33] - does not contradict Melzer's statement that Assange's life is at risk while he is in Belmarsh [34][35]. However, your additional comments that Assange has imposed this upon himself are rejected by human rights groups [36][37]. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You stated above that you support the proposed text and that you feel it's "suitable and necessary". When you return to deny that, you should either amend your original !vote, which is no longer credible, or recognize that the contradiction will be noted by all who comment here and by the closer.

I support the text because it is accurate: Melzer has said that Assange's life is at risk in Belmarsh. If you wanted to make the text more precise and note other UN and human rights group statements about Assange's long term decline in health, and what they describe as arbitrary detention, I would support that too, since there are abundant references to document it. -Darouet (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately "accurate" is not the standard we work by. In general, SYNTH text is "accurate" and UNDUE text may be acccurate as well. But the context of the RfC proposal leads the reader to an unverified and unintended or extraneous conclusion, not stated by the Rapporteur. To wit: We know his health declined during his voluntary sojourn in the Embassy. When the lead says his health is at risk in the British prison, many or all readers will conclude that its because of his treatment there. In fact, his health has been at risk for some time now, due to his voluntary confinement at the Embassy. His health would be at risk in a hospital too, but fewer readers would jump to the false conclusion that his ill health was caused by the hospital. Many, possibly including yourself, conclude that his ill health is caused by the British government. WP will not publish that nonsense. If it were true, you could have verified that specific assertion with a dozen sources and we all would not have wasted our time on this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It's time you finally read Melzer's statements, because you clearly have no idea what he's actually been saying. "due to his voluntary confinement at the Embassy": Melzer has specifically written that Assange's asylum in the embassy was not self-imposed. So instead of accusing others of engaging in WP:SYNTH (a term which you don't even appear to understand, given the way you're using it here), how about you go read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Open letter by 60 doctors: Assange may die in prison

60 doctors have written a letter reiterating Nils Melzer's point: that Assange is and has been in urgent need of medical attention. To quote from The Guardian [38]:

More than 60 doctors have written an open letter saying they fear Julian Assange’s health is so bad that the WikiLeaks founder could die inside a top-security British jail.

The letter has been covered by news globally:

• The Independent: Julian Assange 'could die in prison without urgent medical care', doctors warn
• CBS News: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange "could die in prison" without medical care, doctors say
• Al Jazeera: Doctors tell UK authorities Julian Assange 'could die' in jail
• The Daily Beast: Doctors Say Julian Assange’s Health Is So Bad He Could Die in Prison
• The Irish Times: Assange ‘could die in prison’ without urgent medical care – medics
• Deutsche Welle: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 'could die' in British jail: doctors
• Sydney Morning Herald: More than 60 doctors have written to British authorities asserting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange urgently needs medical treatment at a university hospital.
• Washington Post: More than 60 doctors have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange,” who is being held at a high-security British prison.
• Also reported by Business Insider, Hindustan Times, The Evening Standard, CNBC, TIME, The Australian, etc.

The doctors' letter notes that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined in 2015 that Assange was being arbitrarily detained, and that "any continued arbitrary detention of Mr Assange would constitute torture... The Working group reaffirmed its stance in 2018 and added "the continued arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr Assange is undermining his health, and may possibly endanger his life given the disproportionate amount of anxiety and stress that such prolonged deprivation of liberty entails."

This widely publicized statement by 60 medical experts confirms the report made by Melzer and his UN team, and by other eyewitnesses who have seen Assange's condition. It also contradicts the falsehood, which has been repeated here despite all available text and sources, that the OHCHR report on Assange's health is either UNDUE or nothing more than Special Rapporteur Melzer's "opinion." -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This letter was organized and distributed by WikiLeaks. You can get 60 doctors to sign onto any letter. Also, just to reiterate, this letter claims that it's "arbitrary detention" in 2015 (i.e. when Assange evades extradition to Sweden for questioning on rape charges). Suppose the police wants to question me after a credible accusation of rape... apparently, I'd be "arbitrarily detained" and "tortured" if in the process of hiding from the police, I happened to live in squalid conditions. The UN is also not a neutral arbiter on these issues, it's a political organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: is there a source saying this letter was "organized" by Wikileaks? And if the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is not a neutral body for determining who is arbitrarily detained, whose political interests are they advancing? Do you have a source that indicates they are political partisans of Assange or Wikileaks? Where are you getting this from? -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Snoogans I am still unable to find a source stating that Wikileaks "organized" this letter: only that it is distributing it. -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The absurdity of the conclusion by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is accurately pointed out by Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman here.[39] This Foreign Policy piece also accurately describes the conclusion as shocking to legal experts.[40] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The conclusion is backed up by statements by HRW and ACLU senior officials [41][42], and was bolstered by a second statement UN in subsequent years that the determination of arbitrary detention was accurate [43].

The BBC writes that The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is made up of five legal experts from around the world. Established in 1991, it has made hundreds of rulings on whether imprisonment or detention is lawful [44]. The UN decision [45][46] was reported upon objectively by many news sources noting opinions of officials and figures supporting or opposing the ruling, e.g. CNN, The Independent, TIME, USA Today, VOX, The Telegraph, The Intercept, The New York Times, Wired, The Sydney Morning Herald, etc.

There are critiques of the UN working group decision other than the Op-Ed and Feldman articles you cite, for instance by US political figure Paul Rosenzweig on the Lawfare Blog [47], and an editorial by the Guardian [48]. However, Feldman’s response is criticized as factually inaccurate by political science professor John Keane [49], and UN Human Rights Office official Christophe Peschoux among other experts states that the UN group’s decision is based on the international human rights norm [50].

The UN working group decision received further support from Human Rights Watch [51]. HRW general counsel directly challenged the assertion that Assange was a fugitive from justice: Let’s be clear: the issue is not Assange fleeing Swedish justice; he has continually expressed his willingness to be investigated by Sweden. What he won’t do is risk eventual extradition to the United States, which would like to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. That is exactly what has happened. The American Civil Liberties Union executive director said in response to the working group’s decision, In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional [52].

Snoogans: what are you trying to argue? That Wikipedia should take an editorial position against the UN, HRW, and ACLU statements? That it should not report them? Or that the statements and their widespread coverage should be treated as relatively inconsequential and given little space in the article? -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that this assessment does not belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snoogs, this content is undue, of dubious origin, and does not belong in the lede. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Why doesn't it belong in the lede? Because you think it's wrong? Because the UN, HRW, the ACLU and all the newspapers that have been reporting on this don't make it notable?

@Octoberwoodland: What is dubious about the origin of the letter? It's based on the assessment of the UN, and has been widely covered, just like the UN assessment itself. The question is really how long we're going to ignore the all the coverage of Assange's declining health and the assessment that he's been arbitrarily detained. I know he's not a popular figure around here, but this is really getting absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Now how on earth did 60 doctors examine Assange while he was incarcerated? The letter sounds like a load of WP:OR and unsubstantiated opinions. I read through the Guardian article, and the problem I have with this letter is it does not appear to be based on actual medical evaluations of Assange, but is for the most part speculation and opinions. I realize that a doctors opinion carries some weight, but how many of these doctors actually examined him? I think this letter is undue, and it may in fact be politically motivated. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: You're misusing the term "WP:OR." That's a policy that says Wikipedia editors can't use their own original research as a source. It has nothing to do with the expertise of outside sources.

The letter is based on several accounts of Assange's declining health. This issue has now been raised repeatedly by the UN, and now by a group of doctors, and it has been widely reported on. I think most of the opposition (among editors on this page) to including it is political dislike of Assange, and a general desire to paint him in as unsympathetic a light as possible.

I recall back when some of the very same people who now argue for minimizing information about Assange's health were fighting to include a blatant mischaracterization of an interview given by Assange, in order to paint him as a stooge of the Kremlin: [53]. They had exactly one source to go on, an article in the Guardian that cherrypicked a few quotes from an interview. The person who did the original interview even attacked the Guardian for misrepresenting Assange's statements. But now, suddenly, dozens of articles in major newspapers reporting on statements from the UNHRC are not enough. I wonder why. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This letter and article in the Guardian sounds like more political rhetoric of Julian Assange's followers and advocates. I mean, I am fairly certain that there are doctors who provide services to inmates in the prison where he is being held. A letter that says Julian Assange "will die" unless he is let out of prison sounds incredulous. What do the prison doctors have to say about this? Where is their assessments? Assange is terrified of what will happen next since the US is going to extradite and prosecute him for espionage and hacking US government computers. I am fairly certain he wants out of prison so he can find another embassy to grant him asylum so he can dodge the next round of indictments. This letter talks about his mental health as well. Are prison officials concerned he will attempt suicide? Assange is a grown man who knowingly published classified materials of the US government, hacking US computers, then disclosed highly restricted materials. He certainly should have known there would be serious consequences for such conduct. I certainly would not want to be in his shoes and it's without a doubt he wants to dodge prison and get out so he can attempt to evade prosecution once again. He has quite the following of fans and supporters and this letter appears to be the work of his advocates. And what does the UN have to do with the US extraditing him for espionage? Like the other editors have stated above, this letter is undue, and I question it's accuracy since it's pretty clear 60 doctors have not examined him. It's a lot of opinions from people who do not have personal knowledge of his condition. If the prison doctors sent a letter, that would be more credible. As it stands, I don't consider that political letter all that credible. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And I note that is about his stay at the embassy his... But this is the point. It may be he may die in prison, but it any content must be worded so as not to imply this is solely or even principally the prison authorities fault. I also note this is 60 doctors, none of whom appear to have examined him from 8 countries, that seems to be to be a fringe. I also note that there seems to be a lot out there relating not to his imprisonment, but mainly his stay in the embassy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, according to the UN, Assange's stay in the embassy was imposed on him. He was, after all, there because of credible fears of extradition to the United States for political crimes - fears which have now proven to be true. Also, what makes the doctors' opinions "fringe"? They're based on the conclusions of a UN team (including medical experts) that examined Assange, as well as other witness accounts of Assange's decline in health. The doctors' letter has been widely reported on. "I also note that there seems to be a lot out there relating not to his imprisonment, but mainly his stay in the embassy." The UN found Assange's confinement to the embassy to be arbitrary detention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Because a fringe is a view held by a minority, last time I checked 64 medical experts are not even a significant minority of the number of doctors in the UK alone. And again, it does not matter why he was "held" in the embassy, when the suggested edit only talks about British jails.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So only once a majority of all practicing doctors in the UK come out and make a statement about Assange's health will this view stop being fringe? Am I getting this right? Is this really the level of absurdity we're going to stoop to here on Wikipedia?

If you don't like that the proposed text specifically refers only to Assange's health in jail, why not propose an improvement? The proposed text isn't set down in stone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is an RfC and it is set in stone. It looks like the proposal will fail, and I suggest working on other things for awhile and proposing some other language that takes account of the apparent consensus that the health/British prison bit is not going in the article. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing at wikipedia is set in stone and specifically RfC's dont rule out that sources might change in the future. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I can think of any number of fringe theories where the professional experts have not come out and passed comment on it (partly that what makes it fringe). Also it is not necessarily down to us to provide "better" text, as some of us do not only oppose for reasons of it being "POV" written. Also it is hard to see how one paragraph can be written as one line without losing nuance, and it is hard to see how one paragraph in the lede is not undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I wish the opinions you've expressed here — condemning the medical experts as fringe, referencing supposedly larger numbers of doctors who must disagree, etc., were supported by text in reliable sources. But that commentary is not present in any news articles on this topic. -Darouet (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not say anyone disagreed, I said they have not agreed. Again we have plenty of arguments made on fringe topics that they are fringe precisely because no other academic has commented on them, I am merely extending that argument to here. These 60 doctors have not examined him, but rather based their judgment on what others have said or what they have observed in videos. One of the problems here is that the hospitals doctors are bound by confidentiality, they are legally disallowed from commenting (the 60 docs are not precisely because he is not their patient and they have not examined him in a professional capacity). Thus we are only getting one side of this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, I understand what you're arguing on principle, and I do agree with you that when a viewpoint truly becomes fringe, and is furthermore inconsequential, reliable and respected sources of information will ignore it. In that case, it would be unreasonable for us to ask you to produce reliable source critiques of the viewpoint in question.

However, there are multiple sources information that should strongly suggest to you that the case here is not only very different, but the opposite of what you describe. First, the doctors' letter was published by global news agencies, who do more than just report that the letter was written, but also solicit feedback. For instance The Independent interviews one of the letter's signatories [54]:

Dr Lissa Johnson, a clinical psychologist in Australia and one of the letter's signatories, said: “Given the rapid decline of his health in Belmarsh prison, Julian Assange must immediately be transferred to a university teaching hospital for appropriate and specialised medical care..."

The Guardian corroborates this account by adding in their own words that [55]

At his first appearance in public for six months, in a court hearing last month, Assange seemed frail. He also appeared confused whenever he was asked to talk at Westminster magistrates’ court in London. He seemed to have difficulties recalling his birth date...

Reporting on the doctors' letter Al Jazeera notes the fairly obvious, that the letter is consistent with the medical assessment made by UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer [56]:

The independent UN rights expert said Assange's "continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life."

Because these assessments are being provided by multiple highly credible authorities, because major papers all over the world report the assessments credibly and do not provide arguments (except by British officials who are incarcerating Assange) to the contrary, it should be obvious to you that there is nothing "fringe" about this. If we used the standard you are advocating, even the most widely reported statements or assessments must be treated as equivalent to statements or opinions that have received no coverage at all. -Darouet (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Fringe does not mean "not widely reported". How many doctors who have actually physically examine Assande have commented on his health? This is the issue here, he has been taken to the hospital wing [[57]], what have they said? That is the point, hew is getting medical care and they are not allowed to discuss their findings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you didn't address what Darouet said. Major newspapers are treating the doctors' letter as credible, as the quotes Darouet provided above demonstrate. Do you have an answer to that point? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Reporting what people have said and treating those claims as credible are not the same. Nor do comments made about his conditions before arriving at Belmarsh have any relevance to text about his condition at Belmarsh. Again we only have one side of this story, and in fact legally can only have one side due to patient doctor confidentiality. The doctors who are treating him (rather then acting as advocates) cannot tell us what they think.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You're still avoiding answering what Darouet wrote above, and it's becoming clear why: you don't have an answer to it. If the doctors' view is fringe, why are they being given so much coverage by mainstream publications? Why don't those publications call the doctors' view fringe? Instead, mainstream publications are actually interviewing the doctors and presenting their opinions. The Guardian even makes a statement in its own voice that supports the doctors' view. Your argument against that is to say that only the views of the doctors who are directly treating Assange matter. In other words, you're ignoring the fact that the media doesn't treat the doctors' letter as fringe, and making your own personal argument about why you think the 60 doctors are wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I know, why does keep getting publicity? Or Mazrk Dice or anyone who claims to have seen Nessie? Why (even now) does David Icke still get publicity? Newspapers publish many things, including conspiracy theories and even stories that feature me (that is to say my Wikipedia account). It does not mean the views represented (with the exception of mine) are not a fringe of those who might not (but have no for one reason or another) expressed an opinion. This is why I say it violated wp:undue and maybe wp:fringe because those who have treated him (as doctors) cannot give a counter account, even if they wanted it. To put it another way, this is all the news media have to report.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If the 60 doctors' views (and those of the UN team) were fringe, the mainstream sources covering them would indicate that. When mainstream sources cover people who say vaccines cause autism, the sources categorically state that there's no evidence for that claim. But instead, we see above from the quotes Darouet provided that mainstream sources treat the doctors' letter as credible. The Guardian even echoes - in its own voice - some of what the doctors are saying. That's what you're not addressing. You keep saying that unless Assange's prison doctors make a public statement, the 60 doctors and the UN team are fringe. That's a ridiculous argument you seem to have pulled out of a hat. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in lede We dont measure by the quantity of the doctors. However, this is a second source that supports the earlier source by the UN person. Thus we have two different independent reports of a similar issue. Above arguments such as 'how many doctors is 60 out of total' or 'arranged by wikileaks' are all baseless. We do weight based on independent reliable sources and add weight for multiple events. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for your comment, though I raised the doctors' letter and its widespread coverage without asking that we put it in the lead (though I suppose we can look into that in the future). Instead I mentioned the letter here to point out that Melzer's assessment — supported by the medical team that accompanied him, the UN, Assange's family and lawyers, and others — has now received yet further validation from a large number of medical professionals.

The letter also demonstrates that international human rights groups — the United Nations, HRW, the ACLU — have been relatively consistent in their view that Assange's incarceration has been arbitrary and illegal, despite the opinions of some editors here to the contrary. -Darouet (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: yes, i also support inclusion in the body. Plenty of RS to include. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Suitable - It's not like the views of United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer are just some random vox pop. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

1RR

I'm pretty sure I have no history on this article, so am uninvolved. I am placing it under WP:1RR due to persistent edit warring by long-standing editors. Guy (help!) 12:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, I support this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, is this still in force?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Guy (help!) 20:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I apologize.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Prison term

As there are more eyes on the page, can anyone explain this? We say in a number of places that Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks for breaching bail. However, his prison term ended on 22 September [58]. 1 May to 22 September is not 50 weeks. At his sentencing, the judge said that he could be released after serving half his sentence [59]. I can't find any source for this apart from the judge's sentencing remarks. I can't find any reference to Assange getting parole etc. Is there an explanation? And is there a way we can word this better?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be hard to find a suitable source confirming this. Craig Murray published an article on his website which said Assange "will receive parole from the rest of that sentence, but will continue to be imprisoned on remand awaiting his hearing on extradition to the USA". The article was reprinted at Antiwar and Russia Insider. The statement about parole is surely correct but it may not be possible to use any of those references. Burrobert (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the British government, "You’re not eligible for parole if your sentence is less than 4 years".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case I am at a loss. Relating to a different issue, you have just moved the oz parliamentary actions to an oz reactions section. Do you think that the responses of Gillard and Roxon mentioned in the article could you brought under the umbrella of that section as well? Burrobert (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that is "Reactions to the US indictment". We need to keep things in chronological order.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Any other responses?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Burrobert: The only further information I can find is provided by Assange's father John Shipton, in a statement to the "Courage Foundation" in the UK, which is run by a number of journalists and ex-CIA analysts [60]:

[Judge Baraitser's] comments did not appear to be part of any formal ruling, as no bail application had yet been made. Speaking to Assange, the judge also alleged, “I have given your lawyer an opportunity to make an application for bail on your behalf and she has declined to do so.” In fact, as Julian Assange’s father John Shipton, who was in the courtroom, explained in an interview, the judge decided on her own to discuss Julian’s bail at what was supposed to be merely a “technical hearing.” Judge Baraitser “decided to hear a bail application case which wasn’t before her,” Shipton said, “which she promptly refused.” When asked who brought the bail application, he said, “She made it herself.” Assange himself was clearly caught off guard as well...

So, according to Assange's father, the judge pre-empted possible future bail requests by raising the issue once half the term was served, and stated that Assange would henceforth be held awaiting extradition. -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I recall reading about the judge’s odd behaviour regarding bail, possibly in a piece by John Pilger. From our point of view it seems we are not going to be able to give a reason for the change in Assange’s status on 22 September. Burrobert (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We could, perhaps, quote from Shipton himself in the paragraph on Baraitser's ruling. -Darouet (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

But that is a different issue. His prison term ended, and bail was not given. That is understandable. After he had breached bail the first time, I would be surprised if a court gave him bail again. My question is why did the prison term end on 22 September instead of running the whole 50 weeks.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: my impression based on the sources we've located is that his prison term was eligible to end at the request of his lawyers, that they didn't make the request, but that Baraitser pre-empted any possibility of request by holding an impromptu hearing on the topic and summarily declaring that Assange would remain in custody until deportation. I agree with Burrobert that, at the moment, we're not going to be able to get a clearer explanation sadly. -Darouet (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: why did the prison term end on 22 September instead of running the whole 50 weeks? I believe there is a less formal process than parole for early release from short prison sentences for good behaviour - which would have applied to JA, however, due to the risk of him absconding while extradition is considered/processed, he remains in custody. He is technically not any longer serving the 50 week bail-jumping sentence.Guardian is clear as to recent situation. Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we are going round in circles. The judge in the sentencing said that he would be eligible to be released in 25 weeks. I see no reference to him being released for good behaviour. I think that seems unlikely in Assange's case as he has shown very little remorse.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just found out that prisoners in Britain are eligible to be "released on licence" after half their sentence is served, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 244. This seems to be an almost automatic process.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like if the judge preempted a bail request that should be noted in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Assange's lawyers were complaining about that. I think we need a neutral account of what happened. The other question is whether his lawyers had another chance to apply for bail.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We dont need neutral coverage, we can simply include Assange's legal team's position on the matter. If the other side doesnt' respond in the press, that doesn't in any way preclude wikipedia from covering the event. NPOV is when there are two views, if there is only one view of the event, then we just cover the one view. We dont use a manufactured other side using WP:OR to generate it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should always be neutral and accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A statement by Assange's lawyers is deemed neutral and accurate by our coverage of it being neutral and accurate. It is not deemed neutral and accurate if we add OR to it to try to spin something else (not to mention that would be against wikipedia policy as well). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

What spinning are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Edits to lead

Rebecca jones, as you know, an RfC decided we shouldn't describe Assange as a journalist in Wikivoice, particularly in the lead. Adding a statement that journalists' unions call him a journalist seems to be an attempt to subvert the consensus. If it's not, it's irrelevant to the lead. The lead is no place to have a discussion about what different people think about him. Also, why do you keep on deleting "activist" from the first sentence? He is clearly an activist.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that Assange should be characterized as an activist when he isn't characterized as a journalist. Why are we seeking extra fringe definitions for a person when we cannot include the controversial journalist definition? Also if some union calls him a journalist it is by definition not wikivoice right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is it an extra fringe definition, when Assange calls himself an activist?[61][62] I don't think there's a dichotomy between activist or journalist. No, the statement that unions call him a journalist isn't in Wikivoice, but why put in the lead, right after the first sentence? We are just trying to explain who Assange is. It is not appropriate to say who some people say that he is. We should be presenting the consensus version.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Normally the BLP subjects description goes high up in the lede. Has Assange never referred to himself as a journalist? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In 2010, he said, "Since that time [1993], I've been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist" [63]. According to him, he's occasionally been a journalist. There's no way that belongs in the lead. Why are we rerunning these arguments again???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So he describes himself as a publisher, journalist, and activist? What about political prisoner? [64] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy which says we include the subject's self-description in the lead. We don't call Donald Trump a "very stable genius", for example.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a degree of (professional) disagreement on whether he is an journalist or just an info dumper (as I think one journalist called it), thus no I do not think it is a given, and thus should not be in the lede. On a wider issue, the lede is way too long (see wp:lede), why?Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I said in the RfC, the sourcing for stating in Wikivoice that Assange is a journalist is impeccable: [65]. I quoted dozens of high-quality reliable sources that directly call him a journalist. That didn't matter in that RfC, because the RfC wasn't really about whether Assange is a journalist, but rather whether Wikipedia editors like or dislike Assange. If it had been about WP:RS, there would have been no question whatsoever of the outcome. The same goes for the ridiculous discussion above about the UN statements about Assange.

That being said, I don't see anywhere in the RfC closing where it says that the numerous statements by prominent organizations about Assange being a journalist, or the fact that he won Australia's most prestigious prize for journalism, can't be mentioned in the lede. It's actually quite strange that none of the issues about Assange and journalism (his winning of the Walkley Award, and the fact that his prosecution has caused significant concern about freedom of the press) are mentioned in the lede. All we get is the vague statement that his indictment has been criticized, but no mention at all of the reason - it's viewed as an attack on journalism. Instead, we get a blow-by-blow account of the Mueller investigation, including the exact number of alleged GRU agents who were indicted. Some editors apparently believe the exact number of GRU agents Mueller indicted in a trial that has no direct connection to Assange is more important to Assange's biography than the fact that Assange won the most prestigious prize in Australian journalism, or the fact that a UN team has declared Assange's life to be in danger. This is the state of partisanship we're in here on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I said one reason, the lede is already bloated, and this is just more bloat, if we say "called a journalist" we must also say "but not according to...". As I said the lede needs trimming, so lets discus that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We had a very similar argument back in September: Talk:Julian Assange#Controversial journalist. Let's move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor Jtbobwaysf has decided to block me from this article

Having failed to have me blocked on an admin noticeboard, the editor Jtbobwaysf has taken it upon himself to indiscriminately revert whatever edits I make this to this article in the future. The editor admitted as much in this edit.[66] The editor decided to restore content sourced to a dead link and a tweet. The edit I made should be restored ASAP.[67] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nils Melzer's statement on leaving the embassy

The following text was reverted:

Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said Assange was as free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy "as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool". 

The initial reason for the revert was that it was sourced to a tweet so I added an appropriate source. The more recent revert is that it is "cherry picked", "undue" and the result of "synthesis". The editor who reverted didn't provide details of why those descriptions hold so it is difficult to address them directly. However, I believe that the text is appropriate for the following reasons:

• It is in a section called "International courts and the United Nations". The person making the statement is the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Comments he makes seem appropriate to the section.
• The section includes a comment from Philip Hammond that Assange "can come out any time he chooses". Melzer is providing an alternative view.

What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring any other issue Hammond was the government minister responsible, his views thus are more relevant then someone who has no official ability to affect any judgment about the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't question the relevance of Hammond's views. They seem relevant to me, as are Melzer's especially when you consider the title of the section. I am not sure how one measures levels of relevance so I won't try to rank the two. I hope that Hammond doesn't try to affect the judgement of the case and lets the judiciary make a decision according to the law. I know it must happen on occasions but it doesn't seem right. Burrobert (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire U.N. bit is UNDUE. Look at the sourcing. Grasping at straws. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An occasional quote (especially spicy, relevant, and notable) to make an article more interesting is beneficial to wikipedia. Especially given that Assange is probably notable primarily for his stay the embassy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Context for these words: Assange procured a rubber boat, climbed into it, and paddled it into the shark pool. This quote is cherrypicked nonsense that, if contextualized per RS reporting, would surely fail DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC) You have lost me both here and in the edit summary. Can you put your reasoning in plain Australian English please? What do you mean by "cherrypicked nonsense"? What does the phrase "contextualized per RS reporting" mean? What "DUE WEIGHT" does it "surely fail"? Burrobert (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC) G'day mate. Struth! Speco's a septic so he might not be bonzer at ridgy-didge Aussie lingo.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Exactly what I am after cobber. If we all spoke like that there would be no misunderstandings and the world would be a better place. Burrobert (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Bloody oath, cobber! Are you fair dinkum? Aussie blokes and sheilas go hammer and tongs till the cows come home all the bloody time! I think you're on the turps!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Jailing of Chelsea Manning

The following text was recently reverted. The reason was “No, it's relevant at Chelsea Manning or Wikilinks, not here”.

===Jailing of Chelsea Manning for contempt of court===
In February 2019, Manning received a subpoena to appear before a grand jury in Virginia in a case against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. When Manning condemned the secrecy of the hearings and refused to testify, she was jailed for contempt of court on 8 March 2019. Manning was released on 9 May 2019, when the grand jury's term expired but was immediately served with another subpoena to appear before a new grand jury investigating Assange.  On 16 May 2019, Manning again refused to testify before the grand jury investigating Julian Assange stating that 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". She was returned to jail for the 18-month term of the grand jury. In addition a fine was imposed of $500 for each day she spends in jail over 30 days and $1,000 for each day she spends in jail over 60 days.

I do think the text is relevant at Chelsea Manning and it is already there is an expanded form. The section in which I placed the text is called “Indictment in the United States”. The text is about Manning’s jailing for refusing to testify in a grand jury about Assange. I hope the relevance to Assange is clear. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be mentioned here briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I may remove last sentence in the text before re-adding. I'll wait to see if any other editor is interested. Burrobert (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I support adding one or two sentences, not a whole paragraph. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC on Nils Melzer's statement on Assange's ability to leave the embassy.

The consensus is to exclude the material for being undue weight.

Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

Should the following text be added to the section International Courts and the United Nations?

Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said Assange was as free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy "as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool". 

Burrobert (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Yes include the text. My views are in an earlier inconclusive discussion on this talk page. Melzer's statement is in response to other statements which suggested Assange was free to leave the embassy at any time. Burrobert (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• No: we already have too many quotes from Melzer. This isn't necessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. It does not meet WP:DUE, and the source cited is unproven at best. KyleJoan^talk 11:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. If you want that information, you can just say Melzer disputed the statements that suggest Assange was free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

OHCHR accuses UK government of torturing Assange

@Red Rock Canyon: I added a sentence about the OHCHR officially accusing the UK government of torturing Julian Assange.[68] This needs to be in the article because it is a very severe accusation that has not been made by the OHCHR before. Xenagoras (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Australian criminal?

As this issue has come up again, I would like some clarity. The "Category:Australian criminals" says, Australian criminals are Australians who have been convicted of crime of a notable nature or notable Australians who have been convicted of serious crimes. I don't think skipping bail was a serious crime. However, taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years was notable. Hence, I think skipping bail was notable by the way that Assange did it. There is also the 24 hacking charges that he pleaded guilty to in 1996. They are notable, being featured in works such as Underground (Dreyfus book) and Underground: The Julian Assange Story. Various sources name him as a former hacker:[69][70][71][72]. He pleaded guilty to hacking when he was 25, having been under police investigation since 1991. He was given a three year good behaviour bond. The Swedish charges arose in 2010. He skipped bail in 2012. Last year he was expelled from the embassy and imprisoned. He is now 48. For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system. Criminal charges have dominated his life. I can't see how anyone can say this is WP:NOTDEFINING...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What crimes has he been convicted of? Hacking - 3 year good behaviour bond - not a crime of a notable nature nor a serious crime. Breaching the Bail Act - 50 weeks - (the bail breach itself is) not a crime of a notable nature nor a serious crime. I do agree that seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean Consulate is both notable and defining - but that might warrant adding Australian asylum seekers or Seekers of asylum in Ecuador.
As for NOTDEFINING: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having. "(career) criminal" is not how reliable sources generally describe the article subject, though I'm sure some could be Googled up with the right search string. Simply being involved with the justice system for extended periods of his life does not make him a criminal nor make him eligible to be categorised as one. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No not notable the A UN special Raporture has commented on it? So not notable 60 doctors world wide have commented on it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that either the UN Rapporteur or the 60 doctors have commented on either the "hacking" conviction or the "breach of the Bail Act", or on any other convicted crime, but am happy to be shown sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No they have commented on his jailing (and on him being effectively jailed in the embassy), he was jailed for a crime.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased I hadn't missed anything then. But their having commented on the psychological effects of his prison time, when combined with the time in asylum, doesn't make the crime itself a crime of a notable nature or a serious crime; and it doesn't mean that reliable sources generally refer to (define) the article subject as a "criminal". - Ryk72 ^talk 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Debatable I think it does, as without the crime he would not be going the time, but his crime was notable anyway, look at the sources, Assanges arrest was global news, his trial was global news, the crime he committed (bail jumping) was global news.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Only because, he was already notable. The category's entry ticket for notable persons is "a serious crime". Skipping bail is not a serious crime. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Skipping bail is not a serious crime, but it is notable when the offender goes into an embassy and stays there for seven years!!! That is the "entry ticket". If he simply applied to Ecuador for asylum, he would not have been holed up in the embassy. The reason he didn't want to leave was there was an arrest warrant for him.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought we'd come to crime of a notable nature at some stage, and here we are. "Crime of a notable nature" is not "notable crime". It speaks to a quality of the general crime committed, not to a quality of the specific crime committed. Also, to hear him tell it, he didn't want to leave because he feared not an arrest warrant, but extradition, via Sweden, to the US. And, as I'm reliably informed, seeking asylum is not crime. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) - add Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I mentioned "crime of a notable nature" in my original post. Where do you get your definition?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From reading the English words, in the order that they're written. "Crime of a notable nature", for the audience, is, of course, from the description of the "Australian criminals" category. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, the asylum seeking is notable, but the bail skipping is, itself, not a "crime of a notable nature"; certainly not in the same way that "serial killing" would be. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think your definition is linguistically invalid. Clearly, the bail skipping was of a notable nature because it lead to him staying in the embassy for 7 years. With regard to the other point, he was on bail because of the Swedish extradition request. When he entered the embassy, an arrest warrant was issued, and he faced arrest if he stepped outside. The arrest warrant remained in force even after Sweden dropped its investigation. The arrest warrant was the immediate reason he couldn't leave the embassy. When he was hauled out of the embassy, he was arrested for skipping bail. Of course, his legal problems are intertwined, but it is wrong to say that skipping bail didn't matter. The application for asylum was accepted under Ecuadorian law, but it also constituted a breach of bail under British law. Whether or not you like it, he was breaking the law the whole time he stayed in the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I could see support for "Australia Hackers" or similar; though "hacker" is a loosely defined term, not always associated with criminal hacking. - Ryk72 ^talk 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom or one of its subcategories. His imprisonment is absolutely notable (it covers a full fourth of the lead and has an entire section devoted to it), but I'm not sure his conviction is, comparatively speaking. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• No, "criminal" is not his defining characteristic. As noted, he's only been convicted of two crimes that do not raise to the major crime level, and those convictions are a minor part of his biography. We have a higher bar for categorizations which may run afoul of WP:BLP concerns, and we should not place him in that category. As noted, Category:Hackers may be justified, as may the "prisoners and detainees" category noted above, but certainly not any criminal category. --Jayron32 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, he was convicted of 25 crimes. I don't accept that the hacking was minor just because he received a light sentence. He was treated leniently — because of his disrupted childhood apparently. Those convictions should be a major part of his biography because, as I said, they've dominated most of his adult life.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Labeling him an "Australian criminal" would be absurd. Please, don't descend to that level. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not? This is why I wanted clarification on the issue, because the nay-sayers never engage with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply because his convictions haven't dominated most of his adult life. You've made that call. I suggest you justify it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree The category is appropriate. This is self-evident. He is Australian and he is a criminal. Within the group, it is heterogeneous but that does not negate the use of high-level categorization. We do that on nearly every page of Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I did, in my original post.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

He's 48. An adult for 30 years. "Most of his adult life" would have to be at least 20 years. I find it hard to accept that his convictions (not just charges) have dominated his life for 20 years. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant crimes he was convicted for. He began hacking in 1987. In 1991, he was raided by police; his wife left, taking his son. He was hospitalised with depression, and spent some time sleeping rough.[73] His hair turned white.[74] In 1994, he was charged with 31 hacking offences. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 offences. The judge said the offences were quite serious[75] but ordered him to pay reparations and gave him a three-year good behaviour bond. Those three years bring us up to the end of 1999. Now some editors try to trivialise the hacking convictions, but I think it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally. In this period he also collaborated Underground (Dreyfus book), published in 1997, which established his first claim to notability. Then Assange had roughly a decade when he had no legal problems, as far as I know. In 2010, the Swedish and US government began proceedings against him. In 2012, he breached bail and faced arrest if he left the embassy, as discussed elsewhere. He was arrested for breaching bail and was convicted of the offence this year and served his sentence. A British judge has declined to give him bail now because of his history of absconding.[76] So the hacking crimes dominated his life from 1987-1999, skipping bail has dominated it from 2012-2020. That is roughly 20 years, though it don't understand how you arrived at 20. "Most" should mean more than half, so more than 15... My original statement was: "For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system", which includes facing charges, being on bail, serving a sentence etc. I think this is clearly true.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally" A little too much OR. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OR is OK on Talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OR is not okay as a justification for content changes to the article. Being "in the clutches of a criminal justice system" does not make one a criminal. The minor crimes Assange has been convicted of (and which are a very minor part of his biography) do not make him a "criminal", and he is not described as such by reliable sources. It's amazing that you were against labeling him a "journalist", despite dozens of reliable sources, but are now trying to label him a "criminal" without any sourcing at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of what I said. The crimes he has been convicted of are not a "very minor part of his biography". The hacking dominated his youth and gave him his first claim to notability. If he hadn't breached bail, he would have remained a free man. He would not have spent seven years of his life in the embassy. He would have fought the Swedish and US allegations and might have won. To say that the breach of bail is a "very minor part of his biography" is absolutely absurd. It was a pivotal point in his life. There is absolutely no connection with the question of whether he is a journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Assange's teenage hacking conviction is a very minor part of his biography. It's barely ever mentioned in coverage of Assange. You're taking the years that he spent as a political refugee and condensing it down to "skipping bail." He skipped bail in order to get to the Ecuadorean embassy, but that's a minor aspect of the entire ordeal. Compared to the things that Assange is primarily known for (WikiLeaks, journalism, political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy and the ongoing attempt by the US government to prosecute him for publishing government secrets), the two episodes you're highlighting are very minor indeed.

But the crux of the matter is that you're making up this "criminal" designation yourself, without sourcing. When we were arguing over whether to label Assange a "journalist," I presented dozens of news articles from reliable sources that unambiguously referred to Assange as a "journalist." You complained that I was supposedly cherry-picking sources, and that there were other reliable sources that didn't state either way whether or not Assange was a "journalist." Now, without even presenting any news articles that refer to Assange as a "criminal," you're insisting on labeling him as such. Your positions on these two labels are inconsistent, from the point of view of sourcing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think Assange is known as a journalist, do you think OJ Simpson is known as a football star? Ronald Reagan, cowboy TV personality? Cosby known as a family favorite comedian? One way these discussions can easily get derailed is to cherrypick outdated sources like the ones that said Assange was a journalist, when he later and currently is seen as a criminal. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to Thucydides: we don't need sources to say Assange committed crimes. That's not in dispute. The issue seems to be if the crimes were "notable" or "serious". By the way, I am not "insisting" on labelling Assange a criminal. I just asked for some clarity. This issue keeps coming up. If there is a solid argument, let's hear it. So far, the arguments are dismissive, convoluted, or emotional.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Get back to us when you find reliable sources that label Assange a "criminal". Until then, there's nothing to discuss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Filed under "dismissive". Start a properly formatted RfC if you wish. Be sure to set up a separate section for discussion so all your comments don't get interleaved with the !votes. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

With regard to previous discussions about Assange's time in the embassy from 2012 onwards, the US indictment wasn't made until 2018 and wasn't unsealed until 2019. I don't believe he could have been arrested in Britain until the the indictment was unsealed and the USA made a formal request for his extradiction. Up till last year, the only arrest warrant outstanding was for him skipping bail, so I don't understand how this is not notable. I agree the US indictment is notable too, but I don't understand an argument that says Assange is not a criminal because there are outstanding criminal charges. Yes, there are. This is part of his life. Why deny it?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So why was he on bail?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

He was on bail because Sweden was trying to extradite him.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And not for any political crime in Sweden. Just a serious crime. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at other examples, celebrity doctor Geoffrey Edelsten has the category "Australian criminals", public servant Michael Coutts-Trotter has "Australian drug traffickers", actor Tim Allen has "American drug traffickers", and actor Mark Wahlberg has "American people convicted of assault", as does rapper Jay-Z. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that these crimes are a defining part of their lives. While their convictions are confirmed by sources, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the terminology in the category is confirmed by sources as such. I doubt you can find a plethora of reliable sources labelling Tim Allen a "drug trafficker".--Jack Upland (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't label Assange a "criminal" without strong reliable sourcing. I remind you that this is a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• No Assange is best known as the guy who was locked in the embassy, and his actions are alleged by some to be criminal and others to be heroic. He has not yet been convicted of any real crime, other than the slap on the wrist for hacking. He certainly was and is not known for some minor conviction in Australia, no more than Tim Allen is well known as a coke dealer. This is POV pushing again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, but Tim Allen gets the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, to be repetitive, he was stuck in the embassy because he had committed a crime, breaching his bail.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:OSE about these comparisons. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What part of that are you referring to exactly?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To be added to the above examples: Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in prison, a $30,000 fine, 250 hours of community service and one year supervised release for the college exam cheating scam. This is a far lesser sentence than Assange's recent one. She has the categories "People convicted of fraud" and "21st-century American criminals". Also, George Michael who has the category "British people convicted of drug offences" and apparently he only served four weeks in prison.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. In his teens, an Australian court let him go when he was first charged with hacking. The decision argued that his intrusions had been harmless explorations and not profit-focused or malicious. Can we say that the nature of the crime he was convicted of was harmless and not serious? His hacking activities endangered the national security of some countries as well as the lives of people. A case in point was his exposure of people (journalists, religious leaders, political dissidents, etc.) throughout the world who provided information to the U.S. This included the identities of the more than 100 Afghans assets who were informing on the Taliban. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive headings

Currently we have two headings following each other: Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy and Asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Previously, the second heading has been "Later years in the Ecuadorian embassy" or "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy", but editors keep changing back. Is there a consensus for an alternative, or is repetition OK?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would combine them into one heading: "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would make a big section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We cannot insinuate "asylum" for a fugitive wanted for rape and conspiracy, now charged with espionage, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We already have!--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs fixin'. These articles must be NPOV. Fanboy and Original Research stuff needs to be weeded out. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I have taken a quick look at the whole article. It's almost bad enough to blow it up and start from scratch. It's full of editors' insertions of Assange's own discredited narratives and deprecation of the facts reported by RS and supported by national and international law. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a fact that Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. It is also a fact that he was on bail facing extradition to Sweden. That's why I added "Breaching bail" to the first heading, to clarify the situation. I think there is nothing wrong with using "asylum" in a heading, but we have to avoid presenting a false narrative which simply says Assange was facing a US indictment for his work with WikiLeaks and so he sought asylum, in other words, presenting Assange as a martyr. I agree that there is too much of Assange's own narrative here.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well like many criminals, he claimed he was a victim of political persecution. The British for their own reasons did not enter the Embassy and seize him, but they could have. Why Ecuador went along with the charade is another question. The Brits could have grabbed him. If he'd tried to flee, they would have. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Truish, but so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So the narrative that he's a fine lad, a journalist threatened and persecuted for political reasons other than his criminal acts, reflects neither RS reports nor the facts. It needs to be way way toned down and editors should not push that propaganda and its false narrative from some self-appropriated righteous stance. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I've replied to that straw man above. He claimed he was hanging out there for "asylum" and the governments who needed to bring him to justice declined to press the issue by entering to extract him. The Ecuadorans finally got sick of it and we know the rest. It's like you going to the bus station and claiming asylum there. The authorities might let you stay for a long time, but that doesn't mean they waive their right to extract you. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In which part and in which way is What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. a "straw man"? What actually does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? - Ryk72 ^talk 23:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I just explained that immediately above. This did not fit the definition of asylum. He was not under political persecution. He was under indictment. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address, directly or indirectly, either of the questions that I asked. But, insofar as it is a comment on what article content should be ... got source? - Ryk72 ^talk 00:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ecuador Grants WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Political Asylum". I'm not "insinuating" anything. It is a fact that Ecuador granted Assange political asylum in August 2012. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the question of whether he got asylum is like the question whether he is a criminal. Perhaps he shouldn't have been given asylum; perhaps he shouldn't have been convicted. But our opinions don't change the facts. Two jurisdictions collided, and we should acknowledge both.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Has anyone got a response to my original question?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There have been no further responses, so I have made my own changes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I would merge to one section. The nonsense above about asylum is POV pushing, as it asylum was used in the majority of sources. Agree Jack, doesn't make sense to repeat the section headings. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That would make a big section. Previously, the two sections were divided because the information about the Democratic Party was inserted between the two. Now the article is out of chronological order. My preference would be to have two sections because I think it is easier to navigate. Alternatively, we could create more subsections.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are just talking about the time at the embassy, subsections would be better in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the time in the embassy. I can see we could have a subsection, "Applying for asylum and breaching bail", but after that the only way that I can see to divide it up would be chronologically, for example 2012-2016, 2017-2019. Do you have any suggestions?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I am good with chronology. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Jtbobwaysf: I think the changes you made Jack are fine. As I've written previously I also think we need to condense down the 2016 election publications material: maybe less than what I'd done previously, to please all parties, but the section headings and text are currently bloated compared to the rest of the article. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: I support your proposal to condense the 2016 elections, I suggest by half of current text. A summary would be fine, this is a BLP after all, not a history of the 2016 elections, which there are whole articles for. A lot of this section is POV pushing that Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks influenced the election. Neither of these allegations are proven and thus WP:NOTCOURT applies. Better to just summarize it so it isnt the weight issue that it is today. I guess most it duplicated from other the wikileaks and other 2016 election articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The Manual of Style/Biography for opening paragraphs says that the opening paragraph should, among other things, state: The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played; Why the person is notable.

The current opening paragraph describes Assange as an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006 and then discusses the leaks published in 2010. This is now a decade old. It doesn't mention the seven years in the embassy; it doesn't mention that he is currently in jail. I understand the lead is chronological, starting in 2010, but that doesn't fit the MOS. It's also not reader-friendly.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Catalan independence

The following text was recently removed:

===Catalan independence===
Assange has stated that did not take a position on the outcome of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. However he believed that Catalans had the right to self-determination. He provided assistance to Catalans in the lead up to the referendum by providing instructions on how to communicate and organise through secure channels, providing historical background on the struggle for Catalan independence, correcting misreporting of events and providing live video updates about Catalan protests and actions by the Spanish police. When the Spanish Government disabled voting apps, Assange tweeted instructions on how Catalans could use other apps to find out information about voting.
The Ecuadorian government, responding to pressure from Spain, removed Assange’s internet connection and stopped his access to visitors at the Ecuador embassy. 
Assange was awarded the 2019 Dignity Prize by The Catalan Dignity Commission for his efforts during the 2017 referendum. 

Reasons for adding the text are:

1. Assange received an award for his work
2. His work had severe consequences for him - loss of internet and visitors
3. This is his page. It is about him including work he has done.

Burrobert (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well form a start "Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped." is what the source says it does not say this was due to Spanish pressure. The Award is not (as far as I know) a major award.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the standing of the award the source says “has not stopped him winning a major award”.

Yes I cheated by saying that Spain’s pressure caused assanges internet and visitors to be stopped. The source doesn’t say this explicitly but does imply it by saying “Assange’s support for the democratic process led to a backlash from Spain sparking concerns within Ecuador’s government. Soon after Assange’s internet connection was cut off and his access to visitors stopped”. I don’t think he Ecuadorian government ever confirmed that the two things were linked though there are sources which speculate that there was a connection. This part of the text can be amended to say something like Spain expressed its displeasure to the Ecuadorian government about assanges activities” which can be sourced to say this guardian article if the news.com.au article isn’t enough.

I should comment that the fact that assanges actions around the Catalan referendum created an international situation between Spain and Ecuador adds to the significance of assanges actions.

Burrobert (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it could have a brief mention, but not its own section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert, Jack Upland, and Slatersteven: I think this definitely needs to be mentioned in Assange's biography, but shouldn't have its own section. -Darouet (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Then it needs to also not involve "cheating" and must accurately reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: great. I'm sure we can come up with text everyone's happy with. I suspect that Burrobert's use of the word "cheating" may reflect some linguistic or translational barriers. If you read the opening paragraphs of these Guardian and News.au articles [77][78], you'd probably agree, Steven, that the text Burrobert added approximately follows what the sources write. Because the Guardian article notes that Ecuador's decision was based on multiple factors, and because I agree we should always be cautious, what do you think about this text instead?

In January 2020, the Catalan Dignity Commission awarded Assange its 2019 Dignity Prize for what it described as Assange's role in supporting the Catalan people during the 2017 Catalan independence referendum[79]. Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government and increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government.[80][81]

I'd propose adding this to the end of "Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy" section, right after the CNN paragraph. It seems related, since it concerns Assange's political activity while at the Embassy. Let me know if you suggest something different. Also happy to hear your thoughts Jack Upland. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: does my text address your concern that the sources were not properly represented? -Darouet (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I still think this is undue, but even if we have it, the stuff about the Ecuadorian government needs attribution, it may not be a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it doesn't need attribution since the president of Ecuador stated "We do not want to intervene under any circumstances with respect to Catalonia... We have reminded Mr Assange that he has no reason to interfere in Ecuadorian politics..." [82]. However I suppose there's always room for interpretation there. How about "Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government, and according to The Guardian increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government."? There are other sources as well but The Guardian is probably strongest. -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This Guardian article suggests the Internet was cut off because he intervened in a dispute between Britain and Russia. If we are going to mention this Internet cut-off, I think we should just stick with the Ecuadorian government's statement that it was concerned about him interfering with other countries.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: agreed - which is why my proposed text only states that Assange's position / actions regarding Catalonia increased tension (as per the source). -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Support adding in a neutral way. Jack's proposed text looks fine to me. No full section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

90's travel

The following paragraph has been just reverted with rather obscure justification "We do not need a list of everything he has ever done"[83]. Certainly we don't have to list everything he has done but frequent travel to Eastern Europe and Russia in 90's is certainly a relevant information in a biography of someone accused of supporting Russian foreign policy in 2000's. The paragraph is also very well-sourced, by both Assange's interview and autobiography:

In 90's Assange visited Russia and developed interest for Russian literature, mentioning Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak and Dostoyevski as his favorite authors, as well Soviet children cartoons. After release from prison, between 1996 and 1998, he started traveling worldwide, visiting Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Irtkutsk and Beijing.

Cloud200 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What does this tell us, its just a facotd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with it. The main problem with this article is excessive wikileaks content and a lack of biographical content on the subject. This summary seems ok as it points to the subject's interest in a summarized way. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"After release from prison"? We have had extensive discussions on this, and everyone has agreed he did not go to prison in the 1990s. The fact that he visited Russia does not imply he supports the Russian government. In the interview he is very critical of Putin.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph nowhere alleges his support for Putin. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on this wording because from legal point of view "arrest" or "custody" is not the same as "prison sentence" even if he was locked under guard. Let's just leave "Between 1996...". Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I support its inclusion. It is not unusual for a bio to contain this type of personal information. I can only verify the first sentence as I don't have access to the autobiography. Burrobert (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

You do have. The book is available on Google Books[84] with the relevant fragment in the beginning of Chapter 7. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

it seems that he only spent a few days in each city during a roughly 5 week trip. Was that his only overseas travel? If so would it be better to remove the cities and mention the countries he visited instead? The book has some other interesting information such as his study of maths and physics at Melbourne Uni that would be worth including here. Burrobert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of mentioning a five week trip. It's pretty clear from all the sources, he didn't go to prison. He was not held in custody prior to his trial in 1996 and didn't get a prison sentence. If anyone has any other information, please let us know. Prison time is more significant than overseas travel.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It was not a tourist trip. He clearly mentions the purpose was to meet with fellow hackers. Not many Australians travel to places such as Irkutsk just to meet some people they knew online. Another part of the autobiography also mentions Assange meeting people from Chaos Computer Club in Germany, both of which are closely related to Assange's presence in the hacker community but not even mentioned in the current version of the article. This is precisely the kind of background information you find in people's biographies. Cloud200 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if it's couched in terms of the meeting the global hacker community, then it should be included. (So long as it's accurate...)--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and if he just went on a college tour of europe, we dont need to list the countries one by one. Also agree the above comments that there might be other good information in the book as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think some of this could be included, if attributed to Assange's autobiography. It does certainly seem that meeting people from the Chaos Computer Club would be important in an Assange biography. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

interview to Melzer by de:Republik_(Magazin)

Other than on german language ( www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange ), the UN relator Nils Melzer interview by de:Republik_(Magazin) is also in english language:

www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

And there is another (english language) source about this:

www.swissinfo.ch/eng/un-torture-investigator_assange-being-set-up-to-be--burned-at-the-stake-/45530514

--5.170.47.204 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

5.170.47.204 and Da Vinci Nanjing have been adding "According to Melzer Assange's Layers contacted him in December 2018 and sent him documents related to allegations of rape in Sweden.". Can either of you explain what the relevance of this is? According to the source, the lawyers asked him to intervene in Dec 2018, and contacted him a second time in March 2019 and that's when they sent him documents. How does that matter to the article? Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the Da Vinci reasons, and also why he posted only the german language link instead that (only) the english language link; but i'm according with him ("The interview with Mr. Melzer is a lot to comprehend, I will go on with it asap") that in this source there is a lot of relevant about all the Assange current-story.
By the way, the Da Vinci edit was deleted not because was not relevant, but with (different) wrong reasons: "Not a mainstream source"; also swissinfo.ch is not a mainstream source, now?
...so please stay tuned to this (the deletion of Da Vinci edit was wrong motivated), not inventing different reject-reason. --5.170.47.204 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not clear on the bit about the source, ignoring that. I get there's a lengthy interview with Melzer, but anything from the interview added to the article has to be pertinent and relevant. And honestly, adding that the lawyers sent him papers is pointless. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree: it seems pointless. And we have way too much about Melzer.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the current material relating to Nils Melzer in the article, which relates largely to allegations of torture, should be condensed. However, there is a lot of material in the Republik interview which should affect the contents of the article: contradictions of the version of events given by news organisations, including detail about Assange's rebuffed approaches to the Swedish police; allegations of malpractice by the Swedish police and authorities including changing a statement and leaking material to the press; moves by the Americans to "deluge Assange with all kinds of criminal cases for the next 25 years"; the previous handing of two men over to the CIA without any legal proceedings; the disappearance of Assange's laptops from locked luggage during an SAS flight to Berlin; confirmation that pressure was applied by the British to stop the Swedes from dropping the case; failure of the British and Swedes to co-operate with Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, by their response to his questions.     ←   ZScarpia   10:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)   (12:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC): extended comment after Burrobert's response below)

Yes I agree the interview put a lot of information together. Some of the information appears to be new and is available to Melzer because of his position and standing. Burrobert (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it, or is it because he was fed it by Assanges Lawyers (which seems to be implicated).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That Melzer received some documents from Assange’s lawyers is not implied (if that is what you mean), it is stated openly - “They sent me a few key documents and a summary of the case”. He also says he has all the documents from the Swedish investigation including emails, and text messages and is able to read the original documents in Swedish. Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

So? The cal,im is his claims must be authoritative because of who he is. But do we know which of his claims are based on the lawyers documents and which on the Swedish polices (who would not be allowed to discuss the case with the press, so could not contradict him).Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no case in Sweden as the investigation has been dropped. If someone on Melzer's standing were to misrepresent documents or invent facts then it is almost certain that the relevant authority in Sweden would defend itself by providing a statement of some sort. Melzer makes a number of claims about the Swedish prosecution that are quite serious. No authority would let those claims stand uncontested if they were false. As far as I am aware the relevant Swedish authority has not disputed Melzer's claims in any form, even to say it disagrees but cannot discuss the matter. For our purposes all we have is Melzer's analysis and silence from the other end. Burrobert (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea about Sweden but in the UK confidentiality extends even after a case is dropped.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As a representative of the United Nations, it's Melzer's job to report on the legality and circumstances of Assange's case, and the implications for press freedoms more broadly. Melzer is doing that. It's our job to present what Melzer has stated, without converting his statements into fact without further corroboration, and without trying to discredit him as if we were prosecutors in the case against Assange. I agree with ZScarpia and Burrobert that some of this material is both relevant and can be presented in the article neutrally. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

He is also only one person, whose views are be given way to much prominence in an article not about him. No it is not out job to present his views,It is our job to present an article about Julian Assange. No we should not try to discredit him as if we were prosecutors in the case against Assange, but nor should we act in the opposite way and give too much coverage to attempts to defend him as if we were his defense council in the case for Assange. IN fact in can be argued that as the case in Sweden has been dropped anything relating to that is now largely irrelevant to Mr assagnes story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Put any relevant information in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include contents from the German language interview and point out where there may be any conflicts with what the press has reported. Verbatim from an expert is reliable for WP. Statements made by this expert should be deemed more reliable when taken verbatim than quotes from so called RS, that may have a POV on this issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What is he an expert in? What is he being used as an expert for?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jack's idea of putting information in the article Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. There is more scope for adding detailed information about the rape investigation from Melzer's analysis there and at the moment Melzer's name does not appear at all. I also think the important points or a summary of them can be included in the current article. Something along the lines of "Using his access to emails, text messages and other documents from the Swedish investigation, Nils Melzer made a number of criticisms of the investigation and claimed that Sweden was never interested helping the two women or in finding the truth but deliberately left Assange in limbo for nine years without a chance to defend himself". Of course Melzer's analysis included other parts of the story, such as the actions of the British justice system. Perhaps a similar approach would work. The various Arbuthnot articles may be a good place to include the detail of this information and perhaps a suitable summary could be included in Assange's article. Burrobert (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He is (at best) an RS in the area of his expertise, what is his area of expertise?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent developments

Assange was recently released from solitary confinement in the medical wing at Belmarsh prison and placed in a wing where he can interact with other prisoners. It seems that this was as a result of the intervention of other prisoners who found Assange's treatment appalling and wrote to the governor. It has been mentioned in a number of places and WikiLeaks Ambassador Joseph Farrell has made a statement that it is a breakthrough. One of the sources had this quote "Julian is finally released from solitary in Belmarsh because the other prisoners in the prison were appalled by his treatment and took up action on his behalf. A small victory for basic humanity – and it took criminals to teach it to the British state."

On 3 February The Guardian published an article by Roy Greenslade who wants to organise a statement by British editors opposing Assange's extraditon before the hearing starts.

Burrobert (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is according to The Guardian. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Roy Greenslade mentions solitary confinement. It's just another opinion piece calling Assange a hero. Associated Press has picked up the story about Assange being released from solitary, but the source is Wikileaks...--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126322565001
"Julian Assange removed from solitary confinement" (25/01/2020)
--5.170.47.12 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 5.170.47.12 that is a good catch. The article states that "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been moved out of solitary confinement and into a wing with other inmates at Belmarsh prison near London. The breakthrough occurred after his legal team and three petitions by inmates said his treatment was unjust and unfair". No mention of Wikileaks as the source. I think we can accept that this is what happened. Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and Assange - detour around the First Amendment

FAIR has published an article ‘’These are new tactics being employed to silence journalism’’ which compares the Assange and Greenwald prosecutions.[85] Here is one quote referring to an op-ed by James Risen in the New York Times:

Well, James Risen had an op-ed in the New York Times saying that Greenwald's case, and that of Julian Assange—also charged with aiding his source, Chelsea Manning, to access a military database—that “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” And what I thought was also interesting, was Risen says governments like Bonsonaro’s and Donald Trump's “seem to have decided to experiment with such draconian antipress tactics by trying them out first on aggressive and disagreeable figures.”

What do editors think about a brief section providing commentary about the similarities between the two cases? Burrobert (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll revise a bit

James Risen stated in op-ed in the New York Times that Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, both charged with aiding sources, are “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” 

I think this is a bit more neutral. The POV editors wont like it anyhow, so we have to see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: we can't have every bit of commentary about Assange, and this is nothing new. What we need is summaries, not quote farms.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Been saying that for ages.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Council of Europe sides with Julian Assange

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the 28th of January asked the State members to support Assange, 'cause his detention is a detrimental to press freedom; also UK representants asked for this.

independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/council-of-europe-declares-support-for-julian-assange,13565

www.assangecampaign.org.au/council-of-europe/

assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en

--5.170.47.185 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes 5.170.47.185 we do have a sentence about this under "Other reactions": "In January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to oppose Assange’s extradition to the US". Burrobert (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

allegations

@Jack Upland: you reverted an edit by Nishidani that looked interesting. Your summary was that it was "too POV," and that is not a valid justification for revert. I didnt revert your revert (yet) as I think we also need better RS for this type of statement. Nishidani, do you have any other sources that support these claims? Specifically was Assange charged with rape when only one woman had alleged it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be good to work Melzer's analysis into the article in some form. It should be attributed to Melzer unless further sources come forward confirming his analysis. We have been discussing his interview in a previous topic above. There was a suggestion that we include a summary of Melzer's analysis and put the details in the article about the case. I suggested as a summary "Using his access to emails, text messages and other documents from the Swedish investigation, Nils Melzer made a number of criticisms of the investigation and claimed that Sweden was never interested helping the two women or in finding the truth but deliberately left Assange in limbo for nine years without a chance to defend himself". Burrobert (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever, the revert was inanely incompetent. I corrected the allegation that two women denounced him for rape because an impeccable source, written by one of the world's foremost experts in torture, Nils Melzer, corrected the systemic misreporting of the facts. That is not POV pushing. The text is in error, sincde what newspapers reported at the time has turned out to be flawed, after alòl relevant police reports werer examined by an international jurist, for chrissake. The Upland fellow thinks that a newspaper report contemporaneous with the event is more valid than an eminent legal scholar's review of the primary evidence, in the original language (Swedish), where he writes:

Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.

On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.

Use attribution by all means, even if, unlike all the newspaper reports, this one was written by a professional lawyer who actually read all of the official Swedish documentation. A lot of this article has defects reflecting dated journalistic meme reproduction. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Jack Upland: both of you are highly reasonable editors and I think there's a way of adding specific information — that SW did not accuse Assange of rape, and that tabloids misrepresented this — in a manner that is brief and more neutral. For instance Nishidani, the word "whatsoever" is over the top and does not need to be used to convey this information, per Upland's concern. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Darouet's comments, this needs to be presented more neutrally in the article. If Sweeden's position was misrepresented in the early press and now it is corrected, will state it as such. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Competence means not dragging editors into pointless talki page discussions by making a revert that, were the edit summary reasonable, would suggest the complaining editor remodulate the contested edit to suit perceived NPOV issues. But the gravamen here is that I fixed per WP:BLP a patent error, since the articles at the time reported what is now known to be a misrepresentation, simply by adding that the story of two rape complaints was what newspapers at the time reported. This is elementary, very basic. Reverting instead of using commonsense is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An expert on torture does not make them an expert on Rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Slater, these statements are contrary to fact and totally unproductive here. Melzer's short bio is available at the UN website [86], where it is explained that

Prof. Nils Melzer is the Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He is also Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow. On 1 November 2016, he took up the function of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Prof. Melzer has served for 12 years with the International Committee of the Red Cross as a Legal Adviser, Delegate and Deputy Head of Delegation in various zones of conflict and violence. After leaving the ICRC in 2011, he held academic positions as Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (University of Zürich), as Swiss Chair for International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Academy)... Prof. Melzer has authored award-winning and widely translated books, including: "Targeted Killing in International Law" (Oxford, 2008, Guggenheim Prize 2009), the ICRC's "Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities" (2009) and the ICRC's official handbook "International Humanitarian Law - a Comprehensive Introduction" (2016), as well as numerous other publications in the field of international law.

In other words, he's one of the world's most respected human rights lawyers, and in that capacity he is qualified to comment on all aspects of Julian Assange's case. It is also his mandate at the United Nations. -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

His "mandate" from the UN is to report on what he think is torture. His area of expertise appears to be humanitarian law, not rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If the magazine Republik [87] reports on Melzer's legal opinions regarding Assange's case, per our policies editors here can edit the article to include that commentary. Do you have a news article stating that Melzer is unreliable regarding Assange's case in Sweden? -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Melzer is very pro-Assange, and Republik states, "Its purpose is to criticize the powers that be".[88] My concern was about neutral wording. A while ago I suggested that we have more information about this issue, which has been pivotal in Assange's life, but I was knocked back. Now that there is a source which supports Assange on this issue, the attitudes seem to have changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this is just the sort of content this article needs. Way too much content right now on the elections (really wikileaks opinion of it and maybe participation in it) and way too little content on Assanges life. Given that Assange has and probably will spend the majority of his life in some sort of dungeon, it is notable what notable people say about Assanges choices and the consequences. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Melzer is very pro-Assange": Melzer has publicly stated that he actually had a very negative impression of Assange before he began investigating the case, not that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether his views should be noted. As for the notability of Melzer's commentary, I'd like to bring something new to the attention of editors here. A group of 130 very prominent German politicians, journalists and artists recently issued an appeal for Assange's release, and they prominently cited Melzer. This appeal is kind of a big deal in Germany, given that it was authored by one of Germany's most famous investigative journalists, and signed by a former Foreign Minister, a former Interior Minister and politicians from most of the major political parties. I added a short, solidly-sourced description of this appeal to the article, but it was reverted a few minutes later on the basis of the compelling argument, "So what?" It's apparently back now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack above. I.e. Melzer is very anti-torture, in line with international law, and the legal systems and practices of most democracies. That means he is doing the job he was appointed toi carry out, and when I used his 2008 book here in several articles unrelated to Assange, no one stepped in to personalize it by saying his defense of victims of torture means he is opposed to the countries that practice them. Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• By the way, with regard to the Swedish allegations, this much of this material is not new, but was aired 10 years ago.[89]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Appeal by Prominent Germans

The recent appeal by over 130 prominent Germans is manifestly DUE. When perhaps the most famous investigative journalist in Germany writes an appeal calling for Assange's release, which is signed by politicians from across the major parties (including former government ministers, alongside many members of the Bundestag and European Parliament) and dozens of journalists, and this receives coverage across the German press, then it's clearly an event that warrants mention in the article. I added two short sentences about it: [90]. SPECIFICO immediately reverted me ([91]) and commented "So What?" ([92]). I find this flippant response troubling, as I suspect many other editors here will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All well and good. But, there are a lot of countries. It's hard to see how Germany figures into this. O3000 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"It's hard to see how Germany figures into this." To answer your own question O3000 you could consider reading the articles that are the subject of this discussion [93][94][95][96]. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Remain calm, Thucydides411. I did not revert you. Just your article text. In a nutshell it's primary source and cherrypicked. We have these things come up in the US-related articles on Donald Trump -- 600 attorneys say this, 200 clerics say that, 300 doctors say whatnot. It's all primary-sourced and unless there were something very noteworthy about this, I can think of dozens of other assessments of Assange that belong in the article before this kind of thing. Not sure about the "prominent German" expression either -- is that a "thing"? SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources used in the text you've contested are primary sources [97][98][99][100]. When you write it's "cherrypicked" what do you mean? Usually that phrase implies a source is misrepresented. Here, you're saying you'd like us to ignore this and write about other things. What other things would you like placed in the article? If you were notable enough to have a biography, 130 prominent German figures made an appeal on your behalf, and major German papers covered their appeal, that would certainly go in your biography. Every argument of substance you've made here - primary sources, cherrypicking - is simply untrue. -Darouet (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to find a way to deal with these expressions of a support in a succinct way: two sentences on prominent Germans, three sentences on Comrade Pamela Anderson, 11 paragraphs on Melzer... where will it end?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: When reliable sources stop writing about them? -Darouet (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point there's been enough campaigning on Assange's behalf, there could easily be an article titled "Campaign to free Julian Assange." There's no reason to write that article because all the material is plainly within the WP:SCOPE of his bio here. -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for a POV fork. If we start including "free Julian Assange" statement as valid content for this article, we would need to assess its relative significance vs. the opposite POV, which I suspect dwarfs anything in his favour. It's primary in the sense that you are relying on the notability of the folks who signed the letter rather than the noteworthiness of the letter itself when you assert this is significant and deserves inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability is determined by reliable sources, and we have them in abundance here. It's unclear what other metric you're asking for. -Darouet (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Notability" has nothing to do with it. DUE WEIGHT is the question, and your sourcing is weak. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, if you think this is a DUE issue, what's your analysis of this issue? The Deutsche Welle is one of Germany's most important national and international papers, and states that

"The letter's signatories include famous German investigative journalist Günther Wallraff, former Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Austrian winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, Elfriede Jelinek."

[101]

The Evening Standard [102] writes that

The German appeal, which is supported by Reporters Without Borders Germany, as well as members of Amnesty International, Transparency International, the German Journalists’ Union (dju), the Whistleblower Network and the writers’ association PEN-Germany, calls on the British Government to “release Julian Assange from prison immediately so that he can recover under specialist medical supervision and exercise his basic rights without hindrance”.

Another major paper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, writes [103] that

The conditions under which the 48-year-old is being held in the Belmarsh maximum security prison have long been criticized... The behavior of Sweden, which has now closed its case against Assange, is also being questioned by the UN... Well-known supporters of the whistleblower turned to the public in Berlin on Thursday. Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff, ex-foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, ex-interior minister Gerhart Baum and left-wing Bundestag MEP Sevim Dağdelen called for the federal press conference to release Assange from prison immediately. This was preceded by a public appeal from 130 politicians, artists and journalists, including the writers Eva Menasse and the PEN Center, which appeared on Thursday in full-page in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

The FAZ is arguably Germany's biggest paper, and the SD its second.

This seems like a relatively significant event, given the broad support behind the appeal. -Darouet (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus here for your view. There are millions of famous people and opinionated people in the world, some of them German. That doesn't mean their personal opinions are significant to the life story of Assange. If this is being discussed a month from now in the mainstream media, not just a few German publications, let's revisit your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A good inclusion and I support it. We should include information as it appears in reliable sources. If a person or organisation stands up to defend Assange's treatment or prosecution then we can include their view too. It doesn't seem to be happening though. Burrobert (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Germany is not party to any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thucydides411, given the power of the cult of Assange, it's not especially difficult to come up with a collection of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells types. Demonstrate significance by reference to third party coverage beyond the initial press release. Guy (help!) 09:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, according to WP:ONUS, reliable sources do not mandate inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you're comparing 130 of Germany's most prominent figures, including perhaps its most famous investigative journalist, a recent leader of one of the two major parties (he was foreign minister, which is the second most important position in the German government), numerous members of the Bundestag and European Parliament, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and cultural figures, to random people who write letters to newspapers. I don't have to explain why this comparison is absurd. In case you're not moved to click on Sigmar Gabriel's Wikipedia page, I'll cite a small extract, which should make the absurdity of your comparison obvious:

Sigmar Hartmut Gabriel (born 12 September 1959) is a German politician who was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2017 to 2018 and Vice-Chancellor of Germany from 2013 to 2018. He was Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from 2009 to 2017, which made him the party's longest-serving leader since Willy Brandt. He was the Federal Minister of the Environment from 2005 to 2009 and the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy from 2013 to 2017. From 1999 to 2003 Gabriel was Minister-President of Lower Saxony.

This appeal is manifestly significant to Assange's biography, based both on who signed it and the press coverage it has received. It's obviously going to be included in the article. No valid reasons have been given above for excluding it. The only question is if there are any suggestions to improve the wording I gave. I think I wrote a concise, neutral description of the appeal. If there are no suggestions to improvement or valid complaints (beyond comparing Sigmar Gabriel and Günter Wallraff to random malcontents who write to their local newspaper, or falsely claiming that secondary coverage in the Süddeutsche Zeitung or Tagesschau constitutes a primary source), I'll add the material back in shortly. In the meantime, I welcome any suggestions to improve the text. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your text seems fine to me and, at two sentences long, is the right length. Burrobert (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, Most prominent? {{citation needed}}. See also appeal to popularity. Guy (help!) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Under any reasonable definition of "prominent," the long-time Vice Chancellor, leader of the 2nd largest political party, and foreign minister of Germany is one of the "most prominent" people in Germany. Reading appeal to popularity, I see

an argumentum ad populum [...] is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it

I'm not arguing that the appeal is correct. I'm pointing out that it's notable, because of the people who signed it and the coverage it has received. "Appeal to popularity" does not apply here.

I still don't see any policy-based or logical objections to the proposed text. I still welcome any suggestions for improvement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, your comment is not responsive to the concerns several editors have raised to demonstrate that the text you added was invalid. "Notable" - ??? - aren't we past that one yet? Please review the thread, check the related policies and guidelines, and share your analysis with reference to PAGs and sources, if you still believe this is appropriate article text. Insistence and repetition is not going to move things forward. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, have you tried citing sources covering this beyond the original press releases? That might be persuasive in a way your hectoring is not. Guy (help!) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't cited any press releases. I cited a number of secondary sources in major, reliable news outlets. It's pretty obvious that this material belongs in the article. It's an appeal by a large group of some of the most prominent people in Germany, which has gotten significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources.

There really is no reason for this much argument about such a straightforward addition to the article. The vehemence with which you and SPECIFICO have opposed it is really puzzling. Just as puzzling are the nonsensical objections being made. SPECIFICO has been pretending not to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. You've been comparing the former foreign minister of Germany to disgruntled nobodies who write letters to the local newspaper. I'm starting to get the impression that perhaps neither of you is interested in whether or not the material is DUE, well-sourced, relevant to the biography, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, see churnalism. Find sources from after the initial PR blitz. Lasting coverage would establish significance, in a way that the constant blitz of news noise around Assange does not. Guy (help!) 19:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: churnalism talks about "pre-packaged material" like "press releases [and] stories provided by news agencies" being substituted for original writing and reporting. Have you read the sources I cited? Two are original articles (Süddeutsche Zeitung Tagesschau), one is a news wire (Deutsche Welle). Other newspapers that have written original articles on the subject:

• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
• Die Tageszeitung
• Heise
• Bayerischer Rundfunk
• Der Tagesspiegel
• Deutsche Welle
• Evening Standard

The charge of "churnalism" doesn't hold. I'm seeing lots of original articles being written on the appeal. That's not surprising, given that some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany have signed on to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I fail to see how this development is so prominent that it needs to go into an biographical encyclopedia entry, or is due weight. I also see that there is clearly no consensus here favoring inclusion. I think Jack Upland is right that "we need to find a way to deal with these expressions of a support in a succinct way," and that this text is not that. Neutrality^talk 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's simple: 130 of the most prominent figures in Germany issued a public appeal for Assange to be freed. That appeal has been covered by numerous high-quality reliable sources. Assange is the subject of this article, so this event is obviously relevant to this article.

Since you've voiced a concern that the text is not succinct enough, perhaps you or Jack Upland can propose a more succinct wording. I'm sure we can find an agreeable wording for such a straightforward, well-sourced, obviously DUE addition to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your syllogism is not correct. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article." Neutrality^talk 19:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

But wide coverage of an appeal by 130 of the most prominent people in Germany does guarantee inclusion - and this will obviously be included in the article. Do you have any suggestions on how to make the wording more concise? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I disagree that the sources offered "guarantee inclusion." The fact is that Assange is a very famous figure, whom very many people have commented upon. Not everyone's opinions, appeals, statements, etc., must be included in this article, even if a newspaper happens to report them. If this particular appeal is actually biographically significant, then this will be borne out by some enduring coverage. This has not happened, and indeed I understand that this statement was made literally yesterday. Neutrality^talk 23:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The appeal was made six days ago, not yesterday. I agree that not everyone's opinion on Assange is guaranteed to be included in the article, but a public appeal by over 130 of the most prominent people in a country of 80 million, which receives widespread news coverage, is guaranteed to be included.

You've expressed concern that the two sentences I wrote were too verbose. Can you propose a more concise wording before the text goes back in the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors are telling you that this bit is WP:UNDUE for this article. Don't pretend this is a different discussion -- about finding better wording. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like wording like: "After the medical report, prominent figures in Germany, Australia, and Swaziland called for his release". I don't think we have to go into a great deal of detail about everyone who makes a supporting comment about Assange, unless that comment actually leads to something, like him being released! Regarding the suggestion of including quotes from people attacking Assange, I don't think that's the way we want to go. We should document the state of play, not what the commentators say.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then what about 6 members of some football team or 23 members of the Pipefitters Union? The whole thing is UNDUE with no verification that it is relevant to the bio of Assange. It's like tweaking the wording on the flat earth or finding a succinct way to discuss dowsing in the climate change article. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Given the prominence of the various groups and individuals that have supported Assange's release from prison or opposed his extradition to the US, I think more than one sentence is DUE. Statements by UN Special Rapporteur for Torture Nils Melzer, for example, have generated a large amount of press coverage, and they should be given weight proportionate to that coverage. The same goes for other appeals on Assange's behalf, such as the Wallraff Appeal (by 130 prominent Germans). I'm open to thinking about how to better structure coverage of these statements in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Further on this point, I've already shown above that our article gives disproportionate attention to the US 2016 election, relative to coverage. I don't think the concern for concision is being applied equally across the article, since that portion of the article has expanded into something like 10 paragraphs, in a totally unwarranted fashion considering greater coverage of Assange prior to those elections, and current discussions about his extradition case.

It'd be reasonable to add at least one sentence on the German petition, in the section on UK and European reactions. I think we should also have a sentence on Corbyn [104]. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no support for putting this in the article. Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion. It's not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There are three editors supporting inclusion and 6 opposing. That means there's no consensus for inclusion, not "no support." The talk page is the place for discussion. It's also the place to bring specific sources, as I have done in my comment immediately above yours. Did you read the source I referenced? Why are you arguing I have no right to suggest the article note that Corbyn has opposed extradition? -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You really need to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Darouet, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion, but you're not allowed to argue for inclusion here, because there's NO SUPPORT. Is that clear?

But to be serious, there hasn't been any policy-based objection to the material I'm proposing, other than Jack Upland's concern that there is too much coverage, in general, of statements of support for Assange. Looking at the balance of coverage in the article, I don't agree with that assessment. We can discuss how to balance the article better, but in the meantime, it's inappropriate to block inclusion of a major event relating to Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, Assange's content is ok to add. We just need to deal with the way the sentence about the 130 people said something, sounds like a weight issue to me. Also this statement by Corbyn is certainly good to add. Darouet, please do a better job of summarizing and make things more neutral, I think you are just giving the POV editors ammunition to do a quick revert "so what" type of revert. These AP2 articles appear to be minefields, and the POV pushing on this article through WP:CIRCUS to exclude content from statement of Assange's supports is a sad POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Four editors commenting here want to add this information in some form, and six editors are opposed. That, and many reliable articles, certainly warrant discussion. Efforts to obstruct discussion or presentation of sources and proposal of text are unproductive and, I find, oddly disinterested in the topic at hand. -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it in this diff and reorged the words a bit to de-weight. If we can't find consensus here, I guess we need to do an RfC and maybe more editors will have a look. What is the issue with Corbyn? Is that content also blocked? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I see three editors claiming that discussion is being obstructed but have seen no such obstruction. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

O3000, SPECIFICO asked me to stop writing about this topic twice in the last 24 hours, and less than 48 hours after discussion began:

[105] "Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion."

[106] "The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive."

Objective, you don't see this as a request, if not a threat, that this discussion should be terminated? -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, this entire discussion is getting bogged down in muck, the farther we stray from specific presentation and discussion of sourcing and text. If editors want to have larger metadiscussions about DUE WEIGHT and so forth, that's fine, but those discussions also need to be grounded in empirical evaluations of sources. Arguing about arguing is a monumental waste of time. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I see no "threat". I do see a suggestion that it's odd to discuss the text to be included when there is no consensus for inclusion of any text related to this thread. O3000 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Please don't start... time to move on" these are just suggestions? And the linking of WP:IDHT is not an accusation, with the potential for blocks or sanctions? If you're not sufficiently interested in the text or content to discuss its details, but will oppose its inclusion in any form on the basis of W:DUE, just write that. But don't ask other editors not to discuss it. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Is linking to WP:CIRCUS an accusation? O3000 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is. -Darouet (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there's been sufficient discussion and presentation of sources to warrant an RfC, and have created one. -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

melzer interview about assange on german television ZDF

melzer interview about assange by german television ZDF:

consortiumnews.com/2020/02/06/ray-mcgovern-german-tv-exposes-the-lies-that-entrapped-julian-assange/

Der Tagesspiegel: www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/schweden-lehnt-kommentar-ab-wie-un-experte-melzer-wikileaks-gruender-assange-entlastet/25517070.html

--5.170.44.52 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with the source. But, it reads like a conspiracy rag. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely not the ZDF or the Tagesspiegel. Those are excellent sources. I'm not familiar with Consortium News. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Of note: the Tagesspiegel article also discusses the public appeal by 130 prominent Germans:

Support for Julian Assange, imprisoned in Great Britain: After a UN expert has just exculpated the Wikileaks founder and made serious accusations about his arrest, broad protest is now being organised. More than 130 personalities from politics and culture have signed an appeal for the release of Assange. -Der Tagesspiegel

I didn't choose this article, but it covers the public appeal. The fact that a random article on Melzer mentions the appeal is a sign of the how much coverage it's getting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That article shows why nobody takes Melzer's exaggerated and ignorant claims seriously. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

..can you please quote the sentences (both original german language and translation to english you made), where is showed what you say? --5.170.46.207 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The article actually states the opposite, as the passage I quoted above shows. Some of the most prominent people in Germany have come out in support of Melzer's assessment. SPECIFICO is giving you their own personal assessment, not the Tagesspiegel's assessment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

..well, in really, SPECIFICO wiki user don't tell "to me" his opinion: he's leading on bad way the edit of this article, by his totally wrong assumptions (see how "nobody" takes Melzer's seriously: "assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en" 6.2.), his personally Melzer bad opinion.
It's ok to wait for SPECIFICO reply on that, but - at the time - i think is better if he will be banned from edit this article, and he will become considered not relevant here in the talk, about decisions about how to edit the article. --5.170.47.67 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not an article about German punditry. Germany fans are entitled to their enthusiasms, but not to put POV text in Assange's biography here. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply; so you have nothing right on theme to reply, and you can only change the talk pointing on other (invented) things? --5.170.47.67 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC about German appeal

Recently, newspapers have described an appeal by 130 prominent figures in Germany for Assange to be released, citing their concern for a free press and the rule of law. Should we include this information in the article in some form?

• Option 1 Include two sentences in the article body, in the section Reactions to the US indictment. The proposed text is,

In February 2020, over 130 prominent German politicians, journalists and artists issued an appeal calling for Assange's release from prison, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health.(refs 1-5) Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff stated that the appeal aimed to defend whistleblowers and freedom of the press; former foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel argued that for Assange, the rule of law had been set aside for political reasons.(refs 3,5)

The references are 12345

• Option 2 Exclude this information from any location within Assange's biography.

Please present your views below. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 A briefer mention of this, for example:

In February 2020, over 130 German politicians, journalists and artists called for Assange's release, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health.

Per Jack Upland. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Option 1, two sentences in the article body, or as a second choice, Option 3 per Jack Upland. This appeal has received a lot of attention in the German press, and press coverage suggests that the appeal is WP:NOTABLE and highly relevant to Assange's case (and therefore, our biography).

For example, the Deutsche Welle, one of Germany's most important national and international papers, writes [107] that

"The letter's signatories include famous German investigative journalist Günther Wallraff, former Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Austrian winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, Elfriede Jelinek."

The Evening Standard writes [108] that

The German appeal, which is supported by Reporters Without Borders Germany, as well as members of Amnesty International, Transparency International, the German Journalists’ Union (dju), the Whistleblower Network and the writers’ association PEN-Germany, calls on the British Government to “release Julian Assange from prison immediately so that he can recover under specialist medical supervision and exercise his basic rights without hindrance”.

Another major paper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung, writes [109] that

The conditions under which the 48-year-old is being held in the Belmarsh maximum security prison have long been criticized... Well-known supporters of the whistleblower turned to the public in Berlin on Thursday. Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff, ex-foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, ex-interior minister Gerhart Baum and left-wing Bundestag MEP Sevim Dağdelen called for the federal press conference to release Assange from prison immediately. This was preceded by a public appeal from 130 politicians, artists and journalists, including the writers Eva Menasse and the PEN Center, which appeared on Thursday in full-page in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

The SZ and FAZ are arguably Germany's biggest papers. I think that given these statements and this coverage, a modest two sentences in the article would be highly appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: reasons as previously discussed. Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 3 because clearly notable content AND clearly encyclopedic as relates to the subject of a BLP who is most notable for his incarceration. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Option 3: a briefer mention of this, such as "In February 2020, over 130 German politicians, journalists and artists called for Assange's release, citing Melzer's assessment of Assange's health".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: the discussion below makes me think that this is much more complicated than the proposed text suggests. To explain it fully would require a larger slab of text, and I think that would be undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. For all the fervour with which this is promoted off-wiki by Assange cultists, it was one letter that was not, as far as I can tell, covered after its original release. Cult leaders are very good at exploiting what Lenin termed "useful idiots". Guy (help!) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or second choice Option 3. Per JzG, after some basic research I could find little mention or discussion of this letter. It seems to be a passing mention that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Germany is not particularly relevant to the Assange situation. If it is to be mentioned at all, one brief sentence would do. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. There has been a large amount of coverage of this appeal in the German press. All the major newspapers (the FAZ [110], Süddeutsche Zeitung [111], Die Zeit [112], Die Tageszeitung [113], Tagesspiegel [114]) have written articles on it, and it's been covered by the major news channels (Tagesschau [115], ZDF [116], Phoenix [117] and Deutsche Welle [118]). A quick look at who has signed on to the letter shows some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany. Günter Wallraff is probably Germany's best-known investigative journalist. Sigmar Gabriel was, up until two years ago, arguably the second most important person in German politics, as Vice Chancellor, Foreign Minister and leader of the second largest political party (the Social Democrats). Calling these people "Assange cultists" or "useful idiots" is just unseemly, and shows a lack of seriousness (WP:NOTHERE). This sort of event warrants one or two sentences in Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. per Thucydides411 Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or second choice Option 3 - My original comment, what does this have to do with Germany, has not been answered. WP:DUE O3000 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I have no doubts that any given 130 German MP's hold views on many subjects. That does not make those views relevant or pertinent. Eddy the eagle Edwards is notable, that does not mean we take notice of everything he says on every subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per User:JzG. ——SN54129 13:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Omit. WP:UNDUE. This seems to be German-centric fanboy stuff in a biography that has nothing else to do with Germany. There is no wide media coverage or discussion of this that would suggest it is significant for an encyclopedia article. These celebrity petitions are a dime a dozen, and absent other indications of significance, Wikipedia does not get all hot and bothered over them. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or second choice 2 – The long version is undue. We should strive for concision. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Omit as undue weight. The sources do not establish that the sending of this open letter (which just happened a few days ago) is biographically significant to the subject. There's no indication whatever that it will have any meaningful effect on the subject's life. Assange is a famous figure and so there are naturally be many opinions on the criminal charges against him. That does not mean that every opinion must be referenced in the article. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Thucydides411. In addition to reporting by all top tier RS in Germany and some in UK, among the signatories of that letter are the current vice president of Germany's parliament, 10 former ministers of Germany's government, several current members of parliament, Nobel Price winners and a writers' association. [119] [120] Xenagoras (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 – This is merely an appeal by an informal group that has no legal standing and whose influence on public opinion is yet to be determined (I myself haven't heard of this appeal except by having this article on my watchlist). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 3. There is notable coverage for this bit of information. However, should this be written next to the parts detailing Melzer's report such as in the last paragraph of the Imprisonment in the United Kingdom section? It seems the appeal primarily stemmed from Melzer's report and his incarceration in the UK. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Very pertinent and well-documented.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or failing that Option 3. Certainly notable enough for inclusion and other good points made above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 2 - the long version is clearly undue, that said I would be okay with the shorter version at "Other reactions" subsection.--Staberinde (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 at most - the long version is clearly monstrously undue, and peacocky, even the sources do not refer to these 130 as 'prominent' - what exactly does that mean anyway? Two former ministers and a left-wing MEP? As others have said, the subject has no connection to Germany - if the German Govt, or even German party leaders commented, it might be worth a line or two. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: It received sufficient press coverage to establish it as a notable historic event, but is not notable enough by itself to warrant the verbosity of Option 1 in the context of this article. The RS citations are sufficient for people who want more details. Frankly, his whole embassy ordeal and subsequent imprisonment look lengthy enough to split into a separate article where Option 1 would be appropriate after scrubbing it for WP:NPOV as pointed out by others. Websurfer2 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – This appeal is one of the most-covered reactions to Assange's imprisonment to date. Deserves a full paragraph per WP:DUE. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - include in DUE Weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• Please relocate your extended commentary to the discussion section. That's the reason for a discussion section. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe he is allowed to explain his vote. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion is for subsequent comments and arguments.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Small thing, was "had being" supposed to be "was being" or "had been"? To all: has the original FAZ article been published online? I couldn't find it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: thanks, fixed that! -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, for what it's worth, Lenin never used to term "useful idiots" — see our article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• RE: "What does this have to do with Germany?" The fact is that a large group containing some of the most prominent figures in politics and journalism in Germany have signed an appeal on Assange's behalf, calling on the German government to act. All the major news publications in Germany are discussing this public appeal, which is why it is WP:DUE. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so the fact that this appeal occurred not in the US or UK, but in Germany, does not mean it does not require due weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that many of the Option 2 votes call the signers of the petition things like "celebrities," "fanboy[s]," "useful idiots" or "Assange cultists," compare them to Eddie the Eagle, and otherwise play them off as irrelevant nobodies. Keep in mind that we're talking about a long-time Vice Chancellor of Germany, one of the most famous investigative journalists in Germany, alongside many members of the German parliament, the European parliament, and journalism/media establishment in Germany. The closer should discount votes that make these sorts of uninformed and unserious comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thucydides411, no, I am not calling them any of those things. I am saying that the Assange cult has promoted this letter of concern, but that it is just one letter of concern, a single incident in the news blizzard around Assange that is driven by an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more. There's no actual evidence that Assange was treated any differently form anyone similarly situated. England is not one of those countries that tortures prisoners or jails people for criticising the establishment, so the fact that Assange's case was blown out of proportion, picked up by some people who were almost certainly operating on half-truths from the Assange cult, and got covered on the day but pretty much not since, suggests it can be ignored, as roughly 90% of news coverage related to Assange should be. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. Guy (help!) 15:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, I hope you realize you are making classical logical fallacies in your arguments. First above Thucydides411 points to the half a dozen pick-ups in German press. Thus these arguments bantered above (not by you) of not covering Eddie the Eagle is strawman. And now you are arguing to exclude because Assange is a bad person. We have whole articles on allegedly bad people such as Charles Manson, Hitler, Harvey Weinstien, etc. This is wikipedia, we are not curators of the pristine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, virtually every major German newspaper, television and radio news channel has reported on this public appeal - some of them with multiple articles. Are they all members of the "Assange clult"? The Bundespressekonferenz (BPK) invited the organizers of the public appeal to give a press conference. Are the organizers of the BPK "useful idiots"? Looking through the list of sources I gave in my vote, I don't see any "MRAs," "conspiracy theorists," "fanboys" or "cultists." I do see nearly every single major German newspaper and news channel.

  Your above comment shows deep personal and political animus towards Assange, as well as those in the media who have covered this public appeal on his behalf. I think you lack the necessary detachment to edit this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I don't understand your animus to "off-wiki" activity concerning Assange and referenced in your vote. All of life is "off-wiki," including statements opposing Assange's prosecution by the NYT editorial board [121], and pieces published by the Freedom of the Press Foundation [122] the Columbia Journalism Review [123], the Committee to Protect Journalists [124], the Electronic Frontier Foundation [125], and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [126], among many other "off-wiki" groups (ACLU, HRW, etc). -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I think unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists is a somewhat fair characterization, but I'm not sure I would go that far. Is the fact that journalists stick up for other people they perceive to be journalists enough to invalidate sources we would rely on otherwise? To me, yes, a source's COI does call it into question on a particular topic but I'm not aware of this being applied across Wikipedia. It seems like there are many cases where activist sources are allowed, sometimes without attribution. As an aside, I think Wikipedia itself has been attacked by MRAs and other manosphere activity and it does need to be kept in check. They really seem to be crawling out of the woodwork. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I haven't seen a single news article mentioning anything about MRA and Assange, haven't seen anyone propose adding one, and don't see a reference anywhere in the article. Where are you and Guy getting this? Would you mind linking some sources? -Darouet (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I said "as an aside, I think Wikipedia itself has been attacked by MRAs and other manosphere activity." Not sure where you are getting "news article mentioning anything about MRA and Assange" from that. Also, if you want to address whether news articles have linked the questioning of allegedly false rape accusations in the context of Assange try: [127][128][129] for starters. It seems obvious that this topic is linked to men's rights premises to the point that I feel that it may be disingenuous to ask for sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What does MRA mean and is it justification to exclude content? I googled it an cant find anything. Is it a wikipedia term? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was similarly confused. I think they mean "men's rights activists". I haven't seen any sign of this in the arguments we've had on this site since I came here last year. However, I agree with DIYeditor about journalists sticking up for others in the industry.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No I wonder if these arguments intentionally drawn off into the fray of lunacy? I edit the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations sometimes and I have never once seen an "MRA" strawman like this raised (and it easily could be if there really is such MRA advocacy). I did google MRA before posting my previous comment and assumed I must be wrong as how could mens rights possibly be related to this article ;-) JzG did you introduce MRA (meaning mens rights advocates) as a strawman into this discussion? Or is MRA some other abbreviation I am missing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: you have been very noisy in opposition in the discussoin prior to this RfC and now you argued "German-centric fanboy stuff in a biography that has nothing else to do with Germany." Can you please evidence for this claim? Are you saying if we removed the "German" from the text you would support it? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The word is "vocal" please, not noisy. Several editors have made the same point. "German" has nothing to do with Assange. Search the article text. No need to repeat, if the repetition offends you, but the point is valid. Maybe re-read the entire thread? SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looked through your responses again and didn't see anything relating to this, unless you are referring to your pipefitters union response. Please point me to the response. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I'd like to correct a few things you say in your explanation of your vote:

• even the sources do not refer to these 130 as 'prominent': The very first source is titled, "More than 100 prominent Germans appeal for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's release from prison." The second source is titled, "Prominent Germans appeal for Julian Assange's release." The third source begins, "Eine Reihe Prominenter, darunter Sigmar Gabriel, Ex-Innenminister Gerhart Baum und Günter Wallraff, fordern die sofortige Freilassung von Julian Assange." The fourth source contains this subheading: "Viele prominente Unterzeichner." The fifth source is the only source that does not contain the word "prominent." Did you look at the sources before voting?
• Two former ministers and a left-wing MEP A former Vice-Chancellor of Germany and former head of the 2nd largest party (the #2 figure in German politics until two years ago), a former interior minister, the most famous investigative reporter in Germany, a former Vice President of the European Commission, a Nobel Prize laureate in Literature, a former President of the Bundestag (parliament), alongside 10 members of the Bundestag and 3 members of the European Parliament. There are lots of other important figures from German politics, journalism and culture on the list, such as about a dozen former government ministers and well-known journalists.
• clearly monstrously undue: Virtually every major newspaper and news program in Germany has covered this appeal. A large number of very prominent German politicians and journalists have signed it. How can two short sentences be undue?
• if the German Govt, or even German party leaders commented, it might be worth a line or two: The German government was asked about it repeatedly in one of their recent press conferences, and refused to take an official position on it. By making a German government comment the threshold for inclusion, you're setting up a political test for inclusion, because the German government's refusal to comment on the appeal is likely driven by political considerations (i.e., their relationship with the US and UK). However, the former Vice Chancellor of Germany and head of the 2nd largest party (until 2 years ago) is one of the signatories, and another signatory is one of the leading figures in the Left Party (Gysi).

Given these corrections - particularly on the word "prominent," the identities of the signatories and the extensive media coverage of the appeal - I hope you will reconsider your vote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• No más! SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I read the text, not the titles, where the word prominent was not used. Why would 130 Germans be relevant to a British judicial decision, relevant to UK, Australia, Sweden and US? You could probably find 130 Brits (or Australians?) who would take a similar stance - and an equal number taking the contrary - so what? He is a hugely divisive figure, and why would people from an uninvolved country be relevant? Your comments about the German govt precisely make the point that this stance is costing these individuals nothing. Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the very first source is, "A petition calling for WikiLeaks​ founder Julian Assange to be released from prison has been signed by more than 130 prominent figures from the world of art, politics and media in Germany" (emphasis added). 130 Germans are relevant because they wrote a public appeal that received coverage in virtually every major newspaper and news show in Germany. "Your comments about the German govt precisely make the point that this stance is costing these individuals nothing." Do you mean they suffer no personal cost? Why is that relevant? 130 highly prominent people have made a public appeal, which has received widespread coverage. That's really all that matters. "You could probably find 130 Brits (or Australians?) who would take a similar stance": maybe, but I'm not aware that 130 of the most prominent people in Britain or Australia have issued an analogous appeal. If they have, and if it's received as widespread of coverage as the German appeal, then it obviously should go in the article.

As WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." A view expressed by 130 of the most prominent people in Germany, covered by virtually all the German news outlets, requires at least some mention in this article. Not mentioning the appeal - particularly based on individual editors' opinions about whether the appeal will have any effect or whether Assange is a "very naughty boy" - would violate our neutrality requirement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Best to stick to policy-based reasons for omission. Arguments about which countries are relevant and the divisiveness of the central figure, taken to their logical conclusion, would mean not being able to mention the efforts of humanitarian bodies on behalf of, say, dissidents.     ←   ZScarpia   14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We also have WP:BALASP, now (OK) some (and not all the signatories are) significant, but what percentage of them? Moreover whilst this has received a lot of coverage in Germany, Germany is not an involved party (and thus this carries no weight). So (it seems to me) this rest on just how significant is this, and thre or 4 major figures is not a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• From what I've read, it's unclear what the petition is asking for. Is it saying that Assange should be released on bail, pending extradition hearings? Or is it saying that he should simply be released and the extradition request be denied without being heard?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The petition asks for Julian Assange to be immediately released from prison, both for medical reasons and so that he can properly prepare a legal defense against his extradition. They argue that his ability to prepare a defense has been severely restricted (this is based on reports about limited access to lawyers, documents and a computer). Beyond the text of the appeal, some of the most prominent signatories have argued that an example is being made of Assange (in order to frighten anyone else who might want to publish leaked government documents) and Assange's legal rights have been violated for political reasons.

The text I wrote (Option 1) explains these aspects of the appeal in two sentences. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack, you are attempting to create ambiguity that doesnt exist in the text. They only ask for him to be released, obviously they are deferring to the British government to decide what to do with him after that. He is incarcerated in England without any charges, right (only excuse is pending extradition)? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me. Assange skipped bail and was a fugitive for seven years. He has just served a sentence for skipping bail. He and his supporters say he skipped bail because he feared a US indictment. He is now facing extradition for a US indictment. Are the prominent Germans saying he now has a "right" to bail? I think most people would say he is a flight risk. It would be different if they were calling for the US indictment to be dropped. I think this needs to be clarified. If it is important, it is important to get it right. However, I think this would take up too much time, so I now oppose including this.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You're making this sound much more complicated than it is. Option 1 precisely explains the content of the appeal in one sentence. The second sentence of Option 1 reports what two of the most prominent signers said when they presented the appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think you're oversimplifying. There are so many issues. Who is going to put up the bail money this time?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The appeal says nothing about bail money. I'm not oversimplifying. I'm just saying that you're making this overly complicated by raising your own personal objections to the appeal - objections that are not discussed in reliable sources. We just need to concisely describe what the news sources have reported about the appeal, which can be done in two sentences. We don't need to think of our own arguments against the content of the appeal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It's vague. And that's a reason not to include it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not vague, release means release. We dont need to argue over a definition. Your explanation of your WP:OP of Assanges's potential for flight risk has no bearing on the word release in the statement. If someone notable (not an involved wikipedia editor) has something to say about the flight risk in response to the letter, we could include that, but your OR not. And your OR is not justification to exclude it either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Believe me, I haven't done any research, plagiarised or otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but the reason you're giving for excluding the appeal from the article is that you personally have objections to it (it doesn't recommend bail conditions for Assange). That's not a valid reason for excluding the appeal from the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I didnt say you plagiarized something, did someone else? Regarding your statement I guess it is WP:JDLI explained by your idea that the German's should consider Assange a flight risk. But I dont see that we can include that POV in the article as that would be OR, even you are free to have your own opinion of course. Dont like it, your opinion, and/or OR none of those are valid reasons to exclude content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Release on bail is a lot different from release. The editors of this article have a history of glossing over practical issues and reproducing rhetoric instead. The German appeal seems inconsequential. They appear to be recommending release on bail, which will continue until the extradition is decided, which could be in a few weeks. Jtbobwaysf has said they are "deferring" to the British government on extradition. But it appears they want to overturn the decision of a British court denying him bail. If this happened, it would be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, it's wishy-washy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Again you are attempting to create vagueness. It just says "release." It didnt say release on bail. Maybe you dont like it that the germans didnt suggest bail and you have now added some new OR that the extradition might end in a couple of weeks and so we should wait. That is an appeal to authority fallacy. You continue with the logical fallacies to oppose inclusion of cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You continue to elaborate your own personal argument about why the appeal is faulty. You're free to argue about the merits of the appeal outside of Wikipedia, but here, our job is to figure out whether the appeal has garnered sufficient media attention to fulfill WP:DUE. Your opinion that the appeal is "wishy-washy" has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included. Given that the appeal has been covered by virtually every major German news source, it manifestly fulfills the requirements of WP:DUE and merits inclusion.-Thucydides411 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the point is the appeal is inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Some comments on remarks made by Guy (User:JzG) when stating his RFC preference at 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC) above:

- It's not a great look to start referring to cults and cult leaders, particularly in a BLP, unless the topic is something such as the Peoples Temple and Jim Jones, or is about figures with notorious personality cults such as Mao, Stalin or Hitler. If, say, in the UK context, an editor started banging on about the cult of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, it would not look contstructive, it would just indicate that the editor had strong opinions or prejudices about the subject. And strong opinions or prejudices tend to hinder neutral editing and give rise to the temptation to soapbox. Perhaps they also tend to give rise to double-standard behaviour, such as making quips (for example, "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!") about subjects disapproved of, then getting very upset when the same is done on ones in which there is an investment.

- It's always possible that opinions about which side the cultists and the useful idiots are on may be mistaken.

- As remarked on above, it's uncertain who coined the term 'useful idiots'. See the Origin section of the Useful Idiot article: "The phrase "useful idiot" has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin,[3] but he is not documented as ever having used the phrase." Also see the Usage section, for attributions of the phrase to Lenin, and the following: [130], [131].

Well, enough preaching!     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Corbyn comments Feb 2020

Added this about Corybn's comments. I recall there was a second source, but I forgot to save it. I self reverted since I am unclear if this content has been challenged or not (seems like everything gets challenged here). Also used twitter a source for Corbyn's comment today, is WP:SELF ok WP:RS for a notable politician if it comes from his verified twitter account? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a sentence about Corbyn. What about just adding one more recent reference (I'd suggest either this [132] or this [133]) at the end of this sentence? If a reader is particularly interested in the topic they can read both references. -Darouet (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, found that other comment Added here and dropped the twitter quote, as there are already similar quotes. I did input the additional sentence in that it is required for Boris' response, and it seems Boris hasn't been mentioned yet here on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent?

The infobox states his political party is "Independent" which links to Independent politician. I'm not sure how meaningful this is. Independent politicians have a wide range of views. Has Assange backed anyone in particular? Do we need to mention his party allegiance in the infobox anyway? The Wikileaks Party was just a failure (or perhaps a stunt). This article doesn't mention what happened to it, which is another problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks Party says it was deregistered in 2015 "for the party's failure to respond to a notice under s.137(1)". I am not aware of Assange ever having any formal connection with any other party. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I meant to say that the article doesn't mention what happened with his bid for the Australian Senate. I have now rectified this. I don't think it's necessary to go into more detail about the party here, though the fact that he had his own party amply justifies the first sentence calling him an "activist". My question was really about "Independent".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And what is the wikileaks political party in the inbox as well... Probably both should be axed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, arguably, the fact that he set up his own political party is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is. It might be appropriate to have a small annotation indicating that the party no longer exists. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added some text about the fate of the party. I don't think we need a note.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed my mind and think the party info should also be included. Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looking into it, the party wasn't just a stunt. It garnered the support of some slightly prominent Australians. Assange was not just a candidate; he was on the National Council, as well as his father John Shipton and some of his friends. Even after his defeat, he was still arguing the party had a future. This is part of his life that this article has neglected.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump pardon?

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

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

Further [134] [135] [136] [137] SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Now confirmed by Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher confirms the offer in an interview per Michael Isikoff [138] SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Too much information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't really see Rohrabacher has a motive to lie. He is an Assange supporter.[139]--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Structure again

The structure continues to be problematic. Assange's campaign to be elected to the Australian Senate in 2013 is in the "WikiLeaks" section, subsection "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". It isn't clear he was holed up in the embassy in London at that time. There is a huge chronological overlap between the "WikiLeaks" section and the sections relating to his time in the embassy. It seems arbitrary whether information is placed in the "Wikileaks" section or the embassy-related sections (for example, Assange's comments on Reality Winner). I don't think anyone would expect to find information about Assange's Senate bid under "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". Obviously a lot of Assange's notability is related to WikiLeaks, including his current imprisonment, but including it all in one section would create a huge and pointless section. I can see two options for improvement. Firstly, my preferred option, get rid of the "WikiLeaks" section, and concentrate on Assange's life, mentioning WikiLeaks when appropriate. Secondly, make the "WikiLeaks" section into an overview of the information published by WikiLeaks, and moving personal information about Assange elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree Jack, this info needs to be moved to wikileaks and we focus on the biography here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: we have been discussing this issue in general here. My position is that the entire wikileaks focus on this article needs a radical chop. The POV that Assange is wikileaks and wikileaks is assange is not supported in fact. I recall i saw this issued raised in the past on this talk page (maybe by me). What are the thoughts on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: My view is that Assange and WikiLeaks are very tightly connected. Assange founded WikiLeaks, and almost everything he is known for is bound up in some way with WikiLeaks. For that reason, it is appropriate for this article to focus heavily on WikiLeaks. As for how best to structure the article, I'll have to think about it further before making any proposals. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions the indictment of his accomplices? SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP. Strike your comments about "accomplices" or I'll have to seek administrative action. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DW Documentary

DW (German public tv) has a documentary out today

Melzer content:

what we saw was that mr. assange was showing all the symptoms a person normally displays when subjected to psychological torture over a long period of time. -Melzer [140]

You can hear the quotes starting around 23:20 in the video. Obvious top shelf WP:RS that lends creedence to inclusion of the Meltzer content in the article, that is often justified to exclude. This documentary shows the view is picked up by mainstream press and given significant weight.

Also gives a lot of time to content about surveillance by the Spanish security firm UC Global and bugging of Assange's room. Notes that broadcasters NDR and WDR are in possession of internal documents from UC Global that details the surveillance. Asserts that this information was handed over to US intelligence.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What does this add we do not already know he thinks?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read justification above for excluding the Melzer content is that it is fringe or too german. This neutralizes those objections. I believe there is also other content that is useful as well that is not related to Melzer, such as the surveillance content. Nice to have a high quality mainstream english source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Err its still German, so no it does not nullify the objection this is not really all that relevant as Germany is not party to this case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DW english is mainstream enough. Is there a policy that states that German public TV is not an RS in this case? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, but that was not your argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a top shelf mainstream source that has some good biographic info on the article's subject, as well as the Melzer issue (the Melzer content doesn't seem to be the subject of the documentary). You can watch it if you are curious and then we can discuss the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Or you can tell me what it adds we do not already know? It does not matter if its the Pope (its that good a source), what matter is why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pope might be a primary source. It tells us that Melzer's view is getting mainstream coverage in high quality RS. Nothing groundbreaking here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, Melzer is Swiss, not German, but we have a lot of his comments in the article already. This adds nothing to what we already have. We also already have a section about the surveillance.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle is just one of many major news organizations that has reported on Melzer's assessment of Assange's health and his accusation that Assange is being persecuted for political reasons. Just in the last week, the following news organizations have reported on Melzer's views:

• Newsweek: [141]
• USA Today: [142]
• Al Jazeera: [143] [144]
• The Guardian: [145] [146]
• Deutsche Welle: [147]
• Norddeutscher Rundfunk: [148]
• Deutschlandfunk: [149] [150]

Note that these are just in the last week. If you go back longer than that, you find numerous articles in the New York Times, Le Monde, and many other papers. The articles over the past week show enduring coverage of Melzer's views. Given that enduring coverage, there should be once sentence in the lede about Melzer's views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. We have already included Melzer's views in the article. Last year we had a RfC which failed to get consensus to include his views in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed excessive detail about Russiagate in lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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