Talk:Julian Assange

Infobox information

Should we add information to the article infobox on his position in The WikiLeaks Party?

i.e.

Julian Assange
Leader of the WikiLeaks Party
In office 1 July 2013 – 23 July 2015
Deputy	Gerry Georgatos
Preceded by	Party established
Succeeded by	Party abolished

Edit Request

The "Swedish sexual assault allegations" section currently has a pro-Julian-Assange bias.

• That the alleged victims had consensual sex has no relevance on the non-consensual acts they've accused him of
• "The case" was never closed. One charge was temporarily dropped for two days
• No Special Prosecutor was ever involved
• His lawyer was told at one point he was free to leave the country, but he only actually left weeks later, after an arrest warrant was filed.

I recommend this edit to replace the section:

On a trip to Stockholm in August 2010, Assange had separate sexual encounters with two women who claim the encounters started consensual but became non-consensual. One woman claims Assange initially restrained her from reaching for a condom, and after he did agree to use one, she alleges, he purposefully tore it. The other woman alleges that, after consensual sex with a condom, she awoke to find Assange having sex with her without a condom. The women went to police, apparently to coerce Assange into an HIV test, but were told their statements would need to be passed to the prosecutor. As a result, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrent for two charges: molestation and rape.

The rape charge was briefly dropped, and Assange was questioned by police on the molestation charge. The next week, on appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer, the rape charge was reinstated and two new charges were added: sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.. Assange's attorney was informed on 15 September that he was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden," but further attempts to interview him failed when, according to his attorney, Assange was unreachable for an eight day period. Assange left Sweden the same day the Swedish prosecutor ordered his arrest, and after further attempts to interview him failed, the prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant in November 2010.

Assange denies the allegations. He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States. Assange unsuccessfully fought extradition through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and after his final appeal there failed he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he was granted diplomatic asylum.

Assange claims he has always been willing to be questioned on the charges from the embassy, but multiple negotiations to do so failed. Sweden and Ecuador both blame each other for the delay, which allowed the lesser charges of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion to expire their statute of limitations. The rape charge is still pending, and its statute of limitations will not expire until 2020.

On 14 November 2016, police, Swedish prosecutors, and Ecuadorian officials met with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London about the sexual assault allegations. Ecuador delivered its report on the questioning to Sweden on 5 January 2017. Sweden is currently in the process of translating the document from Spanish and are expected to make a decision on how to proceed the investigation afterward.

Well for a start the sentence "Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where two women accused him of sexual allegations" is in need of further work. Britmax (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC).

Appreciate it. I'd first just kept the initial sentence in-tact ("Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where he became the subject of sexual allegations from two women with whom he had consensual sex") and removed the irrelevant bit that they'd had consensual sex and changed it to the active voice. I've expanded a bit on what the allegations are, while still trying to keep it brief and impartial. 198.244.108.135 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been pending for over one month now without objection. Does that qualify as consensus? Thanks. 198.244.108.135 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)!

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You need to re-open the discussion and alert the other participants of your changes. Aurato (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Britmax: Could you please review my elaborated extended edit? 198.244.108.135 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Britmax: Just a friendly ping. The new proposed paragraphs elaborate on what the actual charges are, while still (I hope) give both sides of the story. 198.244.108.135 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 198.244.108.135. The current "Swedish sexual assault allegations" section really do has a pro-Julian-Assange bias. I´m a swede and this is the text on swedish WP (sorry for the crappy english). A rather big difference, isn´t it?

"In August 2010, Assange visited Sweden to present the latest WikiLeaks disclosure. During the visit, Assange was arrested in his absence by an on-call prosecutor on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women. The arrest was lifted just one day later, on 25 August, by the regular prosecutor Eva Finné, and the suspicion was changed to molestation. On September 1, the investigation was resumed, now by Marianne Ny and the rubric changed again apply to rape. On November 18, Assange was arrested in his absence by the Stockholm District Court and 7 December it was reported that he was arrested by British police when he arrived at the police station. On December 16, Julian Assange was released on bail. On February 24, 2011 a British court decided that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden. It was appealed and a new trial if the extradition was carried out 12 to 13 July 2011. On 2 November 2011 the High Court in England decided to reject his appeal and that he should still be extradited to Sweden. June 19, 2012 revealed that Assange sought political asylum in Ecuador and thus found themselves on the country's embassy in London. On 16 August 2012, the news said that Ecuador granted him asylum. Nine people who set bail for Assange has by a British court been ordered to pay 93,000 pounds to the British Treasury. On July 16, 2014 examined the Stockholm District Court again arrest the grounds and found that Assange was still on probable cause suspected of a crime and that the arrest would be made. On November 16, 2014 the Svea Court of Appeal decided, after Assange appealed there, that he would remain in custody. However, in its order directed the Svea Court of Appeal criticized the prosecutor in the case, Marianne Ny, for not doing enough to push the investigation forward."

Information about the first (and only) hearing with Assange, when he left Sweden, the expiration of some of the counts and the hearing in London seems to be missing. I think they should be added, and that the names of the prosecutors probably is irrlevant in EngWP.--Godfellow (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Godfellow: Thanks for the feedback. The proceedings in England actually have their own article: Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority which is linked to at the top of this section. That article goes into a lot more detail. I've tried to keep this section as a brief summary. But you're right I the bit about his questioning in Stockholm should be mentioned, since I did mention "further attempts to question him" without mentioning the successful attempt. In fact, all the discussion of attempts to question were a bit disjoint and confusing, so I'm now proposing a replacement to the entire section that I think clarifies the situation. What do you think? 198.244.108.135 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@198.244.108.135:If you refer to your proposed paragraph above, I have some objections raised. But hey, it is much better than the present! If you mean some other ideas you come up with I do not know what you mean.Godfellow (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Date about John Jones death seems to be wrong. Source (https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1138414/britains-top-human-rights-lawyer-who-represented-julian-assange-and-worked-alongside-george-clooneys-wife-amal-dies-in-apparent-suicide/) is from 21 April, but Wikipedia states that he died on 16 August. "On 16 August 2016, Assange's lawyer in the UK, John Jones, was found dead, according to the first reports after being hit by a train in an apparent suicide." should be changed to 21 April and also probably moved up, since rest of paragraph is in chronological order.

2A02:AA16:5300:4E80:F9BF:532:524B:B56B (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The Sun is not a reliable source. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Jones's obituary in the Guardian (text by Geoffrey Robertson QC), his death occurred at West Hampstead station on 18 April.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/01/john-rwd-jones-obituary

The Wiki article goes on to say 'The death of both lawyers in such a short period of time sparked conspiracy theories', but the theories aren't cited and it doesn't seem to say who the other dead lawyer supposedly was. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No proof of life since 16 October 2016

I suppose it's too early for Wikipedia to become a trusted source about the potential extradition of Mr. Assange between October 17th and October 21st? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:1080:5600:A0A2:34DC:BC0C:5A1D (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is never "trusted source". Trust_but_verify WP requires edits to cite reliable sources. Enforcement and compliance vary. Wikidgood (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

In the section regarding the death of Julian Assange's UK lawyer, John Jones, for balance it is probably worth noting that while Wikileaks may imply assassination,the actual coroner's verdict specifically states that John Jones intended to end his life and that he acted alone (http://www.camdennewjournal.com/john-jones-inquest), but that the evidence didn't quite meet the legal requirement for a determination of suicide.

62.255.39.68 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you provide additional reliable sources for this? -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also the Ham & High (Hampstead & Highgate Express as was):-

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/qc_who_worked_on_julian_assange_case_jumped_in_front_of_west_hampstead_train_after_being_allowed_out_of_private_hospital_1_4664571

The coroner found as fact that Mr Jones jumped under the train and that no one else was involved. The train driver said it appeared to be a deliberate act. But the coroner said that the state of Mr Jones's mental health was such that he could not have had the necessary intent for a verdict of suicide: that is, legally, he may not have known what he was doing. There was no question of foul play at all and the WikiLeaks tweet, and the internet conspiracist comment that followed it, was disinformation. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

In the "Swedish Sexual Assault Violations" section: The statement "Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where he became the subject of sexual allegations from two women with whom he had consensual sex" implies innocence on Assange's part, which is in dispute. This should probably be changed to "...with two women with whom he had sex."

Jmoriart (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Presidential Election 2016 secition one sided quotes

There is quote from Podesta emails on HRC saying she had warned ... But there was so much more and relevant quotes including actual speech segments. I did not find the quote that was used in debate on having a public and private positions,...

If segments of actual emails are going to be placed in this article, it needs to have some sort of balance. It seems biased to put just a quote that favors HRC

I suggest adding the private/public position... quote as well or removing quotes all together Paulthemonk (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove Anti-semitism accusations

Seriously there is a section on "Anti-semitism accusations" ??? Who is adding these? He is accused by one person, he denies it and gets a "Anti-semitism accusations" section on Wikipedia?

It would be appropriate to have a section on accusations, criticism, so on.

That is a serious charge without much evidence to back it up. Shouldnt have a section all to itself.

I suggest deleting or creating a section for accusations/criticism. I lean towards deleting.Paulthemonk (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. 31.200.155.102 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Relationship with the Putin Regime"

I've removed a section titled, "Relationship with the Putin Regime." Beyond the obviously POV title ("Putin Regime" vs. the more neutral "Russian government" or "Putin administration"), the section is based largely on one article in the Guardian. That article ([1]) misquotes Assange very seriously, completely changing the meaning of what he said to La Repubblica in the original interview ([2]). In the interview, Assange says that Wikileaks doesn't publish much on Russia because he lacks Russian staff, and because there are other outlets that already do a better job of publishing Russian leaks. The Guardian article twists this statement to say that Assange praised the open journalistic environment in Russia, something he does not do in the original interview. The Guardian's feud with Assange is well known, and we shouldn't rely on one particularly poor example of journalism in the Guardian to write an entire section in this article. It's both undue and POV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, the Guardian is not a reliable source in this case, as you can see from their blatant misquotation of Assange. And this section is undue, since it is based largely on one article. How many articles have been written on Assange in the last decade? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that Assange's quote, as it is summarized in this article, is completely turned on its head. Assange specifically praises organizations that leak Russian documents, and addresses the linguistic reasons why Wikileaks is not more active in Russia. This Wiki article changes that into its opposite, saying that Assange said there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia. This is a serious BLP violation, and I would appreciate it if Volunteer Marek would self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian is a perfectly reliable source. If you really wish to contest that please go to WP:RSN, but I can tell you right now, it's not gonna fly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Some judgment is required when editing Wikipedia. You can read the original interview, and see how blatantly the Guardian misquotes it. I'm surprised that including defamatory information, which we know to be false, about a living person doesn't bother you. This is a very serious BLP issue, and if you don't self-revert, I'm going to have to bring this to the BLP noticeboard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I've re-reverted. Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher though, so I don't doubt this will have to be taken to a drama board, somewhere Marek is very comfortable unfortunately. lNeverCry 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, with a comment like that you're not going to be taken seriously. Please read WP:NPA and then make a constructive comment addressing content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That comment will be taken seriously by anyone who really knows you. Wikipedia would be a better place with you banned. lNeverCry 06:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, it looks like you do some good work in other parts of Wikipedia so I really don't want to have to report you for these repeated personal attacks. How about you self-revert your revert and we call it even? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

With the word "Regime" in it? Can you really tell me that's not a loaded POV term? All based on one lone source. Your position here isn't anywhere near as strong as you're pretending it is. You have two users here who disagree with you and that disagreement is legitimate. You know it's legitimate. You're the one edit-warring to defame a BLP and push your anti-Russian agenda not me. lNeverCry 06:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Regime" is straight from the source: "Assange, who briefly hosted his own talkshow on the state-owned television network Russia Today, has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime". This is well sourced, so no, it's not a BLP violation or "defemation". And you really need to drop it with the obnoxious (and false) accusations and personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But I'm fine with changing the section title to "government".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Now RT's a "propaganda network". You're a shameless POV pusher - you know it and I know it. You've been one for years. You're definitely anti-Russian. BTW, The truth isn't a personal attack. lNeverCry 10:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The main focus of "Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview," The Guardian, December 24, 2016 is not Assange's "Relationship with the Putin regime," but rather Assange's belief that Trump "is not a DC insider" whereas "Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States." If we are going to use that article as a basis for an entire sub-section of Assange's biography, it should be for a section detailing Assange's views on both Trump and Clinton, with particular attention paid to his harsh (yet entirely accurate) criticism of Clinton: "'Hillary Clinton and the network around her imprisoned one of our alleged sources for 35 years, Chelsea Manning, tortured her according to the United Nations, in order to implicate me personally,' Assange claimed in the interview. He went on to accuse Clinton of being the 'chief proponent and architect' of the military intervention in Libya, which he claimed had created instability throughout the region and the refugee crisis in Europe." Anything else would misrepresent the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We can use the article for other stuff too. But keep in mind WP:PRIMARY - we should use the source as a secondary source, not as a primary source for Assange's opinions.

Also, please keep your personal opinions out of it (i.e. "yet entirely accurate").Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

this matter is getting very close to attracting a block or two for edit-warring. I'm not going to play out much rope on 3RR. Sort it out here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Putin regime" vs "Russian govt": see WP:SPECIALSTYLE. Assange interview in La Reppublica vs The Guardian's "summary" of that interview see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD(essay) on the issue of quoting . Furthermore, headlines are not terribly reliable--use the body. At first I trusted The Guardian's rendition (including headline), since Wikileaks and Assange have been vaguely courting some pretty deplorable "anti-imperialist" elements--Baathists, alt-rightists, Putin-lovers, even anti-semites--for some time. But when I read the actual interview in La Reppublica, I realized that the discussion was about something else, namely the alleged difficulty for wikileaks of getting inside non-English speaking political macrocosms like Russia and China. His point about Trump is that he provides an opening for opposition to the US govt, not that he is worthy of any praise. VM's one-sided coverage of Assange's "relationship" with Russia, based on that one Guardian article, is a borderline BLP-vio. This "relationship" (which remains very unclear) should be covered by referencing a variety of viewpoints, including Assange's own, or not covered at all. Unproblematically labelling opposition figures as foreign stooges is something people rightly condemn Russia for doing, though in fairness nobody at wikileaks has posed for pictures like this one
  Read more for context and analysis

  The Guardian's claim that Assange is viewing Russia through rose-tinted spectacles is presumably based on his quote about how some dissent is tolerated in Russia and how Wikileaks might have "competitors" there who are not interested in going through Wikileaks (ctrl+ F "Novaya Gazeta" in the LP interview), but Assange goes on to say that it's because these critics "don't  have a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow." This is true enough: Novaya Gazeta or Moscow Times can say whatever it wants about MH17, bombing Syrian hospitals, Panama Papers etc. While Navalny was hounded for opposing monstrous corruption, he still has a platform. None of this matters much when propaganda is blaring 24/7, no opposition parties exist, and everyone has gotten so completely used to the notion that the state is built around mega-theft that nobody really cares when crimes are exposed. Due to pervasive cynicism, you cannot have a genuine "scandal" caused by leaks in Russia. The existing state is shameless and can't be shamed. I mean this is a country where Stalin remains popular despite the fact that everyone knows he was a mass-murderer, more or "less". Or take a recent press conference where Putin allowed questions like this. He just BS'ed his way out of it because he knows only an infinitesimally small percentage of the population will be actually moved by the question or his answer to it.  As for "competitors": yes and no. People with access to sensitive information in Russia are not Bradley Manning types--they're cynical careerists who "leak" to throw their partners in crime under the bus, and they don't need wikileaks to do that. Concerned citizens who see some low-level corruption usually think about appealing the matter to the Russian press or to higher authorities, not to Wikileaks or western papers. Putin's propagandists will often pat them on the back for it. Opposition figures will often talk to the western press, but they don't have any leaks to speak of. Assange went on to call both China and Russia "authoritarian" societies. As for the stuff about Trump, the Assange actual statements are quite different, both in substance and in tone, from the Guardian headline. He's saying that Trump is less entrenched than Clinton: regardless of how awful/great he may be, his election means the apparat of the American state stands weakened, meaning that it will be easier for citizens to challenge it. Whatever you think about Assange's opinion, it constitutes "praise" (per Guardian headline) only if you're willing to interpret his comments in the most tendentious way possible. You know, when Ernst Thälmann said "after Hitler, our turn!" he was not "guardedly praising" Hitler. Readers may dismiss much of what I wrote here as OR, but I hope they'll absorb the message just the same: what Assange said to La Repubblica is not particularly deplorable, or off the mark.
  Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As you yourself pointout WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is an essay. WP:NOR is a policy. And actually WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD doesn't even support the removal here. The info is straight from a reliable secondary source, The Guardian. I've read the La Reppublica interview as well and I don't see a problem. Yes, Assange talks about other stuff in it. But arguing that "because Assange also talks about other stuff in the interview the Guardian references that makes the Guardian unreliable" is just silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is all well known, sourced and should stay on the page. How much should be written about it and what exactly is of course debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"How much should be written about it and what exactly is of course debatable". I think that's pretty reasonable, but the burden is on VM make an edit that meets basic standards of neutrality and factual rigour . In current form, his POV-section will just poison the well: if it stays, it will be an uphill battle to detoxify the BLP. That's why people have been reverting it on sight. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The text is perfectly neutral and factual - it's based on a reliable source and it represents that source accurately. You're substituting in "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT for "neutrality" - which is actually just the opposite of NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not well known or sourced. It has one source, which as I said above and as you can learn from reading the original interview, completely misconstrues what Assange actually said. This is a serious BLP violation, and amounts, in fact, to libel. I expect a self-revert from My very best wishes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What? Here are just a couple of additional refs [3], [4], among many. I agree this part could be rewritten and sourced to a larger number of RS, but it is actually something widely debated (even in Russian language sources) and certainly not a BLP violation as well sourced claim. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a goddamn BLP violation, it's sourced to the goddamn Guardian. Again, if you genuinely believe that the Guardian is not a reliable source go to WP:RSN and ask there about it. It's not gonna work. And you know it, which is why you're not actually going there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The text, as edit warred, misrepresents The Guardian column - e.g. Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there. v. In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there. (emphasis added). The Guardian also misrepresents the La Repubblica interview - cherrypicking from Assange's responses - and (regardless of how we might view the publisher generally) is not a reliable source in this context. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Guardian article for reference [5]. Now, to your point:

If you want to add "Wikileaks to undertake" to the text, that's fine. What we have currently is not "misrepresentation" but just plain ol' paraphrasing. But like I said, you can add that part in.

Second, I take it you're not claiming that this part "According to the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime."" is being misrepresented. So that should go back in.

Third, no, the Guardian is not "misrepresenting" the "La Repubblica" interview. It is summarizing it. Anyway, it's not your call, nor mine, to make. La Repubblica is a primary source here. The Guardian article is a reliable secondary source. We follow reliable secondary sources rather than conduct our own original research. You go down this road, then any reliably sourced material can be removed because someone or other feels that it "misrepresents" the underlying primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

One: It's misrepresentation, not paraphrase - in exactly the same way as "I do not need to provide you with water (because you already have some, and I don't have any to give you)" is not congruent to "You do not need water". Two: See WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The Guardian columnist's opinion - which should be attributed to the columnist, not the publication - is interesting, but not necessarily noteworthy; and not NPOV without wider and more varied commentary; and not BLP compliant without Assange's own statements on the matter, if any. Three: It's a clear misrepresentation - Assange, in the interview, references[6]: existing Russian critics as competitors to Wikileaks; absence of Russian language proficiency in Wikileaks staff; Wikileaks' publication of 800,000 documents pertaining to Russia or Putin; majority of Wikileaks information obtained form Western sources; (Russian and Chinese) cultural distances from English - to reduce that to he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there is perverse. The Guardian is not a reliable source for this particular information as a statement of fact; it is clearly, provably, false - there is no divine right of Grauniad which means that The Guardian is exempt from the normal examination of the verifiability of its content. By no policy do we blindly follow the sources. We rightly, and by policy, exclude information which does not pass examination - a decision which is made, like any other, by consensus (so the reductio ad absurdum is ... frankly ... absurd). You go down this road, and you might end up with a quality encyclopedia. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, it is a BLP violation, because it's incorrect, libelous material. This particular Guardian article is not reliable, because it blatantly misrepresents what Assange actually said in the La Repubblica interview. With BLPs, you have to be very careful with what you include, and simply pointing out that something was published by the Guardian does not eliminate the obvious BLP issues involved with misquoting someone and saying they have a connection to the "Putin Regime." If you insist on re-inserting this libel into the article again, I'll have to raise it at the appropriate noticeboards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For the nth freakin' time. If you think the Guardian is not reliable, go to WP:RSN. I mean, if you're so sure about it, go there, that's what that board is for. But you know, and I know, that the Guardian is in fact reliable and that's what RSN will tell you.

The idea that it's "incorrect, libelous material" is your own invention. It's pure original research. I can go to any article on Wikipedia, pick out some reliably sourced text which I JUST DONT LIKE and then claim that the reliable secondary source it is based on is "incorrect, libelous material" and then remove it. But that would violate Wikipedia policy on no original research. Just like what you're trying to do here does as well.

Go to WP:RSN or drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that there are five sentences in that paragraph that is being removed. But you're only contesting one. How does that work? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, please stop edit-warring and attempting to insert that paragraph. If you attempt to add it again, I will help others here in removing it. I have read both articles just now. The paragraph you are attempting to insert is a point-by-point restatement of what The Guardian's Ben Jacobs (a former Daily Beast reporter) wrote, whose article looks to me like a transparent attempt to spin Assange's Reppublica interview in a negative light. A journalist's editorial spin on a notable person's interview should never be emphasized above the words in the interview itself. There are also several other obviously POV-pushing parts in that paragraph which back up INeverCry's assertion that "Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher". To be precise, terming RT a "propaganda network" (it sometimes pushes an agenda, but all the other TV news networks have also been accused of that by one party or another) and repeating the Guardian's vague assertion that "journalists are killed frequently in Russia" (it has actually declined a lot, along with the overall crime rate decrease; see the graph here. Russian journalists have actually always had a much lower homicide rate than the general population, which is more than can be said of India, Mexico or Brazil; that quote is an example of counterfactual anti-Russian POV-pushing by the journalist, and it should not be quoted uncritically on Wikipedia). Esn (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. For the thousandth time no. Please read No Original Research. "Journalist spin" is exactly what we use in Wikipedia. No, we don't use primary sources such as interview. This is like Wikipedia 101. You can't just assert that a particular reliable source is "spin" and then proceed to remove it. Because it's not up to you to decide whether it's "spin" or not. And yes, RT is a propaganda network, and not a reliable source - that's been discussed to death a million times on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that newspaper editorials (or poorly-substantiated opinions of a writer, even if that writer writes for The Guardian) are not to be given the same weight as uncontroversial facts. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise. Our role as editors is to have brains, and not to blindly accept assertions if other reliable sources (or publicly available primary data) clearly demonstrate them to be false. Esn (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper editorial. This isn't an opinion piece. It's a straight up news story. Ok, where are these "other reliable sources" that contradict the Guardian article? Please present them. Your own inventions based on the primary source don't cut it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Esn that we shouldn't turn off our critical thinking functions here. We shouldn't overlook the obvious misquotation of Assange in a particular Guardian article, simply because it's the Guardian. Especially with a BLP, some caution is in order. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "critical thinking". This is "original research" being used as a pretext for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me not liking it. I would be perfectly fine with including information that Assange had a short-lived show on RT at one point, and that RT is a Russian state-funded news channel, because that's true (the 1st of those is already explicitly mentioned in the article, though not the 2nd). I am also absolutely fine with including the accusations of notable political figures that Assange is a Russian agent, which the article also includes already. I am not fine with using the editorializing of some journalist at The Guardian to use as a source allowing the Wikipedia article to "neutrally" claim that Assange is a Russian agent (yes, it's not officially labeled an editorial, but the editorializing is nevertheless there; I've pointed out how, as have others). I am fine with including whatever evidence is claimed for that (particularly if it has been repeatedly claimed from different places), as long as it is presented in a neutral fashion and does not conflict with what other reliable sources say. Esn (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The text under discussion does not say "Assange is a Russian agent" so what does that have to do with anything? See strawmen.

And it's not an editorial, you're just trying to pretend it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Guardian is RS; so are thousands of other sources of varying quality. That does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the form of an whole paragraph. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that we've moved away from the "The Guardian is not a reliable source!" argument and onto the "it's undue!" argument. The info is perfectly on topic and pertinent to the article. It's informative. It's encyclopedic. It should not be removed according to some persons' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And yes, for all parts of that paragraph except maybe the "freedom of press in Russia is just fine" part, there is "a thousand other sources" which say the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, how about this - it seems the major objection is to that one sentence where Assange praises press freedom in Russia (or however you want to describe his word). But that's just one sentence out of like five. Can we at least agree that the other sentences in that paragraph are fine? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that "part" takes up most of your POV-section. In Pravda-like fashion, the Guardian starts by calling Assange a Trump-praising Putin stooge, without giving adequate support, nevermind nuance. Therese are WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, especially for a BLP. The Guardian backs this up with the fact that Assange had a show on RT (like Ed Schultz, Larry King etc.) and a misleading rendition of Assange's interview, which barely supports its boilerplate about "praising Trump" or the Russian media. That's it. You can't make an entire section out of this. It's not only UNDUE; it's also just a transparently crappy edit.Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it actually doesn't. Here is the text under discussion (with citations removed for reliability):

"According to the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime."[1] He briefly hosted a talk show on the Russian state propaganda network Russia Today.[1] U.S. intelligence agencies also say that the e-mails damaging to the DNC and the Clinton 2016 campaign leaked by Wikileaks were hacked by the Russia and given to Wikileaks.[1] Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there.[1] The Guardian, however, notes that journalists are killed frequently in Russia, and notes that Freedom House has ranked Russian press freedom as "not free... The main national news agenda is firmly controlled by the Kremlin. The government sets editorial policy at state-owned television stations, which dominate the media landscape and generate propagandistic content."[1]"

The bold part is the one people are making specific objections to (because, according to their original research, it doesn't match verbatim what Assange said in the interview). It is one sentence out of six. So it does not "takes up most of your POV-section" (sic).

What about the other parts? There's absolutely nothing controversial about them. For the first sentence see sources below. For the second, is anyone disputing that Assange was on RT? Likewise third sentence is noncontroversial, US intelligence agencies do say that. Fourth sentence is the one we're talking about. The fifth sentence is the Guardian and is properly attributed. The sixth one is also non-controversial.

So what is essentially an inane objection (because in the original he said "Wikileaks doesn't" and that's not included) to one part of one sentence is being used as an excuse to remove the whole thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The final two sentences are a clear attempt to discredit Assange through juxtaposition (much like director Sergei Eisenstein used to juxtapose two scenes, for example, a capitalist and a slimy worm, to make the point that the capitalist is a slimy worm). It is an example of editorializing while pretending that one is not editorializing. I've pointed out in a previous post why those two sentences are seriously factually misleading and should not be included. The "state propaganda network" phrasing should also be changed to "state-funded news network". RT (TV network) does not say "state propaganda network" in its lede, and we should not use that phrasing here either. Esn (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The final two sentences are straight from the source. And it's not "juxtaposition" and it's nothing like Sergei Eisenstein's movies. What it is is the source saying "Assange said this, but in fact this is true". It's fact checking Assange (and it's not like The Guardian is unique in stating that the freedom of the press is ... severely limited, to put it nicely, in Putin's Russia - not exactly controversial).

And the lede of RT does indeed say it's a propaganda network.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No it does not. It says it has been called a propaganda network. Just as Assange has been accused of being a Russian agent. The so-called "fact checking" sentence includes an assertion ("journalists are killed frequently in Russia") which is based on false evidence, as I have already pointed out in a previous comment. Freedom House's rating of Russia has been subject to criticism from multiple sources, as noted in its own Wikipedia article. Russians themselves think their country has become more free in the past 20 years according to the independent polling agency Levada Center: [7] [8] ("do you feel like a free person"). This counter-evidence should also be included to provide a balanced perspective, if you insist on including those paragraphs. Personally, I think that would take up too much space. Esn (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've brought this issue to the attention of the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian_Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• This comment about "loyalty" is priceless Questioning the loyalty of dissidents and journalists, without ovewhelming national security reasons (like invasion), is the true mark of totalitarian thinking. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the more charitable interpretation was that he questioned what or who Assange is really loyal to (e.g. to his ideals or to a foreign government), rather than questioning whether he was sufficiently loyal to the American government (or whoever)... I'm giving the benefit of the doubt because the edit led us on the path to a possible solution. Esn (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm hurt that my 'loyalty' comment was not favored, but Esn's charitable interpretation is the one I sought. The relevant issue is where Assange's loyalties lie, if anywhere; do they lie to people, to a government, etc. etc. Assange doesn't owe anyone any loyalty to my opinion, but if he is loyal to someone it is quite relevant when he operates as a government watchdog.

Also, to continue the trend, I'm completely with Esn here. I'll throw my few grams of weight behind him on the "include it but remove editorializing" side of things. Trumpetbum8794 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing personal. The comment was about about "loyalty" tests in general, and throughout history. If you wish to avoid all of that baggage, it's probably best to use different language. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence to support Ben Jacobs's extraordinary claim that Assange "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime"; all Jacobs can cite are "eight interviews (by Assange) that were broadcast on RT (in 2012)." This is a WP:BLP violation and a classic example of fake news and citogenesis, and should be removed immediately. As Glenn Greenwald notes: "The absolute last person anyone should trust to accurately and fairly report on WikiLeaks is Ben Jacobs, unless the goal is to publish fabrications that will predictably generate massive traffic for The Guardian. (Recall, for example, Jacobs's belittling Manning's confinement and torture: "And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song.") Jacobs's lies about the la Repubblica interview—taking Assange's commonplace reference to "opportunities for change in the United States" created by Trump's election and turning it into "praise for Trump" (who Assange actually describes as "part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities"), twisting Assange's praise for Russian dissidents into a deranged suggestion "that Russia is too free and transparent to need whistleblowing"—have gone viral, but the objections of la Repubblica's interviewer—Stefania Maurizi—have been mostly ignored: "I am completely furious with how my interview with Julian Assange has been distorted"; "this is completely false: Julian Assange never ever declared that in my interview." While I think WP:TNT would be a more appropriate response, if those eight interviews with RT have to be covered under a section dedicated to Assange's imaginary "Relationship with Russia," we should include some reviews from the time: "Practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn't put out ... Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed."—Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times, April 17, 2012; "Assange's questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad. ... The media attacks on Assange's show reflect far more about the critics than about him: they assumed that he would slavishly serve the agenda of his benefactors because that’s what American establishment journalists largely do. It’s pure projection."—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 18, 2012.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Guardian retraction: "This article was amended on 29 December to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange 'has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime'. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said 'there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there'. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia's 'many vibrant publications'." Maybe this will cause the other side to engage in some serious self-reflection, but I'm not holding my breath.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• I see Thucydides411 beat me to it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it may a good idea to recreate the section and put all of this in. It remains notable. Otherwise this shit-throwing will go on forever, because people like Ben Jacobs will never run out of it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

More sources on Putin and Assange

• [9] "Julian Assange has kind words for Donald Trump, says Russia has “vibrant” criticism of Vladimir Putin’s government"
• [10] "A few months ago, such an accusation seemed like “an entirely unfounded conspiracy,” Navalny said. “But now, given how apparently synchronized Wikileaks is with the false propaganda of Russian media like RT and Sputnik, there are reasons to assume that such cooperation is likely.”" (this one would have to be attributed)
• [11] "Julian Assange is a Russian Front-Man, not a Freedom Fighter"
• [12] "Notably absent from Mr. Assange’s analysis, however, was criticism of another world power, Russia, or its president, Vladimir V. Putin, who has hardly lived up to WikiLeaks’ ideal of transparency. Mr. Putin’s government has cracked down hard on dissent — spying on, jailing, and, critics charge, sometimes assassinating opponents while consolidating control over the news media and internet. If Mr. Assange appreciated the irony of the moment — denouncing censorship in an interview on Russia Today, the Kremlin-controlled English-language propaganda channel — it was not readily apparent."
• [13] "documents that independent analysts as well as the US government say were most likely hacked by, or on behalf of, Vladimir Putin’s Russia" and "Others suspect the heart of the matter is the Russian connection: Assange, like Trump, seems strikingly comfortable with Putin. A former host of a talk show on Putin’s propaganda channel, Russia Today, Assange once requested his own private security detail within the Ecuadorian embassy, nominating Russians for the task."
• [14] "Within weeks, contacts commenced between WikiLeaks and elements favorable to Putin’s ruling party. The promised damning documents about Russia never saw the light of day. The Moscow Times article also recounted how the Russian Reporter, a Putin-friendly publication, had gained “privileged access” to “hundreds of [American diplomatic] cables containing Russia-related information.”"

Etc. etc. etc. So it's pretty disingenuous to say that this material is "UNDUE" (at least we've moved past the "The Guardian is not a reliable source" nonsense. I think)Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the authors. By my count, four of six links you posted are op-eds (the Salon, Federalist, NY Books and New Republic pieces). One of the remaining articles (in the Independent) quotes Navalny as suggesting Assange might have a link to the Russian government (rather than saying so in the voice of the newspaper). So you have one news article on that list that makes these insinuations. Given a public figure as notable as Assange, that's undue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite right. It's correct with respect to the opinions in opinion pieces. But reputable publications which are generally RS on a subject do not print opinion pieces that include misstatements of fact. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reputable publications certainly include misstatements of fact, as a matter of course, in their opinion pages. And in even less reputable sources, like Salon, the Federalist or New Republic, I would expect the op-ed sections to contain many misstatements of fact. Just open up the Federalist piece Marek wants to cite:

"No patriotic American should be celebrating the career of Julian Assange. His dissemination of others’ secrets has nothing to do with democracy and transparency, and everything to do with the sordid underworld of international espionage." (article)

Does that sound to you like a reliable source that would never misstate a fact in its op-ed pages? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some of these are opinion pieces. Others aren't. The Guardian isn't. The New York Times isn't. The Independent isn't. The New York Review of Books isn't either (it's an indepth analysis, which is investigative reporting not opinion piece). The New Republic is a perfectly fine source. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The NY Review of Books piece is an opinion piece, written by a columnist who regularly writes opinion pieces for that publication. The New Republic article is also an op-ed, as even the title makes obvious: "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" You posted four opinion pieces, one piece that attributes the assertion to Navalny, and the NY Times piece. Even the Guardian article is not clearly a news article - it's in their "Media" section. So you're trying to build an entire subsection here out of a Guardian article that we know misrepresents Assange's position, and a single NY Times article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No, actually all these sources can and should be used here with appropriate attribution per WP:RS [15] if we do not claim anything as a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: This is much better. I took a cursory read of all the pieces and, while there is some clear trash in VM's list, some of it certainly can be used to start a section: The NYT, New Republic, NYRB, and Navalny (who is continuing the disgusting tradition of Russian dissidents smearing foreign dissidents, but he's notable, so whatever). Wasn't so hard was it? Please revise the section by including the what you consider to be the key facts of the "relationship", and include the substantive commentary. Others can then balance it out by adding other sources and perspectives, where applicable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Clipped section that needs work

@Volunteer Marek, Esn, and Ryk72: Best to start fresh. Clipped here for reference.

Relationship with Russia

According to Ben Jacobs of the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime." He briefly hosted a talk show on the Russian state news network Russia Today. U.S. intelligence agencies claim the e-mails damaging to the DNC and the Clinton 2016 campaign leaked by Wikileaks were provided by the Russian government, which Assange has denied. When asked in a December 2016 interview why Wikileaks does not focus more on Russia, Assange replied that there are already "competitors to WikiLeaks" in Russia which include "many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexei] Navalny", and that "no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player". He further claimed that Wikileaks had published "more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin". Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions? You mentioned "POV-sloppiness problems" in the edit summary; elaborate? On my end, I think the first sentence should be something like "Some critics have accused Assange of having a close relationship with the Russian government", sourced to the Guardian article as well as several others that VM linked to above. It looks weird to have the accusation just come from one writer. Esn (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't share VM's pov so I can't make his argument for him. The point is that he has to make a vastly better case, and he has the sources to do so. You edit was basically fine, except for the opening sentence which insinuated that Assange said that Wikileaks has no business in Russia because it's already a free society. Actually, that's Guardian's out of context smear. What was actually said was this (there is some stuff before and after too, but you still have to take this bit into account): Q: These abuses have had a heavy impact in an open and democratic society like the United States and produced 'dissidents' like Chelsea Manning willing to expose them. Why aren't human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries? A: "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow." A very plausible interpretation is that Assange is here defending Russian civil society against the charge of cynicism and inertia. We don't have to interpret however, we can just quote (what exactly, we can discuss). But VM needs to write a minimally encyclopedic section first, so we know to work with. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"which insinuated that[...]" I don't think that's what it insinuated, but in any case I agree that it was bad phrasing and I was about to fix it when it was done for me. Do you have any problems with the latest version, rather than the initial one which was fixed? I don't know if it's worth it to wait for VM to do all the work. It may be more work to fight with him over the details of whatever he comes up with than to just write something that most people are "okay" with (otherwise known as "consensus"). Esn (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Only the NY Times and Independent articles that VM cited above would merit inclusion, as non-opinion pieces. I don't think, however, that these accusations are notable enough to merit an entire subsection. They're best included in the section on the 2016 US Presidential campaign. Obviously, the POV language and the unrelated commentary about the Russian media landscape will have to be removed before then. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In theory, I have no objection to having a section about the accusations and Assange's response to them. If I remember, the accusations first started before the 2016 election, either since the Snowden affair or somewhat earlier. Would be good to find more sources from before 2016. There may be some usable ones here. It seems that in 2010, relations between Russia and Wikileaks were not especially friendly. Esn (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Guccisamsclub that we have to take the original interview into account. It's clear that the Guardian piece misrepresents Assange's statement very seriously, and as written right now, the summary in the subsection we're debating turns Assange's statement on its head (from praise for Russian dissidents to a statement that Russia doesn't need any leakers). Including statements that we know to be false would be bad form, to say the least. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"a statement that Russia doesn't need any leakers" I don't see how the current text under debate can be interpreted that way. Elaborate? I interpret it as neither one of the two, but something like "others already do it better than us, though we have actually done something". Esn (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

People can interpret things differently, but that was the way I saw it. BTW anyone if anyone has a position on this edit by My best wishes, feel to speak up. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Esn. I was referring to the earlier version of the article, which stated,

"Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and 'vibrant' media environment he claims exists there."

That earlier version inverted Assange's point, I think, because it claims he was dismissing the need for whistleblowing in Russia, when he's clearly praising opposition outlets and talking about linguistic difficulties Wikileaks faces in the country.

I think the text we have now is somewhat better, but it does not deserve its own section. It belongs in the section on the American election, which is what these accusations of collusion with Russia most closely relate to. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit should include where Assange says the Podesta and DNC emails came from: A disgruntled DNC worker. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Craig Murray claims this—not Assange. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

About trifles

Like most post-election discussions, this Talk section seems to have deteriorated into rehashing trifles. Is there any up-to-date information on Assange? What about his internet connection? What was the result of his interview with the Swedish legal system? Is Assange going to be impacted by Obama's National Defense Authorization Act? Is he even still alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Santamoly (talk • contribs)

Hi User:Santamoly

• Swedish interview happened on 14th November, no comment was the condition as far as I can see, no statement yet from Sweden. Possibly they are still considering to charge or to drop the charges. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/swedish-chief-prosecutor-arrives-at-ecuadorian-embassy-in-london/ Govindaharihari (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Rumours of his demise or death appear to have been premature, he met with Craig Murry end of November http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-26/cia-taking-over-wikileaks-false-assange-emerges-gives-interview-after-dinner-varoufa Govindaharihari (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not seeing anything in the National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2016 that would change anything in relation to Assange. America has no legal rights against him in Sweden or the Uk apart from to request his extradition which they have not done Govindaharihari (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• As for his wifi, after disconnection of his cable http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/18/13325250/ecuador-wikileaks-julian-assange-internet-cut I read he is on 4g when signal permits. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Guardian Retracts Claims about Relationship with Russia

In an interesting turn of events, the Guardian has retracted the two claims that were so contentious on this talk page: namely that Assange has a relationship with the "Russian regime" and the paraphrased quotation that suggested Assange thought whistleblowing was not necessary in Russia. Here is the Guardian's statement:

This article was amended on 29 December to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange “has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime”. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said “there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there”. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia’s “many vibrant publications”.

Given that the Guardian article no longer makes the claim about a relationship between Assange and the Russian government, and that it is the main source for that assertion, I'm removing the section on "Relationship with Russia." -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See also this analysis piece in The Intercept, "The Guardian's Summary of Julian Assange's Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False".[16] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the retraction I have no problem with the removal. Like I said before - we follow reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(But don't make me read Greenwald, I can't stand it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Too bad. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, yes, there is a degree of editorial control though, there is no divine right here as I understand it to add whatever you can find to an article just because it is a so called reliable source, as it has turned out, this reliable source was not reliable and although I don't know why, the guardian UK has some kind of beef personally with Assange. It is good to remember, there is no rush to report such minutia of opinions and claims, the major points indeed absolutely require reporting in due time but involved opinions and reported comments require a lot more consideration than their simply being in a WP:RS. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatantly false attributions

In the current article, there is a paragraph in which the following sentence is included:

However, Assange has publicly denounced Clinton on multiple occasions, even stating that he will release information that will have Clinton arrested in an interview with ITV.

That is blatantly false. The interview provided is only 3 and a half minutes long and Assange imagines a scenario that could lead to an indictment because of the gravity of the content in the emails Wikileaks has leaked but states himself that it is a highly unlikely scenario due to the fact that Loretta Lynch is the head of the DOJ.

This is patently and absurdly false and requires just a moment of verification. Why is this still up?

Thanks for pointing that out. The sentence you reference was only sourced using a video of an interview. That's not firm sourcing (we need a written article), so I went ahead and removed the sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

[W]e need a written article... Baloney. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published: The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but some random Wikipedia user's editorializing, based on a video with no written transcript, can't be included here. If you can find a written source that supports the sentence in question, then that's acceptable. But as it is, it's terribly sourced, not to mention written in highly POV language. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange has never disclosed how much he or Wikileaks were paid for his tv-show

Two editors have deleted the sentence "Assange has never disclosed how much he or Wikileaks were paid for his tv-show" which is sourced to the New York Times[17]. This is noteworthy both because of Assange's alleged connections to Russia and because he and his organization are supposedly dedicated to transparency of this exact kind (the relationships between powerful organizations and powerful state actors). If the New York Times feels that it is worthwhile to mention that Assange has never disclosed how much the Russian government paid him for his services, then this page should too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No one discloses what they get paid for tv shows - I will delete it if you add it again also - It is a no fact, unworthy of reporting. Also your edits that RT is a whatever you called it diff that you and User:Calton have been edit warring into the article were sadly biased as well. Why don't you go improve some article you don't have a strong bias about, one that you have a WP:NPOV position regarding? Govindaharihari (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Try to argue the substance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the incessant attempts to introduce POV language here. The things you're trying to include don't add any substance to the article. Don't try to add them in without consensus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing POV about my language. The things I have included add plenty of substance to the article. Try to argue these things on substance and by pointing to Wiki policy. Don't just scream bias when reliably sourced and notable content is included that happens to reflect critically on Assange. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RT's funding isn't relevant to Assange at all. This BLP isn't a coatrack for every critical comment or insinuation you want to make about the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times considered it relevant. Why isn't it relevant that a transparency activist who has been widely accused of working on behalf of Russia, criticized others for revealing things about Russia, and not leaked anything of note on Russia since having his show on RT has never disclosed how much he or his organization received in payment from Russia when the organization was struggling to fund itself? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times published an opinion ("news analysis") piece that insinuated Assange was in league with Russia. We had an incident here not long ago where the Guardian, which like the New York Times, has a public feud with Assange also published a very poorly written piece, that the Guardian eventually had to retract. The lesson from that spat should have been that when it comes to BLP's, we should be just a bit careful about including innuendo on the basis of one article, especially if it's published by an organization that's in a highly public feud with the living person in question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think the New York Times is a reliable source, take your complaint to the appropriate forum on Wikipedia. If Assange has in fact disclosed how much he or Wikileaks got paid by Russia for their tv-show, please point it out so that we can add it to the article. As it stands, you alone are determining that NY Times is unacceptable, you alone are determining without any basis that the information in question must be incorrect. That's not good enough and not at all consistent with Wiki policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a BLP policy for good reason. The fact that one source writes innuendo about a living person doesn't mean that that innuendo should automatically be inserted into the BLP. After the Guardian mishap, where editors insisted on including an obvious distortion of Assange's interview with La Repubblica, simply because one Guardian article included that distortion, I'd think editors here would be a bit more careful about how they treat a BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RS guide our actions here. You don't get to veto any content that you disagree with on the flimsy basis that one RS once retracted a story and therefore the RS policy out the window when it comes to Assange. Like I said before, either take the 'reliable source' status of the NYT to the relevant forum on Wikipedia or show that the information in the NYT story is incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Policies & guidelines guide our actions here. In this case, it's not about reliability, it's about whether this inclusion conforms to NPOV & BLP. I am convinced that it does not. As a factoid, it appears included (both here and in the NYT) only to cast aspersions on the article subject. We do not do that. Editors may be interested to note WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) - we do, by consensus, get to decide to exclude verifiable information; and WP:IMPARTIAL, we must, by policy, reflect a neutral tone, even (especially?) where sources do not. Finally, I note the equivocation between NYT's reliability for fact and a purported burden for us to include the opinions of its staff - and reject such outright - they are not equivalent, and one does not imply the other. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that an RS says something doesn't mean that it automatically should be included in the article. That was the biggest problem with the argument over the Guardian article before. It was clear to several editors who actually went and read the interview in La Repubblica that the Guardian had terribly distorted the interview. But rather than use some common sense and decide not to include an obviously problematic statement by a normally reliable source, several editors insisted on including what the Guardian wrote. Their argument, in essence, was that publication in an RS automatically requires inclusion in the article, and that editors can never use their own brains when evaluating an RS.

In this case, we have one article in the New York Times, which has a very public feud with Assange, which insinuates that he's a fellow traveler of Russia, in the best McCarthyite tradition. We should use a bit of caution and not automatically include this innuendo, just because the NY Times decided to let it through. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor deletes mention that RT is funded by the Russian government

Countless reliable sources find it noteworthy that Assange had a TV-show on a network funded by the Russian government, never mind a network that's widely described by reputable sources as a state propaganda network. I'm curious what the editor's justification for the removal is.[18] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The current text with "funded by" is fine. I'm glad we dropped the obligatory stutter about how it's a Russian "propaganda network." Unless Assange's show was itself "Russian propaganda", the fact that RT serves a propaganda role is irrelevant: RT is not the subject of the article. You might as well have said that "Assange had a show on RT ... which is "the propaganda network of the "Putin regime, which has been guilty of invading Ukraine and bombing Syrian hospitals." Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point of writing "funded by the Russian government." How is that relevant to Assange, exactly? There's an article about RT that users can click through to if they're interested, but how it's funded is pretty tangential to Assange. This is just part of a pattern of editors coming in to use the article as a coatrack for every insinuation that anyone ever mentions - in this case, the "Assange is a Russian agent or fellow traveller" conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't hide salient information just because people may draw conclusions that reflect poorly on the individual. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We also don't automatically include any innuendo that a particular newspaper might decide to publish. We exercise some judgment with what we include. The fact that Assange hasn't disclosed how much he made from his interview program on RT, or that RT is funded by the Russian government, isn't very relevant to this article. Most people don't publicly disclose how much they make from media deals, or their income for that matter. You're advocating including sentences that add no new information about Assange, but simply repeat an innuendo made by one article in a newspaper that has a public spat with Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he didn't publicly disclose how much he got paid is borderline. The fact that RT is funded by the Russian government is quite relevant and most sources that cover it bring it up in one form or another.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors delete any mention that Assange promoted and popularized conspiracy theories about Clinton and the Democratic Party

The content in question relies on multiple reliable sources. I'm curious how the editors who removed this content[19] justify the mass removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the editors claims that these are "opinion pieces", which illustrates that the editor in question has no clue whatsoever what he/she is talking about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not even remotely neutral, and it's undue. You literally wrote that Assange "repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about [Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party]." At best, this is your own synthesis from a number of opinion pieces and Snopes articles, some of which don't even mention Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It can be rephrased as "Assange and Wikileaks repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about [Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party]." That is to say, if you're actually interested in improving the text, as opposed to whitewashing the page. It's not synthesis if it's a description of the content that follows: a multitude of falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Clinton and the Democratic Party. If your problem is with "repeatedly", we can write "Assange and Wikileaks promoted and popularized a multitude of conspiracy theories and falsehoods..." The sources are also many and reliable. Given your dismissal of the NY Times as a reliable source, discussing this with you seems pointless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if it's a description of the content that follows. Nonsense. If no source makes the conclusion, then it's SYNTH; which I encourage all editors to review before commenting further. I also note that the removed section conflates Assange & Wikileaks. They are not the same. This article is about Assange. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Bloomberg[20]: "Since posting that scoop, which led to the resignation of party chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Assange has seemed to align himself closely with the Donald Trump campaign, routinely promoting anti-Clinton memes and conspiracy theories and teasing further anti-Clinton leaks." I take it that you're now fine with re-inserting both the language and the content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I take it that you're now fine with ... Don't do that. Ask. Chafkin & Silver's conclusions in Bloomberg need in-text attribution, at least; to meet NPOV; and probably a second or further source for DUE. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Wikileaks' actions during the 2016 presidential race has no bearing on Assange is ludicrous. Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange, who is the founder, editor-in-chief and director of the organization, and who has made a large number of media appearances representing the organization during the campaign, and who has earned a great deal of attention in the 2016 race due to Wikileaks' actions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Wikileaks' actions during the 2016 presidential race has no bearing on Assange is ludicrous. Thankfully, that's not a claim that I see anyone here making. Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange. That's a fairly strong claim. who has made a large number of media appearances representing the organization during the campaign, and who has earned a great deal of attention in the 2016 race due to Wikileaks' actions. Then we should have, and use, sources which discuss Assange, not use those which discuss only Wikileaks. The place to use those is over there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

""repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about ...". Yes, that is what he did according to publications. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

... and those publications should be attributed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What exactly claim do you think was insufficiently attributed here and should be corrected or attributed better? My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering only the lead section for now (and putting aside WP:BURDEN) - Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016. - no source. During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them. - the bold phrase, if not the whole, is a strong and contentious claim which warrants in-text attribution; the sources also need to be reviewed to ensure that they directly verify these claims. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the content in the body and again noting that the WP:BURDEN falls elsewhere ...

Analysis of content & sources inside

I again note that this is largely information not about Assange, but about Wikileaks, which, if verifiable, belongs in the latter article. During the presidential election, Wikileaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, - this conclusion is unsourced, and even if sourced, is contentious and should be attributed. NOTE: More neutrally worded content documenting Assange's commentary during the election may be more easily sourceable & supportable. such as tweeting an article which suggested Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals, which was later revealed to be false, - this is sourced to Vox, which does mention Assange, but makes no mention of "satanic" (or variations thereof), does not make the claim in our article, and should be attributed; Snopes, which does not mention Assange, does mention Wikileaks, but does not make the claim in our article, and should be attributed; and Washington Post opinion which does not mention Assange, does mention Wikileaks, does not mention "satanic" and does not make the claim in our article, and should be attributed for anything which it does actually verify; the url which was linked in a Wikileaks tweet also does not mention "satanic", so the statement in our article is verifiably misrepresentative. implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed - sourced to NBC News which includes Assange ... implied Rich was the source of the email and was killed for working with his group and ... Assange said in the interview, before bringing up, unpromoted, that Rich was killed "for unknown reasons.", this is not congruent to Assange implying that the Democratic Party was responsible, and we should not make that equivocation; the claims which are made in the source should be attributed. NOTE: That this is actually Assange, not Wikileaks; the conflation of the two appears to be bidirectional. stating that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange - sourced to Snopes, the tweet in question is not a simple statement, but a link to a True Pundit article, which makes the claim; the statement should be attributed to that site, as is done in the Snopes source; Snopes covers Clinton's response when questioned on the rumour, which should also be included.

more to follow in subsequent edits - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• the desired edit - −

Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016. During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them - is laughable. Assange was globally recognized prior to the USA election and a claim as if fact that he "repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about Clinton and the democrats is trash. What are the conspiracy theories and falsehoods he repeatedly promoted? Usually I don't bother getting involved but this addition is so disgusting I have bothersome to remove it, I imagine the usual suspects will be around soon to stuff it back in, that won't make it ok or of benefit to a neutral reader. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

An earlier version of the lede said that "Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails ". I was content with keeping that particular language, but I wouldn't mind changing the wording. As for the second complaint: you just removed multiple sources and examples of the conspiracy theories and falsehoods that Assange and Wikileaks promoted. Why are you removing content which you haven't read and then coming to the talk page asking people to show you the exact content which you deleted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Assange was globally recognized before any of this crap. I've seen the content - been reading the links, sorry but its rubbish and has no place is a wikipedia biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why there are those words "even more" in there. And come on, that isn't even the part you actually have a problem with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It is part of what our policies have a problem with - in that it is unsourced - WP:V does not require that each editor agree with a challenge, or find such challenge valid; merely that any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. More cynical minds than mine may perceive the inclusion of this sentence to be a hook on which to hang the coatrack; that without the reference to notability, the subsequent information is undue for inclusion the lead. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was wildly undue for the lead, in addition to being synth. Most of those are about Wikileaks on twitter—where everyone else writes only the most measured and accurate things, as we all know—not Assange per se. All we have is: (a) Assange insinuating that the death of a DNC staffer was vaguely suspicious, without evidence, and then vaguely backtracking; (b) saying that Podesta's password was "p@ssword", without clarifying that it was not his gmail password but rather his Windows password at work. Assange brought this up in the context of his larger point about lax security at the DNC—here's just one example. The second isn't even a "falsehood", nevermind a conspiracy theory, so we are just left the first. Groundless suspicion followed by backtracking arguably don't constitute promotion of a "conspiracy theory". And one is not "numerous": can you name one public figure that has not made spurious claims, at least once? Finally, while I know the American and British media can be pretty hysterical about Assange, I have to ask if there are are any news sources that explicitly adopt this kind of language. I'd like to see several verbatim quotes: insinuating that someone is a liar and conspiracy-monger a la Alex Jones in the f&^*^ng LEAD is a serious charge, and this is still a BLP, no matter how many want to see him dead or locked up. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not piece of original research. Reliable sources say otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No VM, reading is not original research. It's usually good form to see what the sources actually say before forwarding them on wikipedia, facebook. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Guccisamsclub. Since when did Wikipedia become a forum where blatantly biased accusations were acceptable? WikiLeaks releases wholesale information which is left to interpretation. The sources included either do not deal with Julian Assange directly or is grossly taken out of context. This is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia, not a tabloid.VasOling(talk) 04:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which reliable source directly supports, as fact, During the presidential election, Wikileaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton?; which directly supports tweeting an article which suggested Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals?; which directly supports implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed? Near enough is not good enough here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This one. And this one. Oh and this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Those sources do not contain any content which directly support those statements. The one which comes closest is the Slate article, which is a blog, and reliable for attributed opinion only. It says, Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton (note how hedged the language is) and The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month’s WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails. (note how non-specific that is) - neither of these are implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed (though the first, absent the hedging, might seem close), and the source is not reliable for this as a statement of fact. I also note that neither the NY Daily News nor the Slate sources were used as references in the edit warred content. Information needs to be verified by the sources used as references, not by things that happen to exist somewhere in the ether. I challenge any editor who maintains that the sources used in the article do support the information included in the article to quote the sections which they believe do provide direct support; or, if they have alternate sources, to provide those, including quotes, here for discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, I agree with Ryk that "Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange.". Therefore, I think the controversy was so notable that removing everything is not an option. If anyone wants to change something, that's fine. In that case, please post your changed version here and wait for response. Otherwise, please post an RfC, but I am not sure what exactly that RfC would be about. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ryk that "Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange.". My very best wishes, please re-examine my statement. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with My very best wishes that an exclusion of this topic from Wikipedia entirely is not an option, and that some mention in this article is likely warranted. I do, however, consider that the current inclusion is sufficiently troubled as to require WP:TNT - OR/SYNTH issues, inclusions of information not directly supported by the sources, NPOV issues w.r.t. tone & attribution are, for mine, not likely to be addressed through carefully curating the content. I believe that we should restart from the sources, and cleave strongly to them. And I believe that policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP) requires removal while we discuss & agree the best approach towards inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some discussion of the 2016 Presidential campaign is warranted in this article. However, I think we have to keep two things in mind:

1. We need to avoid recentism. Assange has been a public figure for several years, and Wikileaks has had several high-impact document releases. The 2016 Presidential campaign documents shouldn't take up more space than warranted in the article.
2. Our coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign should be representative, rather than focusing solely on the criticisms and "conspiracy theory" accusations that have been discussed in the above talk.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per BLPDELETE. The cited sources do not support the thesis that Assange is a serial liar and a conspiracist, that's if one actually bothers to read them carefully before forwarding. Furthermore, no sane editor can operate under the assumption that Assange's incidental suspicions about Seth Rich are as important as everything else he did in 2016. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

the word organisation in the first sentence is misspelled it should be organization. 73.169.140.17 (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This article is written in Australian English, which uses the spelling "organisation". Gulumeemee (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)