Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.170.47.67 (talk) at 13:11, 12 February 2020 (→melzer interview about assange on german television ZDF). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Friendly search suggestions Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

Edit-warring changes into the article

The single-purpose account Rebecca Jones is edit-warring the following changes into the article:

  • An Australian politician is being cited as if he's an expert on the law.[1] The Australian politician is not an expert on the issue, so portraying him as one is bonkers. Besides the wording, this individual politician's views are UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One UN guy's opinion that Assange's "life is at risk" in the lede.[2] This guy's shtick is to say that everything that Assange is undergoing at all times is an outrageous human rights violation (regardless of whether it's by the Swedish, British or US authorities) does not belong in the lede. It's absurd to add this guy's opinion to the lede. The fact that two whole paragraphs are dedicated to this guy's opinion in the body is also UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca jones has been repeatedly asked not to edit-war or describe other people's edits as "vandalism". Overall, I think there are too many quotations from too many people. Some editors seem to be accumulating quotes as part of a campaign to win Assange's freedom. Also, there are a lot of "fantasy legal arguments". We should concentrate on legal arguments that are actually used in court, particularly those which are successful. If we want legal opinions, we should get them from recognised legal experts. With regard to George Christensen, I think we could note that he was just one of several Australian politicians who support Assange. With regard to Nils Melzer, it it seems valid to include his comment in the lead, but I agree the two paragraphs are excessive. Calling him a "UN guy" is a bit dismissive.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans please explain this [3] removal of cited content. Jack, baring a clear explanation and evidence that WP:PRESERVE was followed, it might indeed be vandalism. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of the casual use of the word "vandalism" around this subject. Stop it. Consider this your warning. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a prohibition against using the word vandalism on this article's talk page or in edit comments? Curious... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an expectation that edit summaries not contain personal attacks on editors that are being disagreed with - calling good-faith editors vandals is a personal attack; : vandalism often involves the word "poop." I see no vandalism, I see disagreement, and too many people in this discussion are casting aspersions. I'm going to start sanctioning editors who embed personal attacks into edit summaries if it doesn't stop. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jtbobwaysf, the policy is WP:CIVIL and it makes it clear that name-calling is prohibited. WP:AGF is a guideline for being civil. The attitude that you must win an argument here by tearing down your opponents is counterproductive. We are not here to win arguments or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but to build consensus and thereby build an encyclopedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What edit of mine are you talking about? Are you referring to my talk page edit above where I said "it might indeed be vandalism" concurring with Rebecca Jone's edit summary? There is a lot of WP:POV pushing on this article and where an editor removes content from the lede of a BLP page that states the article subjects present location, it does look like continued pushing. If you are so touchy about the word vandalism, we can instead use WP:TE/WP:CIRCUS if you prefer. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jtbobwaysf, who are you accusing of being a circus?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Assange is good/bad POVs both must be given equal weight to deliver WP:NPOV. I would think that if you all dealt more reasonable with Rebecca and reworded poor written content, longquote, etc you could come to a more practical compromise. I dont edit this page much, but i do see the constant reverts in my watchlist. The 'Assange is bad' POV is running a circus on this page from what I can see and reverting rather than fixing properly cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Assange is good/bad POVs both must be given equal weight to deliver WP:NPOV.
No they don't: they have to be given DUE weight. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be in the false-balance business. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, there are few "Assange is bad" statements in the article. It has been an uphill battle to get some level of neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i stand corrected, due weight. this DUE issue is exemplified by editors efforts to cover assange as a journalist in wikivoice in the lede, which there are dozens of sources that support it. yet i have seen this talk page spin off into a discussion of reference counting (WP:OR) to determine what is due rather than allowing editors to cover cited content that builds NPOV. clearly the issue if assange is a journalist (previous discussion i was involved in) or if he is a human rights victim (current discussion) are both controversial points and if there are sufficient RS ought to be covered in this article. what seems to go on instead is a lot of shouting and threats of admin action, rather than allowing NPOV to develop. this is at the core of my previous circus comment, where there is clearly a circus going on and admins arrive and lob in some threats hoping to tone it down. cute as it may be, it doesnt work towards solving the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca jones: You've been repeatedly warned (by Acroterion and others not to characterize others' edits as "vandalism" and yet you keep doing that. Please stop. More broadly, the edits you are trying to ram through in this article lack consensus, and for good reason. The comments by the UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer are already in the body of the article, and there is no reason to put it in the lead. As to your insertion about George Christensen, your lengthy insertion was poorly styled (long quote) and grammatically garbled, and it seems to me highly doubtful that Christensen's comments are noteworthy enough to include in this biography. And as Snooganssnoogans noted above, Christensen is not a legal expert in any case. Neutralitytalk 19:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the statement is poorly worded, why not fix it? At least the part about assange be incarcerated at a particular prison is content fitting for the lede and cited, thus what is the justification to revert it entirely? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable to include his current status in the lead, that is, that he is in Belmarsh Prison and in ill health. Of course, the lead should be updated when this changes. This saves readers from burrowing through the article trying to find out where he is now. UK? USA? Sweden???--Jack Upland (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is likely to stay in prison for the rest of his life, and the prison he is in it noteworthy enough to be in the lede, whether it is US, Swedish, or UK prison. My objection was that editors rather than just clipping out the nonsense, decided to to repeatedly revert Rebecca's entire addition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprising by comments of Snooganssnoogans about Jtbobwaysf. Why wikipedia refuses to report the conclusion of United Nations Human Rights ! What is the speciality of Snooganssnoogans ? Who is this user to judge the competence of three physicians, a psychiatrist and an UN Special Rapporteur on torture ? [1] [2]. This is a big joke ! I am shocked ! Rebecca jones (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


content

This is the content that was proposed to be added to the lede that is the subject of all this discussion above. 

Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk.[3][4]

What exactly is wrong with it? It seems there are two parts. First is the location of Assange's incarceration, which seems totally uncontroversial. The second part, I dont know much about this UN person to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://blogs.mediapart.fr/segesta3756/blog/140619/interview-de-nils-melzer-rapporteur-special-des-nations-unies-sur-la-torture-rt
  2. ^ https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25249&LangID=E
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference bbc-19 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "OHCHR | UN expert on torture sounds alarm again that Julian Assange's life may be at risk". www.ohchr.org.
The specific prison where he is incarcerated does not seem all that important, but I'm not hotly opposed to a line saying he is incarcerated there. The second part suggests that the British government is somehow torturing, harming or trying to kill him, which is only sourced to this one UN guy whose shtick has been to make inflammatory nonsensical comments about all the horrors that everyone is imposing on Assange - he literally says that the British authorities engaged in "torture" on Assange for many years, including when Assange was in a self-imposed exile in the Ecuadorian embassy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first you have admitted that you are not opposed to the prison location content. You felt a revert of cited content was more appropriate than to edit out the second UN content you are opposed to? Moving on to the second content, is there any reason to believe that this statement about torture is not reliable? This does appear to be a category expert on this. Do you have any sources to the contrary? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Melzer is a notable person even if his comments are nonsensical. Other people have said Assange's life is at risk [4][5] or that his health is deteriorating [6][7]. I don't think this is a nonsensical comment. Having said that, I don't think Wikipedia should endorse the suggestion that the British government is responsible, let alone that it is torturing him. However, I don't see anything wrong with noting his deteriorating health in the lead, purely from the point of view of letting the reader know his current status. We should also be open to the possibility that he might die soon, rather than simply dismissing it as propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say the British govt is responsible for assanges's deteriorating health and/or has tortured assange? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should plainly be reporting the statements of the United Nations special rapporteur Nils Melzer on Assange's condition, and his rapidly deteriorating health, and allegedly abysmal treatment according to this senior UN official, of course belong in the lead of Assange's biography. The notion that statements by the most distinguished and senior world official whose task it is to monitor torture cannot be included because they suggest that Assange is being mistreated amounts to POV pushing. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That this gentleman calls everything torture in Assange's situation - including ludicrously charging British for 'torturing' Assange when Assange was holed up in the embassy - demonstrates just how nonsensical and fringe this guy's assessment is. In other words, this "expert" maintains, Assange evading the British authorities amounted to the British authorities torturing him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also concerned about the suggestion in the lead that Assange is being tortured in prison based on one person’s observation of his mental state. I would imagine that being cooped up in the embassy for years would have some effect on his mental state. The president of Ecuador said that he attacked the guards and smeared feces on the walls prior to his arrest. I have no problem with the current text in the body tied with the response of the British gov’t. But, I think adding it to the lead gives it undue weight, particularly without a response. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitriol directed against UN rapporteurs and the subject of this biography, by random people on the internet, should not have any bearing on content in this article. -Darouet (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Did I miss something? O3000 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoned criticism and evidence of error by the UN rapporteur is not "vitriol". SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Describing the United Nations special rapporteur as "one UN guy whose shtick has been to make inflammatory nonsensical comments" sounds vitriolic to me. I don't see how the lead was implying Assange was being tortured. If he's unwell, he's unwell, I don't understand what the fuss is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's amazing that these are comments being made by a senior official of what is presumably the most august international body regulating human affairs, and the entire press corps of the earth takes this issue seriously, but the content can be blocked from Assange's lead by flippant comments from a few editors. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Julian Assange location and condition

(non-admin closure) No consensus to include "where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk". Rough consensus to include "Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh". - MrX 🖋 21:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 [8] (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.[1][2]

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

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 [9] 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)[reply]
  • Not suitable Cherrypicked UNDUE opinion. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Not suitable for the lead per Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not suitable, as we don't generally provide health statuses in the ledes of BLP articles. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not suitable Tend to agree it looks like a cheery picked quote form one person.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Darouet, That is WP:SYN. We have no medical evidence, only the opinions of supporters. Guy (help!) 12:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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” [10] 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)[reply]
  • 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."[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • Location (prison name) OK; "life at risk" opinion not OK – per Snoog, who explains it well. – Levivich 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [12]. 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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" ([13]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Then that also should be removed as irreverent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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" ([14]). 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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" ([15]). 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)[reply]

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 [16][17], and today's news that 60 doctors are warning Assange may die in prison [18], 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)[reply]

Note that the previous UN statements on arbitrary detention, torture, and health received support from Human Rights Watch and the ACLU [19][20]. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Discussion (location and condition)

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)[reply]

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: [21], [22].

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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: [23] [24]. 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. -[25]
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: [26]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -[27]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Julian Assange jailed over bail breach". BBC News. 1 May 2019 – via www.bbc.com.
  2. ^ "OHCHR | UN expert on torture sounds alarm again that Julian Assange's life may be at risk". www.ohchr.org.
@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" ([28]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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” [29]
  • Slatersteven: it does not quote (or even name) them, just him... this is his opinion of what they found [30]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is nothing mentioned about previous time at the embassy. More WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 [31]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
That's not what RS are reporting, and that argument is directly contradicted by not only multiple UN statements [32][33][34][35], but also by statements from Human Rights Watch [36], the American Civil Liberties Union [37], and other legal experts [38][39].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [40] - does not contradict Melzer's statement that Assange's life is at risk while he is in Belmarsh [41][42]. However, your additional comments that Assange has imposed this upon himself are rejected by human rights groups [43][44]. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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 [45]:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[46] This Foreign Policy piece also accurately describes the conclusion as shocking to legal experts.[47] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion is backed up by statements by HRW and ACLU senior officials [48][49], and was bolstered by a second statement UN in subsequent years that the determination of arbitrary detention was accurate [50].
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 [51]. The UN decision [52][53] 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 [54], and an editorial by the Guardian [55]. However, Feldman’s response is criticized as factually inaccurate by political science professor John Keane [56], 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 [57].
The UN working group decision received further support from Human Rights Watch [58]. 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 [59].
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)[reply]
I'm saying that this assessment does not belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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: [60]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [61]:

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 [62]

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 [63]:

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

Thanks Guy, I support this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, is this still in force?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Guy (help!) 20:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

UK denial

The UK has denied the allegations Mr Assange was subjected to torture. The Requirements of NPOV means we must report that, with as much coverage as we hive the allegation. [[65].Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well this makes it easier to cover as it is now more noteworthy. The 'UN says he is subject to torture and the UK denies it'. Also the other POV here will like increased balance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, I'm astonished that they thought it necessary. The worst form of torture the English use is to give people badly-made tea and then stare disapprovingly at them if they dn't drink it. Guy (help!) 22:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tea for two? What an inane comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this masks the real issue which is that he is in declining health. I don't think anyone has denied that.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue for who? For the UN? For Assange? Wikipedia? The managers of the prison? SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia (and many others). Melzer has not said that the British government was waterboarding Assange, but that the conditions that Assange has experienced amount to torture. That is highly debatable. And the debate doesn't really matter. The facts are most important to us. Whether you call it torture or the regular experience of a fugitive or a prisoner, he is in declining health. That should be the first thing we focus on, not the rhetoric. It would be very embarrassing to hold this debate only to find that Assange dies in the middle of it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason not to include the UK government's version of the Sergeant Schultz defence. Burrobert (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So can an admin add

The UK have denied that Assange is being subjected to torture are unfounded and wholly false. [1]

Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this specific wording is not only grammatically unsound, but would copy the words of the Ministry of Justice spokesperson {tq|unfounded and wholly false}} verbatim in wikivoice and without quotes. Drawing from the Express article cited above [66] I would instead suggest,

Melzer stated that the doctors who accompanied him all agreed that Assange "showed all the symptoms that are typical for a person that has been exposed to psychological torture over an extended period of time." Former British Ambassador Craig Murray stated that he visited Assange and also believed Assange showed symptoms of torture, including disorientation and difficulty in speaking clearly. A spokesperson for the UK ministry of justice called allegations that Assange was tortured "unfounded and wholly false."

If there are other, additional denials by UK officials those could be included as well. -Darouet (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what the British government is denying. It would be good to get further information.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is Assange notable for?

This issue comes up a lot (for example, in relation to the lead), and editors seem to have divergent opinions, perhaps based on their homelands. Is there any way we can say what are the key things that Assange is noted for? Do we need to achieve a global perspective on Assange? The standard Wikipedian droid response is that we go by reliable sources. But I think there are so many reliable sources on Assange we can say almost anything is key.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really without wikileaks her would just be another poser. None of the rest, his sexual assault in Sweden, his arrest in the UK, his possible extradition would likely not even exist.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people have pivotal events in their lives, but does that mean the lead, or even the whole article, should concentrate on Wikileaks?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should contain only A summery of major parts of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a monumental amount of material upon which to base Assange's notability. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why it needs to be limited to an accurate statement that is succinct and not "monumental". SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sort-of true, but I don't feel we judge notability on "without this, the rest wouldn't have happened", otherwise eg. the lead for United States would be all about the revolution. I think Assange definitely received the most personal coverage for stuff about his arrest, followed by the 2016 election. My perception is that prior to that coverage focused more on Wikileaks, or equally between him and Wikileaks, and less on him personally. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, none of this would have happened without his birth. I think his seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy is highly significant. Long stays in embassies don't happen very often, and I think that's likely to be what he's remembered for long term.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland and Aquillion: I agree that events in the distance past require less attention than those in the present. However, almost everything of concern here has occurred in the last decade. I don't know if you've already made up your minds on this issue, or to what extent numerical and legal arguments I might advance would shape your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious if you think that the 2016 election has a special relevance compared to other leaks now? While Assange faces no legal battle over the election leaks (a suit was thrown out of court with prejudice), he is being prosecuted according to the Espionage Act of 1917 (also used to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg) based on publication of of the Afghan war logs, Iraq war logs, and Cablegate which alone included some 250,000 documents [67].
Consider that the Iraq war logs included an additional 400,000 classified documents [68], and the Afghan logs 90,000 documents [69]. Those logs are currently afforded a few sentences in this article, and one sentence in the lead. By contrast the 2016 election leaks included 20,000 emails from Podesta [70] and about 35,000 DNC documents. That's not a trivial amount, but given that Assange is now being prosecuted under the Espionage act for c. 740,000 leaked Iraq-Afghanistan-Cablegate files, why do the DNC leaks by contrast have their own paragraph in the lead, and ten paragraphs (compared to a few sentences) in the body? Do you really think that given the difference in sheer number of documents, and Assange's current legal battle, the DNC leaks should outweigh any one of those other leaks (each bigger than the DNC leaks), or all of them together? -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the 2016 election has any special relevance.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's as relevant as his embassy stay (and it does have less coverage in the lead, compared to the embassy stay + charges against him.) But I think it has more relevance to him personally than other things Wikileaks has done, since his opinions and his statements got far more coverage in that case. Just look at the related section in the article body - it's bigger than everything else combined, and while you could argue some of that is comparable bloat or recentism, large parts of it are focused on interviews with Assange, things Assange said, sources directly discussing him in depth, and so on, much of which received a mountain of reasonably sustained secondary coverage. My perception is that previous Wikileaks things didn't get nearly as much Assange-focused coverage. In terms of what could persuade me, though, the obvious thing to do is to survey the sources, both the ones already in the article (which, if we accept that they're representative, do support the idea that the DNC leaks are more important to his bio than the rest of what Wikileaks did) and sources from outside it to make the argument that what's currently in the article is not representative, eg. demonstrate comparable coverage about Assange from previous leaks. --Aquillion (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Julian Assange interest over time, based on Google Trends Worldwide News Search
Well, that was the point I was trying to get to in this section. How do we do that? There must be thousands of things written about Assange. How will we ever agree that the survey is representative.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can argue that "Julian Assange" gets mentioned more in 2016 compared to 2010-2011. I'm posting this graphic adapted from Google Trends (you can go search yourself) showing that in global news coverage, he's mentioned more earlier in 2010-2011, and less in 2016. If you restrict your search to "US news" the 2016 amount goes up, but is still lower than the 2010-2011 coverage. I don't want to assume Aquillion that you're coming at this from a biased perspective, but it's possible that what you've paid attention to personally does not reflect global news coverage. -Darouet (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply Original Research and based on no discernible theory. Did you expect to find thousands of articles that say "Assange is in the embassy again today" over and over. It's by far described as the culmination of his life's dedication to his work in RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any data to support that argument? -Darouet (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's my point. WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, and I don't think it applies to the issue of the weight given to different parts of the article. However, is there a way we can agree on what are the most important parts or are we just stating our opinions?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: I agree that talk page arguments about article content WP:DUE weight based on a temporal analysis of WP:RS is wholly unrelated to WP:OR.
@Aquillion:, based on the data above would you still argue that 2016 election material deserves a special and heightened place in the article body and lead, or is it possible this issue is being given WP:UNDUE weight in comparison to global news coverage over the past decade? -Darouet (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Data" cannot prove your point. You may as well post the daily rainfall in Disneyworld. Data alone is meaningless. You really need to give this some thought, for reasons already explained. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: That's a very compelling graph. @SPECIFICO: The "discernable theory" behind the graph is obvious: we're trying to determine what Assange is known for, so determining how interest in him has increased or decreased over time is highly relevant. The graph indicates that interest in Assange peaked in 2010, during the time when the Collateral Murder video, the Afghanistan and Iraq War Logs, and the US diplomatic cables were released. That's an indication that he is best known for publishing those leaks. Other news events also show up in that graph (asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and the 2016 US Presidential election, for example), but they're less prominent than the events in 2010. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: There should be a number of strong and well-sourced paragraphs on that topic, but in my view the topic is currently overrepresented. Every one of Wikileaks' publications generated more than just substantial controversy: for example world news was dominated by the Iraq War logs, and later by CableGate. The US election publications should not be prioritized here over those publications, which are the basis for his current prosecution in the US (whereas a US judge threw litigation against Assange for the 2016 elections out of court). -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specifics of one lawsuit do nothing to support your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting argument. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jack and Darouet that this US election content is overweight. He is primarily known for his association to (and creation of) wikileaks. Many times the press refers to Assange, but we have also RS to show that it is wikileaks taking the action. This article could be reduced in size to focus more on his life, his personal legal issues, etc. We have a whole wikileaks article after all (and there may be wikileaks sub articles as well). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure, in the US election Wikileaks may have had a real impact (that is what RS are saying).Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jack Upland: this is really helpful. I would note that the NBC news piece is titled "What is Wikileaks?" whereas the other sources are all about Assange. The sources you've linked here confirm your earlier statement, that the 2016 US election doesn't deserve a special place compared to the other leaks Assange helped publish. The sources are also consistent with the google trends results I showed above, demonstrating that Assange received much more coverage in global news in 2010-2011 compared to 2016-2017. These facts, added to Assange's current prosecution in the US based on his 2010-2011 publications, confirm that we are giving too much emphasis to the 2016 election in our article body and in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 November 2019

Para 2 in lead written better, clearer and more straightforward and non-biased.

Assange was questioned in May 2010, about allegations of sexual assault in April 2010, and in November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange,[2][3][4] Assange denied the allegations, and claimed that the charges were just a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents.[5][6] Assange surrendered to UK police on 7 December 2010 and was released on bail of £340,000 within ten days. Assange and his team then unsuccessfully challenged the extradition proceedings over the next fourteen months. In June 2012 he evaded the UK Police, breaching his and his backers £340,000 bail[7] and sought to seek asylum from the Ecuador embassy in Lomdon.[8] In August 2012, Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador as it shared his fears of political persecution and the possible consequences of an eventual extradition to the United States.[9] He remained in the Embassy of Ecuador in London for almost seven years.[10] The Original Filfi (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – Sorry, I don't see any substantive difference between the current text and your proposal, and the writing style does not look "clearer and more straightforward" either. — JFG talk 11:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFG firstly the facts are now in order rather than jumping backwards and forwards, it expands the assault facts, it change the method of reasoning for JA, it clarifies who said whht re Ecuadorean embassy granting of asylum. Otherwise change the style and keep the order and the facts. The Original Filfi (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1195828/julian-assange-Wikileaks-founder-prison-torture-human-rights-court-us-news
  2. ^ "Wikileaks' Assange faces international arrest warrant". BBC News. 20 November 2010.
  3. ^ "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 23 July 2012. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  4. ^ Davies, Nick (17 December 2010). "10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
  5. ^ "What next for Julian Assange?". BBC News. 5 February 2016.
  6. ^ Bowcott, Owen (24 February 2016). "Britain 'sets dangerous precedent' by defying UN report on Assange". The Guardian. Guardian News & Media.
  7. ^ Malik, Shiv (4 September 2012). "Julian Assange backers could lose £340,000 in bail money". The Guardian. Guardian News & Media. Retrieved 1 May 2019.
  8. ^ Bowater, Donna (20 June 2012). "Julian Assange faces re-arrest over breaching his bail condition by seeking asylum in Ecuador". The Daily Telegraph.
  9. ^ Wallace, Arturo (16 August 2012). "Julian Assange: Why Ecuador is offering asylum". BBC. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  10. ^ Sharman, Jon (11 January 2018). "Ecuador grants WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange citizenship". The Independent. Retrieved 11 January 2018.

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019

Charges under the Espionage Act

On 23 May, Assange was indicted on 17 new charges relating to the Espionage Act of 1917 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[352] The Espionage Act charges carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.[353] The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional

Needs to be culled to match reference to read...

Charges under the Espionage Act

On 23 May, Assange was indicted on 17 new charges relating to the Espionage Act of 1917 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[352] The Espionage Act charges carry a maximum sentence of 170 years in prison.[353] The Obama administration had debated charging Assange but decided against it.

The balance chopped out is either, DOJ officials and not Obama's quote on recent charges or hyperbole by an editor attributing it erroneously to Obama. 121.99.108.78 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019 #2

In the last paragraph of the "Imprisonment in the United Kingdom" section please change "According this expert" to "According to this expert". Rising5554 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux Talk 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Protected edit request on 19 November 2019

Suggest inserting—following but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case—a form of words such as "The prosecutor's office subsequently announced that they had dropped the case on 19 November the same year".[1][2][3][4][5] ——SN54129 13:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I would also prefer a sop to The New York Times. (Kidding, kidding.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that more than one source is required. Jontel (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with addition. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence should refer to Eva-Marie Persson, probably saying "she", so that it follows on from the rest of the paragraph. She is the one who has made the announcement. The lead should also reflect this development.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: also a good change. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also it would be good to say why she dropped the case.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Upland: what about this?

In September 2019, she revealed that she had interviewed seven witnesses, two of whom had not been previously heard, but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case. On 19 November, Persson announced that Swedish prosecutors had discontinued their investigation into Assange, stating that after a comprehensive assessment, "the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment." Persson added that "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed." Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson welcomed the decision, stating that "Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information."

Hrafnsson made further comments but I think those are probably enough. What do you think? -Darouet (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Press is covering it as "case dropped." Lot of RS. Is this discussion about why the prosecutor dropped the case? Al Jeezera says "Swedish complainant was credible and evidence reliable, her memory of the night in question had faded and there was limited corroborative evidence available." No particular reason to choose AJ, it was just the first search in my google results. Seems we should not use weasel words and quote what the sources are saying, I didnt see anything in this source saying the prosecutor didnt know how to proceed, it was more a lack of evidence. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: I have no objection to removing or changing the first proposed sentence above — only, note that it's what's currently in the article and it's referenced to this [71]: The Swedish prosecutor investigating a rape allegation against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said on Monday she had interviewed seven witnesses, including two not previously heard, but had yet to determine how to proceed in the case. Really, we need to reword to make sure we're not quoting from a Reuters article verbatim. What about,

In September 2019, Persson said that she had interviewed seven witnesses, including two not previously questioned. On 19 November, Persson announced that Swedish prosecutors had discontinued their investigation into Assange, stating that after a comprehensive assessment, "the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment." Persson added that although she was confident in the complainant, "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed." Wikileaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson welcomed the decision, stating that "Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information."

This also adds Persson's comments about the complainant that you mentioned. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: I am support your proposed wording. We can also put that
The decision to drop the case can be appealed under Swedish law.[6]
The AJ source also supports the rest of the proposed content as well.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support that wording.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thelocal.se/20191119/swedish-prosecutor-holds-press-conference-in-julian-assange-case
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50473792
  3. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assange-rape-case-investigation-sweden-sexual-assault-prison-jail-a9209006.html
  4. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/19/sweden-drops-rape-investigation-julian-assange/
  5. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation
  6. ^ "Julian Assange rape charge dropped in Sweden". Al Jazeera. 19 November 2019. Retrieved 19 November 2019.
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Criminal: Sentanced to good behaviour"

I believe something managed to go undetected. in the infobox, it says he is sentenced to good behaviour? There seems to be no source nor context given for it. Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "Sentenced to good behaviour bond and reparations in 1996 for 24 hacking offences". This is explained in text under "Hacking". I think the formatting of the infobox could be improved.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be deleted entirely. Assange is subject to current sanctions and incarceration, and this small penalty decades ago seems to conflate the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worthwhile to note that he has a criminal record, though I'm not sure about infobox etiquette. The penalty was small, but it was not a small offence. By the way, as discussed below, Assange no longer is serving a sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It not DUE to put 'sentenced to good behavior' in the infobox. Its laughable as the above editor points out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know anything about Australian law, but good behavior bond sounds like deferred prosecution. Do we have any reason to believe it is something else? And if it is something else, why are we covering some obscure legal system in an infobox. The infobox could be tidied by saying "He was fined 2400AUD for hacking in 1996." The reader can read more about his non-notable time period of his life in the article body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a wiki link for good behaviour bond so that readers not familiar with the concept can read about it. Burrobert (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Burrobert Nice, someone from wikipedia always knows the answer. So does a good behavior bond release later result in charges being dropped, as in deferred prosecution? Or is there still a conviction? In deferred prosecution, the accused admits guilt and agrees to a sentence, that is deferred and later dropped if the the terms of release are met. It says "A good behaviour bond may be established with or without a recorded legal conviction for the offence". Do we know if Assange was convicted? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, he was convicted. I don't see why saying there were 24 hacking offences is too complicated for the infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The number of hacking offenses is akin to counts in an indictment. This can be the article body. Obviously we are not going to list Assanges full list of offenses he is facing in the indictment. I suggest "Convicted of hacking in Australia" is sufficient. The reader can always go to the article to read more, that is the point of infoboxes in general. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with "Convicted of hacking in Australia" or something along those lines.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 [72]. 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 [73]. 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)[reply]

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[1] and Russia Insider[2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any other responses?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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 [74]:

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think we should always be neutral and accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What spinning are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The World's Most Important Political Prisoner". Antiwar. Retrieved 23 November 2019.
  2. ^ "Assange to Languish for Years in British Prison Before Extradition to US". Russia Insider. Retrieved 23 November 2019.

Assange's health

Please see above Talk:Julian Assange#RFC on Julian Assange location and condition. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Doctors are concerned about Assange's health. See https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/julian-assange-could-die-in-jail-say-doctors-write-to-uk-home-secretary-2137990?pfrom=home-world

There are a number of sources that say this, and we are doing an RfC above. I support adding this content to the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets not have another thread about it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Why is it an extra fringe definition, when Assange calls himself an activist?[75][76] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In 2010, he said, "Since that time [1993], I've been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist" [77]. 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)[reply]
So he describes himself as a publisher, journalist, and activist? What about political prisoner? [78] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just to reiterate what I said in the RfC, the sourcing for stating in Wikivoice that Assange is a journalist is impeccable: [79]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[80] The editor decided to restore content sourced to a dead link and a tweet. The edit I made should be restored ASAP.[81] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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".[1]

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)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ "U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls for Julian Assange to Be Freed, Citing "Psychological Torture"". Democracy Now!. 31 May 2019. Retrieved 19 December 2019.

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.[1] When Manning condemned the secrecy of the hearings and refused to testify, she was jailed for contempt of court on 8 March 2019.[2][3][4] 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.[5]  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.[6]

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)[reply]

I think it could be mentioned here briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I support adding one or two sentences, not a whole paragraph. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shortell, David (2019-03-05). "Judge rejects effort by Chelsea Manning to avoid grand jury testimony". CNN. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  2. ^ Barakat, Matthew (March 8, 2019). "Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify on WikiLeaks". Associated Press. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  3. ^ "Chelsea Manning: Wikileaks source jailed for refusing to testify". BBC News. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  4. ^ Dukakakis, Ali (2019-03-08). "Chelsea Manning taken into custody for refusing to testify before secret grand jury". ABC News. Retrieved 2019-03-08.
  5. ^ "Chelsea Manning freed from jail – for now". The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Associated Press. May 10, 2019. Retrieved May 10, 2019.
  6. ^ Fortin, Jacey (May 16, 2019). "Chelsea Manning Ordered Back to Jail for Refusal to Testify in WikiLeaks Inquiry". The New York Times. Retrieved May 19, 2019.

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".[1]

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

References

  1. ^ "U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls for Julian Assange to Be Freed, Citing "Psychological Torture"". Democracy Now!. 31 May 2019. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
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.[82] 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)[reply]

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:[83][84][85][86]. 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)[reply]

I tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hardly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I did, in my original post.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[87] His hair turned white.[88] 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[89] 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.[90] 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)[reply]
"it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally" A little too much OR. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OR is OK on Talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So why was he on bail?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was on bail because Sweden was trying to extradite him.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And not for any political crime in Sweden. Just a serious crime. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
OK, but Tim Allen gets the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See WP:OSE about these comparisons. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that are you referring to exactly?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would combine them into one heading: "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that would make a big section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We already have!--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Truish, but so what?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There have been no further responses, so I have made my own changes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am good with chronology. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1][2]
The Ecuadorian government, responding to pressure from Spain, removed Assange’s internet connection and stopped his access to visitors at the Ecuador embassy. [2]
Assange was awarded the 2019 Dignity Prize by The Catalan Dignity Commission for his efforts during the 2017 referendum. [2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.[3]
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)[reply]
I think it could have a brief mention, but not its own section.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Then it needs to also not involve "cheating" and must accurately reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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 [91][92], 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[93]. Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government and increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government.[94][95]

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

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "As Catalonia Plans Independence from Spain, Julian Assange Advises Organizers on Secure Messaging". Democracy Now!. 10 October 2017.
  2. ^ a b c "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange awarded Dignity Prize from Catalans". News.com.au. 10 January 2020.
  3. ^ "Assange 'split' Ecuador and Spain over Catalan independence". 16 May 2018. Retrieved 14 January 2020.

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"[97]. 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.[1] After release from prison, between 1996 and 1998, he started traveling worldwide, visiting Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Irtkutsk and Beijing.[2]

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

What does this tell us, its just a facotd.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
The proposed paragraph nowhere alleges his support for Putin. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "In Conversation with Julian Assange Part II". web.archive.org. 2011-11-21. Retrieved 2020-01-24.
  2. ^ Assange, Julian (2011). Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography. ISBN 9780857863867.
You do have. The book is available on Google Books[98] with the relevant fragment in the beginning of Chapter 7. Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree: it seems pointless. And we have way too much about Melzer.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Put any relevant information in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
What is he an expert in? What is he being used as an expert for?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[1]

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

According to Wikileaks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is according to The Guardian. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Greenslade, Roy (3 February 2020). "Press freedom is at risk if we allow Julian Assange's extradition". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 February 2020.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[99] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
An expert on torture does not make them an expert on Rape or police procedures.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slater, these statements are contrary to fact and totally unproductive here. Melzer's short bio is available at the UN website [100], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If the magazine Republik [101] 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)[reply]
Melzer is very pro-Assange, and Republik states, "Its purpose is to criticize the powers that be".[102] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [104]. SPECIFICO immediately reverted me ([105]) and commented "So What?" ([106]). I find this flippant response troubling, as I suspect many other editors here will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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 [107][108][109][110]. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
None of the sources used in the text you've contested are primary sources [111][112][113][114]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Jack Upland: When reliable sources stop writing about them? -Darouet (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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."

[115]
The Evening Standard [116] 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 [117] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Germany is not party to any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your text seems fine to me and, at two sentences long, is the right length. Burrobert (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411, Most prominent? {{citation needed}}. See also appeal to popularity. Guy (help!) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." Neutralitytalk 19:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would like wording like: "After the medical report, prominent figures in Germany,[citation needed] Australia,[citation needed] and Swaziland[citation needed] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not familiar with the source. But, it reads like a conspiracy rag. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That article shows why nobody takes Melzer's exaggerated and ignorant claims seriously. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
..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)[reply]
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)[reply]
..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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=940422985"