Talk:Julian Assange

Afghanistan war logs

They were originally called Afghanistan War Diaries.

Request for Comment - Journalist

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 this article describe Assange as a journalist in the opening sentence or anywhere else?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No, we should not call him a journalist because it is misleading, contentious, and not particularly useful. The Oxford Dictionary (Oxford Living Dictionaries) defines "journalist" as "A person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast".[1] Assange's writing and broadcasting has been minimal. Merely because he has received awards for "journalism" doesn't make him a journalist. Bob Dylan won a Nobel Prize for Literature, Ernest Rutherford for Chemistry, Obama and Henry Kissinger for Peace. And what are these awards for? The Kazakh Journalists' Union said their "award was given to Assange because WikiLeaks had provided plenty of 'interesting' material that was used by journalists in Kazakhstan". In other words, he has contributed to journalism by making leaked documents available, but he has not been a journalist himself. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't believe he is a journalist.[2][3][4][5][6] They might be wrong, but Wikipedia should not endorse a contentious description of Assange. No one in the recent debate has provided a neutral, reliable source that says Assange is a journalist. Though not decisive, it is worth noting that he has no training as a journalist and that he apparently has never earned his living as a journalist. As a description, it's not particularly useful. If Assange is a journalist because of his work with WikiLeaks, then it is redundant to call him that. We have covered it by calling him founder, editor etc of WikiLeaks. In fact, we are implying that he had a journalistic career (possibly in Australia) before founding WikiLeaks. This is completely misleading. We should simply describe his work with WikiLeaks. Where there is controversy, we should document the controversy and not take sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• No, with reference to awards, certain celebrities have interviewed politicians, Ellen, Graham Norton etc. and we do not accept this as a reason to categorise them as journalists, indeed other politicians have interviewed their mentor/leader etc. for tv specials, they like JA was invited to do so and it was not based on journalistic integrity, more on the fact that the interviewer had similar and sympathetic view points. I do not think we can take these awards or the interviews JA participated in, as corroboration and each needs to be viewed independently. None of which that is currently referenced provide that sort of indisputable alignment to categorise JA as a journalist. 2404:4408:205A:4B00:58:CE73:38B1:AD92 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC) — 2404:4408:205A:4B00:58:CE73:38B1:AD92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Yes. Because the awards for journalism cannot be dismissed. Jack Upland seems to imply that awards are an invalid measure because Kissinger won a peace prize, but Wikipedia acknowledges the historical fact that the Vietnam War ended on Kissinger's watch, and that HK is a diplomat. Likewise, we acknowledge that Bob Dylan is a poet, however unconventional a poet he may be. Assange has been the editor of dozens of breaking stories picked up by venues such as The Guardian and The New York Times. He is one of the most significant journalists active today.GPRamirez5 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. He runs a website that facilitates the publication of leaked documents. Whatever "journalism" he and the website does, understood here as reporting or analysis of the documents in their possession, is not journalism at all. In fact, whenever the organization covers these documents, their coverage is full of hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories And the organization does not do proper curation, unlike real journalists when they get leaked documents. Wikileaks instead just publishes whatever it has under its hands, and in doing so, has published Social Security numbers, medical information, credit card numbers, and details of suicide attempts, as well as outing teenage rape victims and homosexuals in anti-LGBT countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Inadequate_curation_and_violations_of_personal_privacy Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Note how most of the arguments above for not calling Assange a "journalist" amount to political criticisms of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks (accusing them of publishing too much personal information, of promoting conspiracy theories, attacking Assange's "integrity," etc.). There are obviously a lot of people who dislike Assange politically, but that's no reason not to call him a "journalist." WikiLeaks publishes documents that are obviously of great political interest, and which have been the basis for a large number of major news stories over the past decade-and-a-half. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have worked closely with traditional newspapers to filter, analyze and publish these documents. Julian Assange has won numerous journalism awards for this work. He also hosted a show in which he interviewed prominent politicians, and getting an interview with the elusive Hassan Nasrallah is quite a scoop that many other journalists would relish. What do we call someone who interviews politicians on TV? Normally, we call them a "journalist." If we start removing the label "journalist" from people who are politically controversial, we're going to lose a lot of journalists on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Note how your views are still totally plain, you provide no source as requested to back up the assertion that he was ever trained, employed or regarded by the majority or significant minority of the industry as a journalist. His contacts with reputable publications where they have curated the information, while JA was happy to publish everything, his release of personal information is on record and condemned by many. The awards and interview has been addressed here. The only one here that is showing a bias and the only one accusing all others of political motives is yourself, now to break that model, Q. Are you in anyway affiliated to any part of the organisation, the people involved, the methodology or support of the same? I also note on your talk page you are very rarely wrong and defend your point to the utmost, every time, even when the consensus is you have mishandled a situation or are just plain wrong, Q. Are you considering getting into politics,I think the era of the intransigent politician is nearly over. 2404:4408:205A:4B00:343F:34ED:3F92:6E67 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC) — 2404:4408:205A:4B00:343F:34ED:3F92:6E67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dear IP2404, please log in or get ready to be dismissed as a sock. — JFG ^talk 16:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not relevant or accurate, I did not log-out to make any edits, they are not disruptive or certainly not intended that way, all are posted in good faith. 2404:4408:205A:4B00:B95F:7E9F:3D76:59B9 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC) — 2404:4408:205A:4B00:B95F:7E9F:3D76:59B9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich have interviewed more prominent figures than Assange and do far more analysis of the news than Assange does, yet we wouldn't dream of calling them journalists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Comparing Julian Assange to Alex Jones sounds pretty political to me - it's not a reasonable comparison by any stretch of the imagination (I think it's a borderline violation of WP:BLPTALK to compare Julian Assange to Alex Jones, who has called the parents of Sandy Hook victims "crisis actors"). Others voting in this RfC should take note of the types of wild comparisons being drawn here and the intensely political nature of the attacks. The question is whether Assange is a journalist, but a number of people here have simply answered by launching into political criticisms of Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an entirely appropriate comparison. Assange himself intentionally enflamed Seth Rich conspiracy theories even though he knew they were false (per the Mueller report), leading to intense harassment of Seth Rich's family. And to what extent WikiLeaks does anything approaching analysis or reporting about the contents of its own leaks, it's as full of falsehoods, hoaxes and conspiracy theories as InfoWars's coverage of current events. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your characterization of WikiLeaks' leaks is extremely skewed, and largely a political attack. Did WikiLeaks push conspiracy theories by exposing corruption in Kenya? How about by exposing the US strike that killed two journalists in Baghdad? How about by publishing drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? How about by publishing the Iraq and Afghanistan War logs, or US diplomatic cables? How about by publishing the internal communications of the Syrian government? Your comparison between WikiLeaks and InfoWars is absurd, and it should really tip other editors off that there's something more going on here than just a neutral, detached analysis of whether or not WikiLeaks' publications, Julian Assange's journalism awards, and Julian Assange's interviews of political figures make him a "journalist." -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• No I don't see how he researches or writes to any degree. Probably less so than the editors on this page. He founded a site that posts anonymously stolen material, and given that they don't delete things like social security numbers, doesn't appear to perform much in the way of editorial control. I'm not arguing goodness or badness or making political criticisms as suggested by Thucydides411. Just saying I don't see how he can be called a journalist. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring to leaked documents as "stolen material" sounds pretty political to me. You're ignoring the journalism awards Assange has won, the obvious journalistic impact of WikiLeaks (just think of all the major stories spawned by their work, about the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, US diplomacy, corruption in Kenya, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Syrian government, and much more) and the interviews Assange has conducted with important political figures (the leader of Hezbollah, the President of Ecuador, political dissidents from Bahrain and Egypt, etc.), and instead saying that you don't approve of their philosophy on not redacting much information. That's not an argument that he's not a journalist. It's an argument that you don't like his journalism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what my opinion is of Assange or his actions as I haven’t provided even a hint. Your claims that I am being “political” is false. I used the word stolen because it’s accurate, whether or not it was an acceptable act. My comments are purely about whether or not he is a “journalist” because that’s what the RfC is about. Your comments both here and at AE suggest that you call anyone “political” that doesn’t agree with you. O3000 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As part of your argument that Assange is not a journalist, you said that he "posts anonymously stolen material," which is just a very negative (I would say "political") way of describing something that journalists regularly do, and which is normally referred to with neutral terminology like "publishing leaked documents." -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's simply what he does. As I repeatedly said, I was not evaluating goodness or badness. But, journalists do more than that. Please stop reading political motivations into my edits. You have no idea what my opinions are about the subject or his actions other than I don't think he's a journalist. There is nothing particularly negative about that, as none of us are journalists. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• No. I agree fully with Jack Upland's persuasive analysis. Neutrality^talk 17:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. This discussion is approaching 2,000 words, and the following 18 are the only ones that have any relevance: No one in the recent debate has provided a neutral, reliable source that says Assange is a journalist. It is not for us to decide whether Assange is a journalist, that's for our sources. Feeling generous, I'll switch my !vote when I see three quality sources that unequivocally say that. Emphasis on "quality" and "unequivocally". Please ping me. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about my !vote. Feel free to continue within the collapse. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Assange has won a fair number of awards for journalism, some of them awarded to him as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. A few of them: "Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prize" (The Guardian) "Julian Assange wins EU journalism award (Sydney Morning Herald) The Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011) - the Australian equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. From the award: "This year’s winner has shown a courageous and controversial commitment to the finest traditions of journalism: justice through transparency." Announcement of the "The International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists" (2011): Rough translation from the text of the award: "Wikileaks has never departed from some of the cornerstones of the journalistic profession, understood in a broad sense: verification of the news, protection of sources, public interest in the news." -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC) So we can say Assange has won journalism awards ("awards for journalism" might be a step too far unless sources have used those words, since they imply that he did journalism), but we can't say he's a journalist unless sources do so. Per WP:SYNTH. He's probably had millions of words written about him in reliable sources, most of them available online and indexed by Google; if he's enough "journalist" for our purposes, it won't be difficult to find three quality sources that have used that word at least once when referring to him. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC) @Mandruss: Today I learned that being awarded the top journalism prize in three different countries doesn't make one a journalist. One learns something new every day on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I wish Wikipedia editing were as black-and-white as many editors make it out to be. I see things differently than you. Deal with it and kindly hold the sarcasm. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC) @Mandruss: The Guardian's profile on Julian Assange has this to say: "Australian journalist Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, an online nonprofit that publishes news leaks and classified information from anonymous sources" (emphasis added). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Good. I'll accept that. Need two more like that, not from Guardian. That will get you one !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC) @Mandruss: Sorry to be daft, but I'd appreciate if you could enlighten us about the difference, in your own words, between a "journalism award" and an "award for journalism". — JFG talk 16:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC) As I suggested above, I see a subtle difference in connotation. A journalism award could be given to someone who made contributions to journalism without doing journalism or being a journalist. An award for journalism, not so much. But if you see no difference, you wouldn't mind going with my preference, no? It would save a word. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Assange won the Martha Gellhorn prize as the publisher and editor of Wikileaks, not as a journalist. The EU journalism award is for "Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information", not just journalists. The other two awards were to Wikileaks, not Assange. None of these make Assange a journalist. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Point of fact: Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism. The annual prize is awarded to a journalist "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel', as Martha Gellhorn called it". - The Guardian The awards given to WikiLeaks were presented to Assange on behalf of WikiLeaks, the organization he founded and runs. This is really descending into sophistry: the texts of these journalism awards name Julian Assange, the awards were presented to him on behalf of WikiLeaks, and he's the founder and editor of WikiLeaks, yet somehow the awards aren't for his journalism? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, the awards were given to Wikileaks for contributions to journalism. That does not make Assange a journalist. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC) That's not what The Guardian says. The Guardian unequivocally says that Assange was awarded the Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism, and that the prize is given to journalists. The other awards were given to Assange on behalf of WikiLeaks, and name him directly in their texts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Also, these awards are not neutral. They are supportive of Assange. Yes, some of his supporters call him a journalist, but we don't have any neutral sources that say this, and opponents seem to say he is not a journalist. Therefore, as I said before, the description is contentious, and we shouldn't use it without attribution.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• No – I've been brought here by this post and haven't been following the play-by-play on how "journalist" was established in the first place. How has it lasted so long if there have been these objections, which I assume have been raised before? Nevertheless, I am skeptical that the term properly applies and especially when it is given precedence before "computer programmer". Assange has not worked in, nor even been trained for, journalism. His most noteworthy "journalism" has been to merely to release material obtained in such an egregiously illegal manner that the original providers seem mostly either to have served time in prison or are facing the possibility of doing so. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question, Dhtwiki. From my cursory search of the archives, this has been debated since 2010, but no points were raised that haven't been raised recently. I suspect there have been a few editors who have been adamant on this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another political attack on Julian Assange being used as a substitute for an argument about whether or not he is a journalist. Why is it that so many people commenting here feel the need to make these sorts of political attacks ("egregriously illegal," "stolen material," he does less research "than the editors on this page," "hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories," etc.)? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

To interpret it that way helps reveal that Assange really is sort of a political activist and is supported as such. He's not reporting on issues from any conventional political point of view, nor is his reporting is of any real value; he's mostly providing titillation (Hillary Clinton's emails, Angela Merkel's phone calls), when he's not facilitating breaches of security that might cause real harm in the future or getting people into trouble they don't necessarily deserve to have. Journalists do usually stay within the law; although their sources might be disobeying the law but aren't prosecuted when those laws seem merely to protect political incompetence, which is why I used "egregiously" the way I did. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

These sorts of value judgments don't carry any weight in this discussion. Any vote based on them should be disregarded by the closer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't want to let the closer decide what is irrelevant? Perhaps you would like to close the discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes – Burrobert (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• No. This should not be noted in the lead because he is not generally known as a journalist, but for something else. Anything that relates him to journalism can be noted in the body of page (per sources), without calling him a "journalist". My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• No per Jack Upland, ignoring whether the term is positive or otherwise, there is no evidence that has ever been employed as a journalist, nor that what he does is regarded as journalism. Founder and editor covers accurately what he does/did with WL. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Addendum I've just noticed that this is a two part question (described as a journalist in the lead or anywhere else). It should definitely not be in 'pole position' - as it is now, as though this is what Assange is primarily known for/as. I see no reason why 'the debate' about whether what Assange does is actually journalism, or something else, should not be in the body of the article, although I don't see clearly how that would best be done. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Strong yes as per Thucydides411 throughout this rfc. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is a surprisingly simple matter of verifiability. The editors seeking to include in the article that Assange is a journalist have the burden of establishing that it's supported by reliable sources, and they simply haven't done so. As Jack Upland notes, no one has supplied a single verifiable source saying that Assange is a journalist. Moreover, in this context this is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. Here we have nothing. We have unsubstantiated claims that Assange has won lots of journalism awards. In fact, as far as I can tell the only one listed in the article is the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism ([7]). There is zero evidence that the people who stand behind the Gellhorn Prize have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. R2 (bleep) 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about my !vote R2 (bleep) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Your claims on every count are simply factually incorrect. "they simply haven't done so": We've pointed to numerous journalism awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism and the top journalism prizes in Australia and Italy. "Moreover, in this context this is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources": This isn't an exceptional claim. All that's being claimed is that someone who has won numerous awards for journalism, and who founded and ran an extremely well known journalistic entity, WikiLeaks (which has also won numerous journalism awards as an organization), is a journalist. "We have unsubstantiated claims that Assange has won lots of journalism awards": Read the above threads. These claims are factual, not unsubstantiated. "In fact, as far as I can tell the only one listed in the article is the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism": Read the above discussion. A whole number of awards have been listed. Even Jack Upland went through the list, and quoted several references to Assange's journalism. "There is zero evidence that the people who stand behind the Gellhorn Prize have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy": John Pilger is an extremely well known and regarded journalist and documentary film maker (probably one of the most famous and awarded journalists in the UK/Australia). James Fox is a journalist who worked at the London Times. Jeremy Harding is a contributing editor at the London Review of Books. The "Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism" is the Australian equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize, and is awarded by an organization set up by the main Australian journalists organization for the express purpose of awarding the prize. Is the official organization that represents Australian journalists reputable, in your view? "The International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists" is awarded, as the name suggests, by the National Union of Italian Journalists. Perhaps they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The bottom line is that an award is not a reliable source. A reliable source must be a publication. The announcements of these awards do not expressly say that Assange is a journalist, nor are they reliable. Please try to avoid point-for-point rebuttals in the middle of an RfC survey; some view that as bludgeoning. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC) I'm responding point-by-point because many of the statements being made above are simply untrue, and have been shown to be untrue in the above discussions. It is important for editors to read the preceding discussions before voting, but given the number of factual errors in the explanations of the above "No" votes, this does not appear to have been followed. I'm surprised that your reaction to it being shown that your individual points being factually incorrect is not to revise your opinion, but to give a different, "bottom line" explanation. To the point of whether or not the awards are "reliable," these are well established awards, several of which are given by the national organizations that represent journalists. As to whether or not they call Assange a "journalist," these are journalism awards, and the texts of the awards praise Assange's journalism and the journalism of the organization he founded and led. The bar for calling Assange a "journalist" is being set exceptionally high here, so that apparently winning the most prestigious journalism awards in a number of countries does not qualify him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The bar is being set no higher here than for any other content in the encyclopedia. We can say X only if reliable sources say X. We can say Assange is a journalist only if reliable sources say Assange is a journalist. It's not rocket science. R2 (bleep) 22:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The bar is being set way higher. The Guardian's explicit statement that he's a journalist apparently isn't enough, nor are numerous journalism awards, including the most prestigious journalism awards in Australia and Italy. What other journalist's "credentials" have been subjected to this level of scrutiny on Wikipedia? This is like claiming that someone who's won Best Actor at the Oscars and a couple of Golden Globe awards isn't an "actor." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC) That would make sense -- except that he's not a journalist. One of your premises behind your argument that he is a journalist cannot be that he is a journalist. O3000 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC) If that person weren't unequivocally called an actor by at least three high quality sources – which would be unlikely in the extreme – I would oppose calling them an actor. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• No I'm not surprised this is contentious. In Western countries, journalists are given special privileges and allowed greater freedom than other people, so some people have a stake in framing Assange as a journalist, and I wonder if some of these awards were given to him with this very intention. In any case, I agree that these journalism awards, like Nobel Peace prizes, are often given for political reasons and are not in themselves good sources for describing someone. Assange is not known for his writing nor has he been hired as one by a publisher, so calling him a journalist seems inappropriate. Daask (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Three data points:

• Reporters Without Borders writes: [T]he UK should refrain from complying with requests to extradite Assange to the US that would aim at sanctioning his journalistic-like activities. [8]
• Le Monde writes: Julian Assange s’est toujours présenté comme un journaliste. En 2010, lorsqu’il publie les documents de l’armée et de la diplomatie américaine, la question ne se pose même pas. [9]
• The NYTimes writes: Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr. Assange does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations like The Times do. [10]

RS say Assange is a "non-conventional journalist", a "self-declared journalist" and a "journalistic-like journalist" so that's pretty much what en.wp should faithfully represent. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Re The New York Times comment, being the head of a traditional or nontraditional news organization makes one a business executive, not a journalist. The head of a hospital is not necessarily a doctor. The head of an educational corporation is not necessarily a teacher. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I read those sources a little differently than you. One says he engages in journalistic-like activities, one says he's not a conventional journalist, and one says he presents himself like a journalist. Somehow you've turned them all around to say he's a journalist. R2 (bleep) 00:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm just providing RS since almost all of the foregoing was personal opinions. My own opinion, as I said before the RfC was launched, is that the article should probably just say "publisher", which I see the infobox has been updated to say since my comment.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, per my comments in the Discussion section below, and Jack Upland's 08:29, 31 May 2019 comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we should all consider this before closing: "whether Assange qualifies as a 'journalist' in the eyes of the law (and other journalists) — will be at the core of the debate over Assange and free speech." Vox curated stories relating to the question: "Is Julian Assange a journalist?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Legal definitions vary by country and even by state. This is a bio, not a legal document. O3000 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The articles get into more than the legal definitions. My point is, this precise question is being heavily discussed in the media at this very moment, and we must consider these RS. My other point is that how he is defined in this article is vital and should be discussed in the article itself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The articles show the issue is contentious, which is why we shouldn't take sides. The articles also fail to demonstrate that there is a legal issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I agree that "this article should not call him a journalist" at this time. My concern is that this RfC may take the side that he is affirmatively not a journalist. I haven't read all the articles yet, but there may be a consensus that he "engages is journalism". Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this article should say he is not a journalist either. That would be very POV. If this becomes a major debate (legal or otherwise) we should simply document both sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested we say he is not a journalist in the article. He's not a nuclear physicist either. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. Maybe this RfC could be distilled into a proper coverage of the entire debate, and in the Lede, a distillation of that (although I've no idea how that would look). While working on the Edward Snowden article during the heated debate about whether he was a traitor, a hero, or what?, it was decided that we simply add all prominent viewpoints. The Lede (until a few months ago) read: A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero, a whistleblower, a fugitive from justice, a dissident, a traitor, and a patriot. Maybe something along those lines would work for Assange and his disputed designation. petrarchan47คุก 19:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if this becomes a major debate we should document both sides in the article. I expect this will become a major debate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but he has probably studied nuclear physics!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• No per Jack Upland and O3000. I note that the Arianna Huffington article is in some journalist categories, but does not explicitly call its subject a journalist. I note that the Matt Drudge article is in category:American alternative journalists, but does not explicitly call its subject a journalist. I realize that what Wikipedia should do for Julian Assange does not depend on what Wikipedia already does in other articles, but I would raise an eyebrow like Spock if Julian Assange is described as a journalist and Arianna Huffington is not. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and No Wikileaks is a publisher. Assange isn't famous for writing, but for publishing leaked material. It appears his title cannot be boiled down to one single word. We should cover the fact that it is controversial, and mention any prominent viewpoints, including his own. petrarchan47คุก 06:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Changed !vote petrarchan47คุก 22:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. President Trump is not a WP:Reliable source; see Veracity of Donald Trump. The reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to him as a journalist, and this whole article describes his career in journalism. Trump calls the mainstream media "the enemy of the people", and that article's section on the Soviet Union authoritarianism says: "The term returned to Russian public discourse in the late 2000s with a number of nationalist and pro-government politicians (most notably Ramzan Kadyrov) calling for restoration of the Soviet approach to the 'enemies of the people' defined as all non-system opposition." And look at Media freedom in Russia#Judicial prosecution of journalists and media outlets – "Prosecutors in Russia have the custom of charging individuals – including journalists, bloggers, and whistle-blowers – with trumped-up criminal offenses including defamation, extremism, and other common criminal charges, as part of an effort to deter and limit their activities." (emphasis mine; pun intended) Every single "no" !voter engages in (Stalinist) WP:Original research. Many of the all-time top journalists have gained prominence through conspiracy theories. And the fringe idea that falsehoods make someone a non-journalist, is also what Trump does when he calls the "fake news media" the "enemy of the people". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 14:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No idea what any of this has to do with anything. But, claiming that every single no !voter is engaging in Stalinism is stepping light-years over the line. O3000 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• No . Just because the so-called "enemies of the people" call him a journalist doesn't mean I have to agree. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Question. Is John Demers, head of the National Security dept. at the Justice Dept. an RS? Out cherry-picking I saw that he said: “Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions.” This, quoted in the NY Times article mentioned above, would seem to suggest that some say he is a journalist and that it may therefore be a POV worth conserving. Pointy question aside, my reason for !voting is that I don't think we should declare once and for all definitively whether the guy is a journalist (whatever that means) or not, because it's obvious this is a point of contention and may (have) evolve(d) over time. It might be more pertinent to ask the question of whether he is or was or will be most defined by being a political prisoner. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that some say he is a journalist. I agree that this is a point of contention and we should be neutral. However, I think we should avoid second-guessing future court cases. I agree that he is known for his legal difficulties, but that goes beyond this RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Just another data-point for Assange's BLP (in 2015 he called himself a "wanted journalist" in Le Monde, in an open letter to the French president): Je suis un journaliste poursuivi et menacé de mort par les autorités états-uniennes du fait de mes activités professionnelles. Le Monde. Copiable link:

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, although there should be some mention of dissenting views. At this point, I see many reliable sources provided by Thucydides411 calling Assange a journalist, a few RS that equivocate ("self-declared journalist", "non-conventional journalist"), and several opinion pieces (in generally reliable publications) that argue that Assange should not be considered a journalist. It would thus appear to me that the balance of coverage in RS leans toward calling him a journalist, although if people want to provide non-opinion RS (ping me) stating that Assange is not a journalist I would reconsider this vote. (Summoned by bot) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Yes, there can really be very little debate about this anymore. However you feel about him personally, he is a journalist.Walkinxyz (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, SashiRolls, but you didn't answer the question.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this you calling me a sock puppet, Jack Upland? Walkinxyz (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Walkinxyz, do you have a connection to SashiRolls? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me answer the inquisitive but/or nut: until Jack's mistake and your question about contributors rather than content, there was no connection I am aware of, save for the editing of a common page. Now, because of Jack's mistake and your leading question, a connection between contributors has been made in the minds of everyone who reads the page. Walkinxyz, you should know that, unlike Kolya, I am not allowed to make speculations concerning motivation, so in responding to their comments on contributors rather than content, I find myself "disarmed" (sort of like after being drawn & quartered). It's always better to write from in media res, to be "disarming" rather than "disarmed", so I'll just say that I hope these harassed groans will help M. Butternut to write better copy for this entry... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to Sashi, responding to Sashi's comment on 30 May. I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this and chose to let it go, since @JFG: had pretty convincingly written that there was no use continuing to further pile into one another in an inconclusive RfC... the arguments on content had already been made & remade, there was no sense left in belaboring the point and drawing attention to any misdirected garden paths the casual TP reader might be led down.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per numerous sources provided. However the contention about his journalistic activities should be duly noted. — JFG ^talk 11:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (award-winning journalist) per a huge number of sources. In fact, assange is an award-winning journalist, see {https://media.jornada.com.mx/ultimas/2019/06/07/club-de-periodistas-premia-a-julian-assange-5144.html] and [11]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per User:Thucydides411 persuasive arguments and sources.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, can we remember that what is being asked is not only "has Assange done some journalism", nor "has Assange been called a journalist", rather, the question is "is Assange primarily known as a journalist?", which is what putting the term in the opening phrase of this article implies. Hitchcock acts in all his own films, George Osborne writes editorials for the newspaper he is now editor of - I don't see 'actor' or 'journalist' in the opening sentence of either of their articles, because it isn't what they are primarily known for. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  That is not the question asked. The RfC asks: "Should this article describe Assange as a journalist?", it does not ask whether he is "primarily known" as a journalist. — JFG ^talk 05:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not the explicit question in the RfC. It is the implication of 'is an Australian journalist' in the opening sentence of the current article. No one here would dream of writing 'B Obama is an American author' simply because BO had written some books along the way. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Nevertheless, numerous RS consider that Assange's journalism work is a key characteristic of his person. I would support a longer intro sentence, for example saying he is an Australian "computer programmer, journalist and political activist". — JFG ^talk 14:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• No He is better described as an advocate as mentioned in the Julian Assange#Writings section. Sure he wrote some stuff that got published, but advocates do that as well as people in all kinds of professions. He writes primarily on information transparency and market libertarianism or himself, and does not write about current news or information beyond his personal opinion. Can we put advocate in the lead? In the article body it could be mention that some call him a journalist as long as it is attributed, not in Wikipedia's voice and perhaps balanced with attributed arguments against considering him a journalist to convey that it is contentious to consider him a journalist. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Reliable sources seem to present both sides of the issue. However, from what I have seen, they strongly lean towards him not being a journalist. He is not primarily notable for being a journalist, he is notable for founding WikiLeaks. It would be acceptable to include a statement that The Guardian has described him as a journalist, but it should not be in Wikipedia's voice. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source has been presented so far that says Julian Assange is not a journalist. In the discussion below, I have listed over 20 news articles that call him a "journalist," and it would be easy to keep going and list more. The only sources we have that say he is not a journalist are opinion pieces, which do not count as reliable sources. I don't think I've ever seen this sort of discussion on Wikipedia before, in which the reliable sources are overwhelmingly on one side, but opinion pieces are being used to overrule the reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• No and alternative Given the very extensive debate going on above and below and the need for some sort of answer-- I think it may be best to go off of what WikiLeaks calls him. WikiLeaks has repeatedly called him their "publisher" on Twitter and in statements and I think we can all agree on that title, especially given Anomalocaris's good point/comparison to Arianna Huffington. We can also look to Pincrete's great point that we have to think about what Assange is primarily known for in this context. With that in mind, we should go towards "publisher." Tfkalk (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That was tried before the RfC.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: In an amicus brief back in 2008, "with one voice[,] most of the US fourth estate argued" against taking wikileaks.org offline. source (EFF ACLU + the American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, The E.W. Scripps Company, the Gannett Company, The Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Association, the Newspaper Association of America, The Radio-Television News Directors Association, and The Society of Professional Journalists.) So it seems clear, again, that the word journalist & journalism should not be prohibited in this article, if most of the 4th estate rallied to its defense. On the article, I tried the straightforward and utterly undramatic solution suggested above by Petrarchan, but it was reverted as being too simple. Oh well. Just to be clear, here, my vote is in response to the original question:

"Should this article describe Assange as a journalist in the opening sentence or anywhere else?"

For me the question of whether it should be in the lede is secondary to whether the word should be in the article anywere else. The answer to the latter question is a pretty obvious yes. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about my !vote. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 06:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A press coalition files a brief in support of WikiLeaks' first amendment rights, so that tells us that Julian Assange is a journalist? I would say...no. The "word" journalist can be in the article, but it cannot be used to describe Assange in Wikivoice. From the Dynadot brief: "WikiLeaks provides a forum for dissidents and whistleblowers across the globe to post documents, but the Dynadot injunction imposes a prior restraint that drastically curtails access to Wikileaks from the Internet based on a limited number of postings challenged by Plaintiffs. The Dynadot injunction therefore violates the bedrock principle that an injunction cannot enjoin all communication by a publisher or other speaker." I don't know if publisher refers to WikiLeaks specifically, but...anyway, is Assange's name even mentioned once? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Kolya, I've hatted this based on the model provided above. My decision is not based exclusively on the fact that nearly all of the press organs allied with Wikileaks against a Swiss bank over first amendment freedoms. As I've said, the word "journalist" is virtually meaningless today: one can get journalistic speech with the right politics published in all sorts of venues (Daily Mail, Mirror, Beast, Medium, Twitter, etc.). Though I still personally agree with Jack's initial argument about "publisher" being a better overal designation though fr.wiki's use of 'founder-editor-spokesperson' of Wikileaks in the lede is also interesting, I've noticed that RS use the term extensively. Putting aside my personal opinion, I've based my vote on what RS say. Someone should invent and start using the term nuitalist or, more likely, nocturnalist in RS to maximize bestest practices concerning yin/yang equilibrium. ^_^ 07:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In the 2008 amicus brief, a press coalition showed support of WikiLeaks' first amendment rights; that does not tell us that Julian Assange is a journalist. The "word" journalist can be in the article, but it cannot be used to describe Assange in Wikivoice. From the Dynadot brief:

  "WikiLeaks provides a forum for dissidents and whistleblowers across the globe to post documents, but the Dynadot injunction imposes a prior restraint that drastically curtails access to Wikileaks from the Internet based on a limited number of postings challenged by Plaintiffs. The Dynadot injunction therefore violates the bedrock principle that an injunction cannot enjoin all communication by a publisher or other speaker."

  I don't know if publisher refers to WikiLeaks specifically, but...anyway, is Assange's name even mentioned once in the brief? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes we should describe Assange as a journalist, among other things, given that dozens of the highest quality sources listed here refer to him as one. Yes Assange is also described as other things (publisher, etc) and no, we shouldn't expect that he will be called a journalist every time he's referenced in the press. Despite practically illegible commentary from far-right rags [12], Assange and is still regularly called a journalist in the press, and he and Wikileaks have been given prestigious awards for their journalistic work. Glenn Greenwald recently described some of that work as "the core of investigative journalism" [13]. It is against this status quo that US officials are arguing in their indictment [14]. -Darouet (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just follow WP:WIKIVOICE, specifically "Avoid stating opinions as facts." It is obvious from this discussion that it is a matter of controversy whether or not he is a journalist. We should describe the controversy. In particular, no, Wikipedia should not say in its own voice that he is a journalist, and additionally, no, Wikipedia should not say in his own voice that he is not a journalist. But yes, Wikipedia should say that it is debated how to describe him, and in particular whether or not he is a journalist, and should describe that controversy.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) Doing so would be POV and not substantiated by the weight of reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Could you give an example of a reliable source that says that Julian Assange is not a journalist? There are over 20 reliable sources listed below that call him a journalist, but so far, nobody in this thread has produced a single reliable source that states the opposite. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411, could you give an example of a non-opinion reliable source that says that Julian Assange "is a journalist"? There are scores of reliable sources that do not call him a journalist, but so far, nobody in this thread has produced a single reliable source that states that he "is a journalist". We do have 20 or so sources that introduce him as "Julian Assange, an Australian journalist...." But surprisingly we can't find any sources that introduce him as "Julian Assange, an Australian non-journalist...." Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut I've read your post several times now, but I must confess that I don't understand what you're trying to say. In one sentence, you ask for reliable sources that call him a journalist, but in the next sentence, you admit that there are over 20 reliable sources (listed below) that call him a journalist. Wikipedia policy is incredibly straightforward here: numerous high-quality reliable sources state factually that Assange is a journalist, and none contradict that statement, so it is a verifiable fact that Assange is a journalist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I am trying to say that proves that you don't understand this entire argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm coming to understand the argument perfectly well. The argument is over whether or not we will follow Wikipedia policy on WP:VERIFIABILITY, or whether we'll give in to the personal animosity many feel towards the subject of this BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand as you are now simply attacking other editors. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The utter incoherence of the arguments being presented to oppose calling Assange a "journalist" is a strong indication that something other than simple adherence to Wikipedia policy is at work here. Look at the above post by Kolya Butternut, for example. First, it demands reliable sources. But then it turns around and admits that numerous reliable sources have been presented. How is one supposed to even respond to such a post? I would "understand" the argument if it were coherent, but it just looks like a jumbled attempt to rationalize ignoring numerous reliable sources.

Originally, the argument against calling Assange a "journalist" was the supposed lack of reliable sources that label him as such. Mandruss, for example, offered to vote "yes" if three reliable sources could be provided. I provided seven. Then, Mandruss specified that only "highest-quality" sources would suffice. So I went and brought the total to over 20 reliable sources, including articles from The Guardian, The Independent, CNN, The Times (of London), Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel, The Telegraph, and more. Mandruss dropped out of the conversation at that point, without changing their vote. However, since then, two strains of arguments have appeared:

1. Arguments that flatly ignore the existence of the reliable sources, and claim that they don't exist.
2. Arguments about why we should ignore the reliable sources, typically along the lines of, "It doesn't matter if numerous reliable sources state that Assange is a journalist, because other reliable sources don't make any statement on the matter."

Wikipedia policy is very clear on what verifiability means, and the sourcing for calling Assange a "journalist" has clearly crossed the threshold required by WP:V by a wide margin. We rarely demand 20+ reliable sources for a statement of fact, especially when there are no reliable sources that dispute it. The nature of the arguments being made, despite the clear dictates of WP:V, is an indication that policy is not the driving factor here. You can look above at the litany of political statements in the early opposing statements and see what's obviously going on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep trying.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I think I have adequately explained my actions. Accept the explanation, or not, but I advise you to be very careful about implications of bad faith. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I don't think you have explained your actions. You eventually said that you wanted highest-quality sources, but then never explained how The Independent, Der Spiegel, The Times (of London), Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Telegraph, Deutsche Presse-Agentur et al. do not fall into that category. If there's some other standard that you'd now like to impose, then please state it and we can talk. Otherwise, it's unclear what standard of verifiability is being requested here. It doesn't appear to be the standard laid out in WP:V and WP:RS. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as per opinions here that I find reasonable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes "Journalist" is not a protected title like "physician" and so, in determining if someone is or is not, insofar as WP is concerned, we have to look at how RS refer to the person. Sufficient RS have been presented in the discussion section to eclipse the heavy standard of WP:REDFLAG. I would personally probably not describe him as a "journalist" on the basis of providing material used by journalists anymore than I would describe a cattle rancher as a chef on the basis of him providing the material used by chefs. However, my personal analysis is irrelevant and, for some reason or another, this is the term RS use. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• No: This is a close one, but I'm ultimately swayed by the fact that most reliable sources don't seem to explicitly call him a journalist in the way that I'd expect they would for someone who is indisputably a journalist, e.g. Christiane Amanpour, Bob Woodward, or even (perhaps slightly more disputably) Glenn Greenwald. For this type of thing, it's often very hard to show that reliable sources indicate that something isn't the case, because, well, why would reliable sources bother to explicitly mention that Assange isn't a journalist? They'd be much more likely to write "political activist Julian Assange said x today", as opposed to "Julian Assange, who isn't a journalist, said x today". Instead of the current first sentence, I would favor describing him as an "Australian editor, publisher and political activist". Orser67 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (for wiki purposes only), No prejudice against reopening in 6 months - I personally don't think he's a journalist. However, on wiki I'm guided by policy. And I think the RS, for now, remains mostly in favour of him being a journalist. There are reliable sources specifically considering the subject these days, and a slight majority have leaned towards saying he isn't. However the majority (even of modern publications) does still view him as such. I'm not sure how to judge the awards (particularly with the possibility of losing the status (i.e. he was a journalist, but isn't now). The judgement is closing, so this is not a future binding statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

A few reliable sources that list Assange as a journalist:

• "Australian journalist Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, an online nonprofit that publishes news leaks and classified information from anonymous sources" -The Guardian ("profile: Julian Assange")
• "Award-winning Australian journalist Julian Assange, who infamously hacked into US state defence, US Navy and NASA pages, founded news leaks website WikiLeaks in 2006."
• "Der Journalist Julian Assange gilt als maßgeblicher Mitgründer der Enthüllungsplattform Wikileaks."
• "Der Journalist Julian Assange gilt als maßgeblicher Mitgründer der Enthüllungsplattform Wikileaks, die Einblick in unethisches Verhalten von Regierungen und Unternehmen verspricht."
• "But his [John Pilger's] big message was the deep shame he feels about successive Australian governments allowing fellow countryman and journalist Julian Assange to languish for years in a foreign embassy."
• "The founder of the WikiLeaks website, Australian journalist Julian Assange, has been honoured with an award for the best in investigative journalism for 2014 by the Union of Journalists of Kazakhstan."
• "WRITING in The New Yorker, Raffi Khatchadourian profiles Australian-born political activist and journalist Julian Assange, one of the founders of WikiLeaks."

These are all from the news sections (i.e., not opinion) of reputable news agencies. Pinging Mandruss. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add URLs and we'll go from there. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Is Assange a Journalist? It Depends What Year You Ask", Bloomberg. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I not moving the goalposts, honest. Not all reliable sources are equal in quality—it's not a binary "reliable" or "not reliable" thing—and my willingness to accept a mere three is conditioned on your willingness to limit yourself to the absolute highest quality sources. That's why I emphasized the word "quality", which I assumed would be understood to mean something more than our word "reliable". While The Australian, for example, probably falls under our reliable sources umbrella, it's a big umbrella and I don't think anybody could claim that they are comparable in journalistic quality to the likes of, say, NYT.

I ask the question: If he's a journalist, why haven't New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS/NPR, Associated Press, or Reuters ever called him a journalist just once during the 12 years since WikiLeaks made him the subject of massive controversy and news coverage? Why does one have to look so deep to find that word associated with him? My answer: Because there is extremely little agreement that he's a journalist. That means we don't call him one in wiki voice, which is what this RfC proposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

while my views are also quite plain and I obviously agree with Mandruss, the semantics is such and in many ways this rfc is a pointless discussion, the two sides will never agree and the "for" side will never back down, the "against" side can ask for good quality sources for years and will never get them, the lead paragraph, should not included any terminology that is not the main steam view, I.e. How he is perceived by the bulk or even a significant minority of the industry, not how he or others would like to describe him, his journalistic-like actions, awards etc should however be covered somewhere in the article, lastly I note that in other article in the Gaurdian he is not described as a journalist and that the link to the profile is a dead folder, e.g. "Profile" is not searchable, does not contain Donald trump, barrack Obama etc. which leads me to the assumption rightly or wrongly this profile was enacted for other reasons and in no way reflects a balanced and sourced proof that meets the standards of good journalism itself, oops another can-of-worms? 2404:4408:205A:4B00:ADBB:4C2:DE0B:42BD (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC) — 2404:4408:205A:4B00:ADBB:4C2:DE0B:42BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Link to one such article https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/09/julian-assange-benedict-cumberbatch-letter. 2404:4408:205A:4B00:ADBB:4C2:DE0B:42BD (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm disappointed in you. I gave you six (not three) high-quality news articles that explicitly call Assange a journalist, plus The Guardian's official profile on Assange. Now, you're demanding URLs. There are no URLs, but you can use LexisNexis or a library to go read all these sources. I've done you the favor of quoting from them.

The new goalpost seems to be whether a certain select list of your preferred sources have called Assange a "journalist." The Guardian, the Independent, the BBC and the DPA are reliable sources, but somehow not on your list. I honestly thought you might change your vote if I met your criteria, but I guess not. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be your reaction. Sorry to disappoint you (add me to your Dishonest Editors List if you must, if I'm not already on it), and I'll wear some of the blame for not making the goalposts clearer in the beginning. But mine is only one !vote, and it's highly unlikely to be a swing !vote the way things are going. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm still confused about your reasoning. You say that you don't consider The Australian to be among the highest-quality sources. Fair enough, although that's already a different goalpost than the one you initially set (you said "quality sources," which would certainly include The Australian). But what about The Independent, the BBC and the DPA? Surely those count among the "highest-quality sources." With those (plus The Guardian), the number of "highest-quality" sources I've provided is at least four. As a pure news source, I'd actually rate the DPA above the New York Times, as the level of political opinion injected into its news articles tends to be much lower, and it has far less of a discernible political bias. Are you arguing that these sources do not count among the "highest quality" sources, or are you just abandoning your initial statement about potentially changing your vote? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that some people call Assange a journalist, some people say he is not a journalist, and the majority describe him some other way. Thucydides has obviously had to go to great lengths to dredge up those sources. Examples seem rare. (The Guardian profile is not very reliable. We don't know who wrote it. It could have been copied from Wikipedia.) Therefore, calling Assange a journalist is contentious, as I said before.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: It was actually very easy to find these sources. All I had to do was enter in a specific phrase, "journalist Julian Assange," into LexisNexis. I actually left out many news articles that have similar wordings. For example, a whole number of major German newspapers called Julian Assange a "Journalist" when they covered the suspension of the Swedish investigation in May 2017, but I only included two of them above. Different phrases would have returned different sets of articles, and there are different ways to say that someone is a journalist. I just picked the most obvious phrase that came to mind. It's worth noting that The Guardian has called Assange a "journalist" in at least one news article we've discussed: [15]. Funnily enough, the reason why The Guardian has an official profile of Assange seems to be because he's written a few articles for them: [16] [17]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

More reliable sources calling Assange a "journalist":

• Assange, an Australian journalist depicted in media reports as a former computer hacker, described WikiLeaks in a January interview as run by five or so full-time people supported by hundreds of volunteers.
• He also claimed that the Australian journalist had treated embassy staff in a "very bad" way - and that he even installed cameras to spy on them and broke into his phone..
• Julian Assange (39) is an Australian journalist, publisher and internet activist. He is best known as the spokesperson and editor-in-chief for the WikiLeaks whistleblower website.
• Its spokesman and founder Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and former hacker, began working with others to create a resource that would make it possible for anonymous contributors to upload confidential information revealing "corruption of governance".
• Sweden's Supreme Court on Tuesday demanded explanations from Swedish prosecutors on further investigation into the case of Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and the founder of the Wikileaks website.
• The government in Quito has been providing Assange with political asylum since August 2012, but the relationship has recently soured and the Ecuadorian president would now like to see the Australian journalist leave the embassy sooner rather than later.
• The 45-year-old computer programmer has been holed up inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London for four years to avoid arrest. "I want people to know the truth about how abusive this process has been," said the Australian journalist.
• The Australian journalist has been holed up in the embassy since 2012 to escape deportation to Sweden for questioning over rape allegations.
• In a live Q&A on guardian.co.uk, the Australian journalist highlighted the role alleged to have been played in the leaks by Bradley Manning.
• The Australian journalist, who is staying at Ellingham Hall, the 10-bedroom Suffolk mansion of Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline club for correspondents in London, says he is bewildered by the allegations.
• Exactly one year ago last week, a scruffy Australian journalist knocked on the door of the Frontline Club, London's only private members' hotel and bar for independent journalists. After walking past framed photographs of cameramen in some of the world's most dangerous places, the white-haired man was greeted by Captain Vaughan Smith, an affable ex-soldier who founded the club after spending nearly two decades filming conflict zones from Bosnia to Afghanistan. Julian Assange's reputation preceded him.
• Assange previously attacked The Fifth Estate, calling its screenplay "a mass propaganda attack" on his website. However, the first trailer suggests the film gives a fair, even positive, portrayal of the Australian journalist.
• Last Sunday, it was reported that the website, run by Australian journalist and IT expert Julian Assange, had "vowed to publish the classified documents tomorrow".
• Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian journalist whose site has enraged the American government by releasing hundreds of secret embassy cables, said the money would help him defend himself against allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden.
• The Scandinavian-based organization was founded in 2006, with co-founder Assange, an Australian journalist and online activist, serving as editor-in chief.

This is just a small fraction of the hits one gets when one searches for "Julian Assange" and "Australian journalist" in LexisNexis. There are tons of articles like this from reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of the Google results for "Julian Assange" "Australian journalist" are referring to other "Australian journalists", not Assange. Specifically finding sources that call Assange a journalist does not show there is a consensus that he is a journalist. I would suggest looking at the stories I linked to which specifically discuss the question. It seems to me that Julian Assange has engaged in journalism, he has acted as a journalist, but that is not what he typically does, so he is not consistently called a journalist. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if that were a plausible explanation for why he is not consistently called a journalist, you have admitted that he has engaged in journalism and acted as a journalist, and if you're right about that, it would explain why he is recognized as a journalist by so many. Meanwhile, the fact that he isn't always called a journalist would be no more significant than the fact that he is not always, and by everyone, called an activist, although he clearly is that as well. Countless news articles including in the New York Times have in recent days avowed that what Wikileaks does cannot be meaningfully distinguished from journalism. He has been described in (probably countless) reliable sources as a journalist, and won numerous awards for journalism. Since he has never announced his retirement from journalism or disavowed it, and has worked closely with more major news organizations around the world on major, world-historical, and impactful news stories than almost anyone alive, it follows logically that he can be considered a journalist. In fact, it should be absurd to anyone familiar with the facts that this would be in doubt. Walkinxyz (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The LexisNexis database has clearly a more extensive range of articles than can be accessed via Google. The range of articles that Thucydides has dredged up goes back to 2010. The selection produced only demonstrates that some people over the years have called him a journalist. This was never in doubt. The question is: should we call him a journalist when many deny he is a journalist, and many others describe him in a different way? The answer has to be no. We shouldn't take sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "dredge up" these sources. I entered an obvious search term, "Julian Assange" AND "Australian journalist", into a standard news database, LexisNexis. I came up with way more hits than I could possibly read through in a reasonable amount of time. I filtered out the opinion articles, lesser-known sources, and articles that didn't directly call Assange a "journalist." I stopped adding sources once the point was made, having gotten through only a small fraction of the hits: 25+ reliable sources that unequivocally call Assange a "journalist" should be enough to prove the point.

I don't see what your objection about articles going back to 2010 is supposed to mean. Julian Assange has been widely covered since 2010, so I found articles roughly from then onwards. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

See this story I linked to::"Is Assange a Journalist? It Depends What Year You Ask", Bloomberg. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've read that article. It's an opinion piece, so it's reliable only for the author's opinion. The author makes a glaring mistake early on, however: "If WikiLeaks is not different from a news site, then its newsgathering and publications should be almost entirely protected from American prosecution under the First Amendment." That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of how the First Amendment functions. This is an opinion piece, and not a very well informed one. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't use logic to decide if he is a journalist; we use reliable sources. This article doesn't call him an activist either. A book author may "engage in journalism" too, but may usually only be called an author by reliable sources. Also, Britannica: Julian Assange, [...] Australian computer programmer who founded the media organization WikiLeaks. Practicing what he called “scientific journalism"....[18] He's not usually called a scientific journalist either, but this self-description should probably be in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides has given us plenty of reliable sources that confirm he is a journalist. My arguments, it should be pretty clear, are intended to persuade you and others to actually accept that the reliable sources say what they do, rather than doubting what anyone can read with their own eyes. If you read that he was an activist in multiple reliable sources, would you doubt it simply because some sources called him a journalist but never mentioned the term "activist"? I'm using logic because I think that's what happening here is a form of gaslighting. There is actually no controversy among reliable fact-based sources about whether Assange is a journalist. The only controversy is among badly misinformed opinion pieces, like the one that you shared from Bloomberg, which assumes the question of whether Assange is a journalist has some bearing on whether or not he is protected from prosecution by the First Amendment. It does not, and Thucydides has correctly pointed out that such a central misunderstanding about the facts of the matter should be disqualifying for any fact-based RS, never mind for the opinion piece that it is.Walkinxyz (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

People here may be interested to know that even the England and Wales High Court Ruling from 2011, on the validity of the European Arrest Warrant against him, begins in the first sentence by describing him as "a journalist well known through his operation of Wikileaks".[19] This so-called "controversy" (which really amounts to a smear) doesn't deserve an airing in a place like Wikipedia, and certainly not in a biographical article about a living person. Walkinxyz (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, Jack Upland on 16 May 2019, above, suggested that Assange be described as an "activist," and one of Thucydides' sources (The Australian) cited above also refers to him as both an activist and journalist. I think you'll find at least as many reliable sources that describe him as a journalist as call him an activist, but my point is simply that just because there are reliable sources that don't call him an activist, doesn't mean the ones that do (and that call him, say, a journalist) are incorrect. It seems evident from the reliable sources that he is both, and I have no problem with updating the article to include both terms. There is zero controversy from informed sources about either term as they apply to Assange, and certainly no RS evidence has been provided here to support a controversy about it. Walkinxyz (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Re:≤ People here may be interested to know that even the England and Wales High Court Ruling from 2011, on the validity of the European Arrest Warrant against him, begins in the first sentence by describing him as "a journalist well known through his operation of Wikileaks" I don't know whether it is the case with Assange, but courts and police will generally accept self-description of a person's profession - unless it has bearing on the case (they wouldn't accept a self-description of medical doctor for example, but if you said you were an artist, they wouldn't ask you when you last had an exhibition or sold a painting).

The 'First amendment' criticism is also invalid, since the opinion piece says "Should be protected" - it does not claim "Is protected". I'm no expert on the US constitution, but even I can see that the freedom to report events deemed to be in the public interest, should possibly be granted protection other than that accorded to private citizens - that is certainly a principle in UK law.

Finally, why is it "a smear" to question whether what Assange is most commonly known as is 'journalist'? J K Rowling has become very publicly involved in various political and other public campaigns, Barack Obama has written some excellent, best-selling books - her article doesn't lead with campaigner, and his doesn't even mention the books anywhere in the lead. I actually admire much that Assange has done, but that doesn't mean that I think 'journalist' is the most common description of him. Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I read "should" as a statement of probability, not of desire. In any case, the First Amendment applies equally to journalists and non-journalists. The opinion piece appears to be uninformed on this issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is the case with Assange, but courts and police will generally accept self-description of a person's profession. You don't know? The judge explicitly said he was well known in the same breath as saying he was a journalist. That doesn't sound like the judge was just accepting any private individual's self-description.Walkinxyz (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides is correct about the First Amendment applying equally to journalists and non-journalists. And why is it a smear to question whether Assange is commonly known as a 'journalist'? Because there are countless reliable sources that say he is one, and nothing but misinformed and politically-motivated opinion asserting that he isn't. Why is this case unlike the case of Obama and Rowling, whose most notable achievements, respectively, are being President of the USA for two terms and being a best-selling author? Because Assange's journalism and its impact on world-historical events is without a doubt one of the most notable things about him, according to the reliable sources that describe his impact and which call him a journalist in the same breath. Nonetheless, Rowling's Wikipedia article describes her as a "philanthropist," along with a variety of other descriptors, in the very first sentence. Obama's article calls him an attorney in the first sentence, before mentioning that he was President. Your argument falls apart on its own terms, never mind the question that really matters, which is whether reliable sources say Assange is a journalist. They do, which, for our purposes, means that he is.Walkinxyz (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course I understand that the First Amendment applies to all, even UK citizens know that - as I'm sure does the writer of the piece, though both you and Thucydides are trying to argue that the writer of "should be protected", is claiming "is protected" and is therefore not a competent person. I have no knowledge whatsoever of how "public interest" plays out in US jurisdiction in publishing material that might be 'illegally' obtained, (it is a valid defence in the UK and sometimes wins), but even I understand the difference between "should be" and "is" ! I don't doubt that sources sometimes call Assange a journalist - I doubt strongly that this is the primary description, rather than founder/editor or some other descriptor relating to his role in WL - which has done many worthwhile, but some more dubious actions, but which is categorically not a journal or a newspaper. Lastly, how much research do you imagine a court does to establish someone's profession? If I want to call myself a 'local businessman' rather than a 'street vendor', why wouldn't they defer to my wishes? Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The court would make an effort to establish someone's profession if it was relevant to the case. In the rape case, it's not. But if the court is just identifying the accused, they wouldn't even bother to establish his real name.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The court self-evidently didn't need to establish his profession or identity because he was already "a journalist well known through his operation of Wikileaks". It wasn't a legal question taken up by the court, nor is it a legal question here. But the fact that a High Court judge recognized that he was "well known" in the same breath that he was a journalist indicates that there were no doubts about this basic fact. He could have said "Julian Assange, residing at [address]..." or "Julian Assange, an Australian national..." but he didn't. He referred to him by his profession. If Julian Assange, despite all that is known about him, had declared himself a street vendor to the judge, the latter most certainly would not have written, "Julian Assange, a street vendor well known through his operation of Wikileaks." You can call yourself whatever you want, Pincrete, and we wouldn't be any the wiser because you're not well known. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, relating to your vote above, why on earth would a "non-opinion RS" state that Assange was not a journalist? That sort of statement only belongs in an opinion piece. Your comment ignores all the sources that have not called Assange a journalist. Thucydides has found a handful that do. The description is clearly contentious, and is not used by most reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, given the importance of the label for framing the conversation moving forward (both established by various RS and people in this conversation), I would honestly be surprised if no RS has included some sort of clarification or explanation to the effect of "Assange calls himself a journalist but it's not clear that he is one because XYZ", and in fact we have three that come close to this but ultimately leave their statements equivocal, with Reporters without Borders IMO coming closest to a direct assertion that Assange is not a journalist based on the quotes in the above discussion. The NYTimes source could have said though he is not a journalist.... Instead, they said though he is not a conventional journalist, which implies that he is some sort of journalist, just not a conventional one. On its own, this would be a weak argument for calling Assange a journalist, but together with other RS that unequivocally call him a journalist I think that the most accurate reflection of RS reporting is to call him a journalist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland Re, "Your comment ignores all the sources that have not called Assange a journalist." This is about as relevant as saying that we ignored all the sources that didn't mention his birthplace, and that therefore there is controversy about that. Or saying that not all reliable sources about the Planet Earth mention that it's round, and so presuming that there is some credible controversy over whether, in fact, it may actually be flat. There is no such controversy. The term journalist is used by enough reliable sources as to be uncontroversial to a UK High Court judge, who described him as "a journalist well known through his operation of Wikileaks".[20] If you believe this is disputed by reliable sources, you need to provide comparable fact-based reliable sources that dispute it. You've admitted that you can't, and so you're imposing on this article your own POV about this "controversy". The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but in any case, there is an abundance of evidence in reliable sources that demonstrates he is a journalist. This should be the end of the debate. Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In 2010 a UK judge called him a journalist. In 2019 United States Assistant Attorney General John Demers said “Julian Assange is no journalist.” From Wikileaks: Harvard professor Yochai Benkler praised WikiLeaks as a new form of journalistic enterprise [...] Media ethicist Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies wrote in 2011: "WikiLeaks might grow into a journalist endeavor. But it's not there yet."[67] Bill Keller of The New York Times considers WikiLeaks to be a "complicated source" rather than a journalistic partner.[67] Prominent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams writes that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic group, but instead "an organization of political activists; ... a source for journalists; and ... a conduit of leaked information to the press and the public".[68] In support of his opinion, he said Assange's statements that WikiLeaks reads only a small fraction of information[clarification needed] before deciding to publish it, Abrams writes: "No journalistic entity I have ever heard of—none—simply releases to the world an elephantine amount of material it has not read." There's no controversy you said? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

As Assistant Attorney General, Demers is part of the office leading the prosecution of Assange and is a member of the US political executive, not part of the judicial branch. He has a vested interest in painting things in the most favourable light for his own case due to the adversarial nature of the justice system. His statement is quite different from the statement of a judge, who is required to weigh both sides even-handedly. Even more to the point, this particular ruling was decided against Assange, making it unlikely that the judge could be credibly accused of bias in favour of him, and making it likely that the term "journalist" was applied as a plain, uncontroversial and "well known" matter of fact.Walkinxyz (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you’ve pretty much made the point. He is no more a journalist than the founders of The Pirate Bay are musicians and film producers. And once again, I am not saying anything about the efficacy of his actions – only the label. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Were The Pirate Bay founders referred to as musicians and filmmakers in multiple reliable sources? Did they win multiple prominent awards for their work in the arts? Did the New York Times say that they had changed how music is recorded forever? Did the unions for recording artists or film workers say that they were members whose work in those fields should be protected? Did a US High Court judge weighing evidence about them refer to them as "musicians and filmmakers well known for their founding of The Pirate Bay"? No? Then maybe the label applies more than you think. Walkinxyz (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems we can't call him a journalist in the lead. But, we should include the controversy in the body. O3000 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you say that in the face of the 20+ reliable sources listed above? It looks like you're throwing WP:RS out the window. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I could just as easily say that you are throwing out all the RS that say he isn't. But, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we can't say it in Wikivoice and we can't say it in the lead. We can discuss the controversy in the body. (This is ignoring your claim of 20+ RS.) O3000 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You cite CNN, The Independent, and Spiegel, among others. An opinion piece on CNN: "Julian Assange is an activist, not a journalist", an opinion from The Independent: "real investigative journalism was about the dogged pursuit of truth through one’s own sources rather than upsetting a bowl of secrets in front of readers", Der Spiegel asks: "Do you consider him a journalist or an activist?". We can't just look for when the sources call him a journalist. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I'm not ignoring any reliable sources. Nobody has yet presented a reliable source that says that Assange is not a journalist.

@Kolya Butternut: Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources that say Assange is not a journalist, then we can talk. But right now, you're pointing out opinion pieces that contradict reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are the only sources you will find that say he is not a journalist, just as opinion pieces are the only sources you will find that explain that he is a journalist, rather than just stating it. RS that do not consider him to be a journalist introduce him another way. We must rely on opinion pieces. Maybe you should compare stories about Assange to stories about conventional journalists who also run media companies. How often are they called journalists? You haven't done a comparison; you have only searched specifically for sources where he is called a journalist. I would suggest finding sources after the 2016 leak of the DNC emails, when his reputation began to change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Re: 'just as opinion pieces are the only sources you will find that explain that he is a journalist, rather than just stating it' - Actually, Jack Upland has found a very helpful academic source that explains that he is a journalist. From Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, Winter 2014:

Le Monde's descriptive writings regarding Assange's acts imply journalistic deeds. Through the recounting of Assange's disclosure of information about dictatorial regimes, secret government programs, and fraudulent bank practices, Assange comes to resemble an investigative reporter. For example, one journalist discusses how Assange uses whistleblowers who provide evidence of "illegal or immoral acts committed by their bosses, their superiors, politicians or state officials."' In another article, the same reporter points out that Assange uses a network of "800 technicians and journalists" to verify the authenticity of documents and to edit them before publication. And:

Le Monde's writers appear to reinforce the notion that WikiLeaks was playing a legitimate journalistic role. For example, one editorialist discusses how WikiLeaks servers had to be moved to Sweden, a country that has "very protective legislation for the freedom of the press and guaranties the confidentiality of journalistic sources."' A reporter tells of how Assange was invited to the University of Berkley to participate in a conference about investigative reporting, and how the non-governmental organization Amnesty International awarded him with their Media Prize, which recognizes journalists who support human rights. (p. 72-73). Walkinxyz (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The question we are discussing is whether to call Assange a journalist, not whether to imply that he performs journalistic deeds. "In Le Monde's news items, Assange is not referred to as a journalist; rather, neutral labels such as 'founder of WikiLeaks' or 'source of information' are used." (p. 72) Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please try to follow the discussion that you yourself started. You said, opinion pieces are the only sources you will find that explain that he is a journalist and I provided a non-opinion, fact-based academic source that explained that he is a journalist. There are plenty of other reliable sources that call him a journalist. This one explains it.

Enough reliable sources call Assange a journalist to make this a notable fact about him. This is the only question that is relevant to Wikipedia. To make the argument that this fact should not be included, you either need high quality, reliable sources that persuasively contradict it, or you need to persuade us the fact isn't notable. Based on my review of the evidence provided, you won't succeed with either. If you don't think it should be included in the lede, you have to convince us that it isn't an important or significant enough fact about him to be mentioned off the top. Given that the organization he is best known for is a media organization, that he and Wikileaks have won multiple prominent journalism awards, that he is a member of a journalism union that calls him a journalist, and that his work has had world-historical impact including on journalism itself (the New York Times suggested almost a decade ago that it had changed journalism forever), I suspect you won't succeed with that, either. Walkinxyz (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This Pirate Bay distinction you claim is absurd. Speaking as a filmmaker myself, I find it rather thoughtless. Many filmmakers have also founded film distribution companies. Many musicians have also founded music labels. Assange created a website, as have many musicians and film producers. Assange is also a journalist who has written for and collaborated with the most widely-read news organs in the world. The Pirate Bay founders do not make films or music, nor do they collaborate closely with film and music companies, so they are not called musicians or filmmakers. However, it is not the fact that they founded the Pirate Bay that disqualifies them from this label, but simply the fact that they do not make films or music. Nonetheless, it is certainly conceivable that they could be musicians and filmmakers, in principle, if they made films and/or music, and the fact that they operate a website wouldn't change that fact if it were true. If Yo-Yo Ma had founded The Pirate Bay, he would be no less a musician. There are no credible sources calling the Pirate Bay founders musicians or filmmakers. There are countless reliable sources calling Assange one. That's literally the only distinction that matters here.Walkinxyz (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, the analogy also falls apart on the basic distinction that The Pirate Bay allows people to download the work of programmers, musicians and filmmakers. Wikileaks is not a platform for the piracy or distribution of others' journalism. In that light, your comparison seems to me nothing more than a political smear.Walkinxyz (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have found a journal article that discusses this topic, based on a survey of newspapers 2010-2011: Catherine A. Luther and Ivanka Radovic,"Newspapers Frame Julian Assange Differently", Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, Winter 2014, p 64. (I haven't found a freely available online version, unfortunately.) Notable quotes include:

• "Only one item in The New York Times refers to Assange as a journalist and his site as a form of 'investigative journalism'." [And that item was authored by American dissident Noam Chomsky.]
• "In an editorial describing how The New York Times and two other newspapers, Britain’s The Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel, came to work with WikiLeaks to procure copies of the diplomatic cables, the writer asserts that at no time was WikiLeaks considered a news organization and Assange as a journalist."
• "Descriptions of Assange as a journalist and WikiLeaks as a form of journalism are absent in articles [in the NYT] published after the cable disclosures. Instead, they refer to WikiLeaks as an “anti-secrecy group” and disparagingly characterize Assange as “volatile” and a “former computer hacker.” Although the articles connote the idea that Assange thinks of himself as a journalist, all of the items essentially scoff at any such notion."
• "Le Figaro’s writers criticize WikiLeaks’ mode of operation and slam Assange’s pretense to be a journalist. In describing Assange, only two articles written by the same author refer to Assange as a journalist."
• "In Le Monde’s news items, Assange is not referred to as a journalist; rather, neutral labels such as “founder of WikiLeaks” or “source of information” are used."

This supports the notion that mainstream newspapers rarely call him a "journalist". I think the argument being put here is contradictory. In a different discussion, I raised the point that media sources have referred to Assange as a "hacker" or an "ex-hacker" etc. Thucydides411 countered this by saying that a few sources wasn't enough. However, now he and Walkinxyz are arguing that the use of "journalist" by sources scattered over a decade proves that the term must be used in the opening sentence. If I went into LexisNexis or another database and found 20 reliable sources calling Assange a former hacker, would that mean that we must call him a former hacker in the opening sentence? Of course not. Thucydides says Assange's hacking convictions can't be mentioned in the introduction at all, despite the fact it is covered by numerous reliable sources, but we must call him a journalist in the opening sentences because a scattering of reliable sources do this. That is illogical in the extreme.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That's quite a dishonest summary of the article, Jack Upland. This is the abstract of the article:

This analysis of coverage of Assange in two U. S. and two French newspapers found that The New York Times was more critical of Wikileaks and more leery of Internet freedom of expression than was The Washington Post. LeMonde framed Assange as a journalist.

Contrary to how you've presented the article, the authors directly state in the abstract that Le Monde frames Assange as a journalist. The article also states that The Washington Post implied that Assange as a journalist, and that some articles in Le Figaro called him a journalist. Why did you leave those facts out of your summary? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I just picked out the quotes that seemed most apposite to the issue here. The authors clearly state that Le Monde's news items do not call him a journalist. I left out the Washington Post because I couldn't find a clear statement. The closest I could find is: "In an editorial, the writer asserts that convicting Assange would 'imply that the First Amendment does not prevent prosecution of American journalists who seek and publish classified information', thus equating Assange’s work with that of a journalist". Firstly, this is an editorial and hence opinion. Secondly, it doesn't actually say that Assange is a journalist, and in my opinion doesn't even imply it. My quotes above include the fact that Le Figaro called him a journalist in two articles. The point is that mainstream news organisations rarely call Assange a journalist in news items, as opposed to opinion pieces. The consensus seems to be that the question of whether he's a journalist is a matter of opinion, and those who call him a journalist tend to be his supporters and admirers.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That is flatly not what the scholarly source you provided indicates. It indicates that the question of whether he's a journalist is resolved by close attention to the descriptions of his work provided in news reports about him, rather than personally, ideologically, or politically-motivated labels and smears (e.g. "terrorist") in editorials and by governments:

Le Figaro, recognized as right-leaning, appeared to support its conservative government's position in joining the U.S. government's condemnation of Assange and WikiLeaks. (p.77), whereas

Le Monde's descriptive writings regarding Assange's acts imply journalistic deeds. Through the recounting of Assange's disclosure of information about dictatorial regimes, secret government programs, and fraudulent bank practices, Assange comes to resemble an investigative reporter. (p. 72-73) -Walkinxyz (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually that proves my point. Calling Assange a journalist is not "neutral" (in the words of the authors). Those who do so tend to be left-leaning and/or pro-Assange; those who deny it tend to be right-leaning and/or anti-Assange. It's a contentious term.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: You gave a very inaccurate summary of the article, which left out statements which directly contradict your position. One of those statements is right in the abstract: "LeMonde framed Assange as a journalist". -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed to summarise the article. Firstly, I think best practice is to quote the article, not the abstract. Secondly, the term "frame" in the sense used by the article is not standard English. As I see it, the gist of their findings is that Le Monde implies he is or resembles a journalist, but never uses the term in news items because it isn't "neutral". We should do something similar.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting that you selectively quoted passages that give a very different impression from the author's overall findings. As for the term "frame," its use in the article is perfectly standard English. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I selected passages which deal with the issue here: whether the newspapers specifically refer to Assange as a journalist. I can't find "frame" in that sense in any dictionary I've looked at. If you want to "frame" Assange as a journalist in this Wikipedia article, there's nothing to stop you. That's beyond the scope of this RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"To construct in words so as to establish a context for understanding or interpretation." Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have gone to the Wikidictionary. I think there is nothing wrong with constructing a context in which readers who make up their own mind might think that Assange is a journalist. I think the problem is insisting this is obviously true.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't need to insist anything is obviously true. Reliable sources, provided with inline citations, allow readers to satisfy themselves that it is true. Walkinxyz (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. I have accessed this article. While it does seem interesting and topical, the abstract also suggests that it's far from a comprehensive or up-to-date review: This analysis of coverage of Assange in two U. S. and two French newspapers found that The New York Times was more critical of Wikileaks and more leery of Internet freedom of expression than was The Washington Post. LeMonde framed Assange as a journalist. (emphasis added) The article, whose scholarship I cannot fault, also explicitly frames attempts to disparage or discredit Assange and Wikileaks as being personally, ideologically or politically-motivated. For example, Attorney General Eric Holder (a prominent member of the US executive branch at the time, not an expert on journalism) was cited by the New York Times on the question of whether or not what Wikileaks does is journalism, and former colleagues of Julian Assange are quoted making remarks about his personality and mental state. The academic article also does not consider any sources after 2011. However, it does state that, "While The New York Times content did not confer credibility to WikiLeaks another related frame that was revealed in the analysis suggested recognition that the organization had forever changed the mode of journalism." Given that you were giving Thucydides411 a hard time for looking as far back as 2010 (even though he also included more recent sources), and given that even one of the more critical sources cited in this article acknowledges that Wikileaks has changed journalism, I'm not convinced. I do appreciate your finding it for us, though. I think it's a fine source of historical information about press coverage of Wikileaks.

Also of interest, from p. 72: In an article similarly criticizing the Obama administration, the [Washington Post] journalist blames the State Department for the leaks. According to the journalist, Assange invited the State Department to redact the documents before their release, but was rebuffed. This then led Assange to believe that the risks involved in their release were "'entirely fanciful'."' Despite what others have said here, this sounds exactly like what a journalist might do before releasing sensitive information.

Also, you left out a significant bit of detail regarding Le Figaro's coverage: In describing Assange, only two articles written by the same author refer to Assange as a journalist. The others use disparaging descriptors such as "young information pirate" and "high-tech terrorist.""" In condemning WikiLeaks, one article quotes U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden as saying that he did not consider Assange "plotting with a U.S. army serviceman to get secret documents" the same as a journalist obtaining information from a secret source. (emphasis added) So, again, a member of the US executive branch (the same executive branch that was embarrassed by Wikileaks' revelations about them) is cited as an authority on who counts as a journalist, and far-from-neutral (and I would say, even outrageous) terms like "terrorist" are applied by ostensible news sources. After that, the academic article discusses two op-eds that take issue with Wikileaks' worldview as much as their methods. The political slant seems clear.

Finally, the scholarly article itself seems to find credible the idea that Assange is a journalist: Le Monde's descriptive writings regarding Assange's acts imply journalistic deeds. Through the recounting of Assange's disclosure of information about dictatorial regimes, secret government programs, and fraudulent bank practices, Assange comes to resemble an investigative reporter. For example, one journalist discusses how Assange uses whistleblowers who provide evidence of "illegal or immoral acts committed by their bosses, their superiors, politicians or state officials."' In another article, the same reporter points out that Assange uses a network of "800 technicians and journalists" to verify the authenticity of documents and to edit them before publication. And: Le Monde's writers appear to reinforce the notion that WikiLeaks was playing a legitimate journalistic role. For example, one editorialist discusses how WikiLeaks servers had to be moved to Sweden, a country that has "very protective legislation for the freedom of the press and guaranties the confidentiality of journalistic sources."' A reporter tells of how Assange was invited to the University of Berkley to participate in a conference about investigative reporting, and how the non-governmental organization Amnesty International awarded him with their Media Prize, which recognizes journalists who support human rights. (p. 72-73).

So yeah, he's a journalist, and it's not controversial even among the well-informed scholarship that you've found, either. -Walkinxyz (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

So to sum up what you're saying: the survey was done in 2010-2011, it only involved a few newspapers, and I didn't quote the whole article. I told you that in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have also accessed the article. The question we are discussing is whether he is called a journalist, not whether he is framed as a journalist or whether WikiLeaks is a journalistic entity. It couldn't be more clear that he is rarely called a journalist, while he is described using "neutral labels such as "founder of WikiLeaks" or "source of information". Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

He is not "rarely" called a journalist, he is frequently called a journalist in reliable sources, which have been amply documented here. He is also uncontroversially the founder of Wikileaks ("a journalist well known through his operation of Wikileaks" said the UK High Court) and, back in 2010-11 when the academic article was written, had been a source for many news organizations. It shouldn't be surprising that he's also referred to in that way. Both are true. They are not mutually incompatible. To prove that there is a credible debate about him being a journalist, you need to provide current, reliable fact-based sources that say he is not a journalist and you need to provide them in sufficient number and quality to justifiably call into question the very large number of high-quality sources that describe him as one. Walkinxyz (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Around 20 sources have been provided referring to Assange as a journalist by specifically searching for "'Assange 'journalist'". If 500 stories don't call him a journalist and 20 do, does that mean he is frequently called a journalist? You're putting a higher standard on the evidence for a "no" !vote. Based on your requirement, you need to provide current, reliable fact-based sources that say he "is a journalist", not just RS that refer to him as a journalist. Most RS do not refer to him as a journalist. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, 20 specific sources out of countless search results have been provided to support the fact that he's a journalist. Whereas you haven't provided even one fact-based reliable source that says the opposite. So this "frequency" question is a straw-man. Under WP:BLP, contentious material "that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The claim that he is a journalist is well sourced. The claim that he is not is poorly sourced. You and others have cited statements from political officials who who wish to prosecute Assange for revealing information that embarrassed their government, and opinion pieces/editorials that support them. It is those statements which should require much closer scrutiny. Obviously, the fact that they were made is notable, but they don't change the facts. Assange is a journalist. Walkinxyz (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Several editors have suggested including the debate whether Assange is a journalist in the article. The problem is that in many sources this is part of a argument about the First Amendment or some other free speech provision. (In fact, in some cases, saying he is or is not a journalist is a shorthand way of talking about the "freedom of the press".) As several editors have pointed out this argument is simplistic. If we are going to include legal commentary in the article, we should be citing legal experts. We should avoid citing journalists pontificating about the rights of journalists. However, I think it would be better to concentrate on legal issues that have actually been raised in court rather than hypothetical ones. We do not want to give the impression to readers that Assange's legal battles can be summed up in the question of whether he is a journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that if he is or is not a journalist is controversial (at least in this RfC), and there are sources to substantiate the debate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There are opinion pieces that argue he's not a journalist. Nobody has yet presented any reliable sources that state that he's not a journalist. By contrast, every single reliable source that has been presented in this discussion has called him a "journalist." The reliable sources are very one-sided in this discussion, in contrast to the opinion pieces. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There are no sources that say Clark Kent isn't a journalist. Your claim that every single RS presented here has called him a journalist is astounding. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If The Guardian, The Independent, The Times (London), The Telegraph, The Australian, CNN, The BBC, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, ITAR-TASS, Wirtschaftswoche, and many other news agencies had written news articles (not opinion pieces) calling Clark Kent a "journalist," then yes, we would call him a "journalist." That's the situation we have with Julian Assange - more than twenty reliable sources have been presented that directly call him a "journalist," and not a single reliable source has been presented that contradicts this designation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thucydides. It's not enough that his being called a journalist is controversial among Wikipedia editors. They don't count as reliable sources, and neither do the opinion pieces provided to justify that position. Walkinxyz (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you're all wrong. Mr Kent is a journalist. The fact — or moonshine — that he moonlights in caped capers over the rooftops of Gotham City does not detract from the fact that his day job is a journalist and he is a staunch union member. There is no source in the universe that supports a treason of Clark's.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that Clark Kent is a journalist, although Gotham City is where Batman fights crime, not Superman. And I'm not sure what "treason" has to do with anything, but I don't believe it belongs in a discussion about Assange's profession. Perhaps someone has been dipping into the moonshine? Walkinxyz (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here yet: Julian Assange is a long-time member of the main Australian journalists' union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance ([21]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if that would come up. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, as its name suggests, is not a "journalists' union". It covers journalists, artists, actors, and circus clowns. This recent letter from the union states that "Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and has been a member of MEAA’s Media Section – the trade union and professional association of Australian media workers – since 2007". This suggests that Assange is a "media worker", which is obviously true. The letter does not call him a journalist. Moreover, unions (in Australia at least) do not generally check your credentials. If you are willing to pay your dues, they will put your on their books and keep you there till you stop paying. In fact, the Australian Labor Party requires that its members join the relevant union, leading to incongruities such as Senator Stephen Conroy being a member of the Transport Workers Union. If I was prepared to waste hours in pointless research I could regale you, comrade, with endless examples of people who were members of Australian unions that had nothing to do with their real occupation. I say this as someone who has been a member of many Australian unions and considers it money well spent.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"circus clowns": That's cute, but the union has stated that it considers Julian Assange a journalist:

"Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists." - Australian Council of Trade Unions president Ged Kearney, as quoted in "Journalists' union shows support for Assange," ABC.

Moreover, unions (in Australia at least) do not generally check your credentials. If you are willing to pay your dues, they will put your on their books and keep you there till you stop paying. If you've read the article I've linked, then you'll know that the union specifically recognized Julian Assange as a journalist, waived his membership fees "in a show of solidarity," and presented him with an honorary member card. Assange was already a member beforehand, but the union held a ceremony in order to show their support for him.

The letter does not call him a journalist. But it does call out the fact that WikiLeaks has won Australia's most prestigious journalism prize, the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism. The union has previously called Assange a "journalist," as I point out above, and in this letter, they call out WikiLeaks' journalism prize.

If I was prepared to waste hours in pointless research I could regale you, comrade, with endless examples of people who were members of Australian unions that had nothing to do with their real occupation. How about you just read the linked article before giving your opinion? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The union does not specifically recognize Julian Assange as a journalist. It specifically recognized him as a member of the union for media workers. It is only implied that he is a journalist when Victorian MEAA branch secretary Louise Connor compared him to other journalists, and said he does journalism. If someone does journalism does that make them a journalist? There is no consensus. From the Walkley Foundation: "In 2011, Wikileaks, with Julian Assange as its editor, received a Walkley Award in Australia for its outstanding contribution to journalism. [...] Many mainstream journalists worked with Assange’s material to publish their own reports".[22] It sounds like he is an editor who contributed to journalism by providing material to journalists. An editor is "A person at a newspaper, publisher or similar institution who edits stories and/or decides which ones to publish."[23] Publisher would also be an appropriate term. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

And let's see how the MEAA union describes Assange in their "lead" in a recent letter:

We write to convey concerns about the possible extradition to the United States of Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, and urge the UK and Australian governments to oppose extradition to that country. Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and has been a member of MEAA’s Media Section – the trade union and professional association of Australian media workers – since 2007.[24]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The union does not specifically recognize Julian Assange as a journalist. I literally just linked to an article in which the union repeatedly calls Assange a journalist. What is your strategy here? Denying something that everyone can read won't make people take your argument more seriously.

There are dozens of reliable sources listed above that call Assange a "journalist." He's won several major journalism prizes. The union that represents journalists in Australia says he's a journalist. What is this entire debate about? You can others here have been arguing that we should take opinion pieces (i.e., not reliable sources) written by political opponents of Assange, and use them to overrule what the reliable sources say. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot going on there to respond to. Your 1st sentence is a misrepresentation of facts, 2nd is a false attack on my credibility, 3rd and 4th are motte and bailey arguments, 5th is a misrepresentation of facts, 6th and 7th are a strawman/appeal to ridicule.

In more detail:

I literally just linked to an article in which the union repeatedly calls Assange a journalist. The article from 2010 included quotes from MEAA representatives which stated ""Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists", and "We'd like to remind everyone that Julian, like other members of the media alliance, is covered by our code of ethics that covers journalists", "We've been very disappointed in the way his journalism has been characterised". I interpret these statements to be direct comparisons to journalists in order to defend his first amendment rights; they do not repeatedly call Assange a journalist. According to an opinion in Business Insider, "The data dump in 2010 had many markers of public-interest reporting. Some of WikiLeaks’s more recent actions clearly don’t.[25] After apparently years of silence, in 2019, the MEAA wrote in a letter to the British and Australian governments, "We write to convey concerns about the possible extradition to the United States of Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, and urge the UK and Australian governments to oppose extradition to that country. Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and has been a member of MEAA’s Media Section – the trade union and professional association of Australian media workers – since 2007."[26] The only occurrence of the word journalist is in the context of the 2010 actions: "In 2011 the WikiLeaks organisation was awarded the Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism – in recognition of the impact WikiLeaks’ actions had on public interest journalism by assisting whistleblowers to tell their stories." All of this is of course overfocusing on one media union in the world which had compared Assange to a journalist in 2010.

There are dozens of reliable sources listed above that call Assange a "journalist." Yes, and there are hundreds more which call him something else. The scholarly article which specifically studied the question of whether newspapers call him a journalist shows that even the newspapers supportive of him only imply he is a journalist, as discussed above. And this study was done back when he was more respected.

The burden is on the !yes vote to show the majority of RS call him a journalist. This has not been achieved. I don't see why it is even important to call him a journalist in this article. We should err on the side of caution and call him a publisher, like the MEAA does in their recent letter for instance. Do you think it's time to agree to disagree? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your mental acrobatics above are grotesque, Kolya. The media union has most definitely, repeatedly, called him a journalist and/or what he does journalism. These amount to the same thing. If what he is known for is journalism, he is a journalist. If Britney Spears wrote an album of hit songs ten years ago, and some news reports only described her as a singer and not a songwriter, and some critics write that she's really lost her knack for writing songs, or never really had it, does that mean she is not a songwriter? Clearly not. Assange can be both a journalist and publisher. You don't see why it's important to call him a journalist? Because this is an encyclopedia, and facts matter in an encyclopedia. And the fact is that, according to reliable sources, he's a journalist. Walkinxyz (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your characterization of my comments tells me you're not considering the context of my arguments.  Please refrain from personal attacks.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I interpret these statements to be direct comparisons to journalists in order to defend his first amendment rights. How can the phrase "Mr Assange's rights should be respected just the same as other journalists" ([27]) be interpreted as anything other than a claim that Assange is a "journalist"? That's the meaning of the word "other" in this sentence. You're really twisting and turning here to wave away all the references to Assanage as a journalist, to his journalism, to his adherence to the journalistic code of ethics, etc.

All of this is of course overfocusing on one media union in the world which had compared Assange to a journalist in 2010. This isn't some random union somewhere in the world. This is the union that represents Australian journalists - the union that Julian Assange, as an Australian journalist (according to the union), belongs to.

According to an opinion in Business Insider: Stop right there. Opinion pieces that contradict reliable sources cannot be used to source statements of fact. We can mention notable opinions, but there is a large body of reliable sources that call Julian Assange a "journalist." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel that that is a very uncharitable reading of the nuanced points I was trying to make. If the MEAA intended to claim that Assange is a "journalist", they would have stated that "Assange is a journalist". I believe it was intentional that they did not directly make that claim. I did not say it was a random union, but regardless of their connection to Assange, they are merely one union in a world full of such organizations. Every RS that calls Assange a journalist is expressing an opinion because there is no precise definition of a journalist. All reporters who work for traditional, respected newspapers are factually journalists, but not all journalists work for newspapers. Opinion pieces describe this ambiguity. The referenced scholarly article[28] shows it is not accepted that Assange is a journalist. But I have expressed that I think it is pretty clear that he does or has done journalism, and the MEAA has stated as such today:

"As we said in our previous letter, the extradition of Assange and prosecution by the United States for what are widely considered to be acts of journalism would set a disturbing global precedent for the suppression of press freedom."

[29] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

All reporters who work for traditional, respected newspapers are factually journalists. Not at all. Some are stenographers who repeat what people in power say (the academic article cited goes almost as far to say that about Assange's newspaper critics). Some are accessories to the public relations industry, and copy press releases word for word. Some plagiarize what they write from other reporters, and some write sensational gossip that they think people will want to read, but which they don't necessarily believe to be true. Assange is none of those, and in my view, based on a review of the extensive evidence, the distinction you want to make here between journalists and non-journalists either holds for him as a journalist, or it holds for nobody. The latter, I would think, is untenable. As for the union, if they wanted to make a "claim" that Assange was a journalist, the could only have been clearer if someone had asked them, incredulously, "But is Assange really a journalist?" To my knowledge, nobody did that, so your suppositions about what they really think is entirely groundless. A fact only gets constructed as a "claim" when you doubt it. It's not a "claim" to say he's a journalist any more than saying he's Australian is a "claim". The fact that he's a journalist is well-supported by reliable sources. End of story. Walkinxyz (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like focusing on the imprecision of my comments when you could instead argue against a steel man. To put it simply, many journalists are virtually universally accepted as journalists when they fit the traditional role, while for other people it is more ambiguous, and there is no clear definition of a journalist.

I used the word claim in response to Thucydides411.

Since their 2011 statements (which I interpret the same as the 2019 statements), the MEAA has only in 2019 stated that Assange has performed "acts of journalism". I do not believe we can infer that their opinion is that he is a journalist. And of course, theirs is just one opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop looking for and discussing opinions to decide this. It has nothing to do with the question. A journalism union which defends its member for their journalism isn't expressing an "opinion", any more than it's the priest's "opinion" that I married my wife, my alma mater's "opinion" that I got a degree, or Belmarsh prison's "opinion" that Julian Assange is currently locked up there. This is the professional body that officially represents Australian journalists. Assange is a journalist by those institutional lights, not by anyone's opinion. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have a real argument you're not being persuasive by repeatedly making strawmen and motte-and-bailey arguments. As you know, one does not need to be a journalist to be a member of MEAA. And performing "acts of journalism" does not make someone a journalist. MEAA doesn't even affirm that Assange performed acts of journalism; they only say that what he did was "widely considered to be acts of journalism". This is what they said literally two days ago. Your best evidence that he "is a journalist" is quotes from them on one occasion eight years ago which you infer meant something more. Your best bet would be to try to put "what are widely considered to be acts of journalism" into the article. I don't think we could ask for a better quote.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious from the context that the "acts of journalism" they're referring to in that quotation just days ago are the "acts" that allegedly constitute espionage in the most recent charges brought against him by the US government. In other words, they are talking about acts of journalism in contradistinction to acts of espionage, and not acts of journalism, say, in a career of mostly something else. It would therefore be highly inappropriate to substitute that quote in the Wikipedia article for a simple, truthful description of Assange's occupation. In a court of law, what is weighed are a person's acts, and this release is framed with that in mind. What is legally and morally relevant to the media union is that the "crime" cannot be distinguished from what journalists do in the ordinary course of their work. If you can find reliable (non-opinion) sources that does distinguish these acts of Assange's from acts of journalism, or that the media union represents Assange as something other than a journalist (which would explicitly contradict their comparison of his legal status to other journalists, a comparison that necessarily by its grammar includes him in the class of persons known as journalists), you may have a case here. If not, you may need to re-think your position. Walkinxyz (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, these "acts" are what Assange is best known for and what he's devoted his life to, so if they're journalism, he is ipso facto a journalist. We've provided reliable sources both saying that what he does is journalism and that he's a journalist because of it. You haven't provided any reliable sources to backup your claim that, even though this is journalism, he's not necessarily a journalist. Walkinxyz (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Or, if it's not your claim (since you said elsewhere that you do think he's a journalist), you haven't provided a reliable source that supports the claim, whosever claim it may be. (Do you even know of someone notable who makes it?) Walkinxyz (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The quotes which you claim show that the MEAA call Assange a journalist are in the same context -- defending him for his actions in "Cablegate". The !yes vote has the burden to show that Assange is a journalist. If I am arguing that Assange shouldn't be called a circus clown, I don't need to find RS that say he isn't a circus clown. If a minority of sources say he is a thing, and pretty much all opinion pieces acknowledge there is no consensus on how he is defined, it is safe to say there is no consensus on how he is defined. Among the other sources I've provided, even in The Intercept they say "Does that make Assange, its founder, a journalist? A debate over that question has raged ever since and has never been resolved."[30] 60 Minutes Australia: "The debate: Is Julian Assange a journalist?"[31] And an opinion piece in the BBC: "For over a decade, there has been a raging debate over precisely what Julian Assange is - whistleblower, journalist, or spy."[32] Your turn: provide evidence there is no controversy over whether he is a journalist. Non-opinion pieces only please. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The quotes which you claim show that the MEAA call Assange a journalist are in the same context -- defending him for his actions in "Cablegate". Correct, and this changes nothing for our argument: they clearly say that he's a journalist (not sure what "claim" would even mean here with respect to my description of it -- there is no alternative possible meaning of "other" in their statement about him). We've provided plenty of reliable sources that describe him as a journalist, and that say that what he's known for is journalism. You've provided opinion pieces (pretty much all opinion pieces acknowledge there is no consensus) that demonstrate that the "controversy" about this is politically motivated. This is precisely why these opinion pieces cannot count as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and certainly not in the face of reliable fact-based sources.

As for the Risen piece, it is an instalment of his regular opinion column. It uses charged, normative language and depicts a heavily politicized environment around the "debate", linking it in the subsequent paragraph to how the US government defines Assange. Risen himself seems to think what Assange did qualifies as journalism. The 60 Minutes excerpt is a two-minute outtake (that apparently didn't make it into their regular broadcast) with an individual who says it's "arguable" one could find fault with Assange's judgment. In the next breath she wonders where the line is between "a journalist simply willing to receive information" and one who "goes further" by encouraging his or her sources to give them information. In other words, she describes Assange implicitly as a journalist, albeit one who may have crossed a line of some kind while doing the things that a journalist does. The BBC opinion piece you provided describes a purely political debate, among the US justice department, and US Democrats and Republicans. Yet even it speculates that the US government itself "may establish that Assange is a poor journalist, but a journalist all the same." Weak sauce for a controversy about a man's occupation.

You seem ready to concede that what Assange does is "widely" considered journalism. Maybe you should take the next step, and accord more weight to reliable fact-based sources over politically-charged opinion pieces. Walkinxyz (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not ready to concede; I have all along been making the distinction between "acts of journalism" and being a journalist. There are no fact-based sources that call him a journalist and discuss why that is true; there are only pieces which simply introduce him as one. You have provided no sources which state that there is no "fact-based" debate over whether Assange is a journalist. Reliable sources have stated matter-of-factly that there is a debate over whether he is a journalist. You have not accurately represented what the scholarly article says about how newspapers describe Assange. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

How have I misrepresented that article? Please cite my words, and the words of that article, directly. Thanks.

You said above that our "best bet would be to try to put "what are widely considered to be acts of journalism" into the article. I don't think we could ask for a better quote." That sounds like you concede that what he does is widely considered to be journalism. It's true that you have tried to make a distinction between acts of journalism and being a journalist, but you haven't succeeded and you haven't provided a reliable source to support such a distinction. You have also said that you think he's a journalist, which makes me doubt that you are actually committed to such a distinction.

"There are no fact-based sources that call him a journalist and discuss why that is true; there are only pieces which simply introduce him as one. This is false. The academic article that Jack Upland provided both summarizes and explains quite clearly how the fact-based reporting in Le Monde depicts Assange as a journalist. I cited it earlier. The same article describes the "controversy" over this as an explicitly political one. I have not mischaracterized it at all.

"Reliable sources have stated matter-of-factly that there is a debate over whether he is a journalist. Stop fabricating. Your "reliable sources" so far are all opinion pieces. You have also admitted that no non-opinion source would ever say he wasn't a journalist, and that therefore "We must rely on opinion pieces." The controversy is political, not factual. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this further we can continue on one of our talk pages. We've gone beyond bludgeoning. You haven't represented anything accurately. You do not even accurately use the word concede. You just stated that you doubt the distinction I am trying to make because of my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with my interpretation of the RS, but I suspect yours do. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that I used the word concede accurately, just as I used the phrase "sounds like" accurately. There is nothing to "interpret" in the reliable sources presented here. They present Assange literally, simply, truthfully, as a journalist. That has nothing to do with anybody's interpretations or opinion, and that's the point. You have constantly injected politicized opinion into this conversation, using it to define a person's occupation on a biography of living person page. This is an egregious violation of Wikipedia's standards. It is not more acceptable simply because the subject of the article is a controversial figure whose "reputation" (as you put it earlier) has suffered in recent years. This is of primary importance for a project like Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me via my Talk page to discuss further. I won't repeat myself anymore here. Walkinxyz (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, at this point the inclusion of a "controversy" about whether Assange is a journalist or not would amount to making his Wikipedia biography a mouthpiece for libel and smears. No matter how often those attacks are repeated by opinion columnists and prominent politicians, they aren't true. Assange being a journalist is not contentious. Assange not being a journalist is what is dubious, and nobody here has provided reliable sources to support that position. It is equivalent to the "birther" controversy about Barack Obama. Just because prominent media personalities like Donald Trump and media outlets like Breitbart disputed Obama's birthplace, did not make it a "contentious" fact. This is extremely important to get right for WP:BLP. Allowing political opponents of an individual to define their very profession in the face of all the evidence in the other direction would be a major abdication of responsibility. Whatever else Assange may be, whether you like his work or not, whether you agree with his actions and politics or not, he's a journalist. Get over it, and please let's move on to more important issues. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

And, by the way, if you read your comments, Comrade Thucydides, you would see that Ged Kearney is not a member of the union. Please do not make false accusations about a woman dear to my heart.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Kearney was the president of the Council of Trade Unions, and was invited by the journalists' union to speak in Assange's defense. If you read the article, you'll see that members of the journalists' union also make statements like the following: "We've been very disappointed in the way his journalism has been characterised". There's no question that Assange is considered a journalist by the union that represents Australian journalists. But the Australian journalists' union, the highest awards for journalism in Australia and Italy, and dozens of reliable sources calling Assange a "journalist" are apparently overruled by a few Op-Eds by political critics of Assange. That wouldn't be the standard of evidence in most Wikipedia articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably one of the most relevant sources "The New York Times's editor, Bill Keller, has recently written about his newspaper's relationship with Julian Assange is potentially so damaging to Assange: "We regarded Assange throughout as a source, not as a partner or collaborator, but he was a man who clearly had his own agenda." Not as relevant but highly regarded and an opinion piece "Peter Greste is a founding director and spokesman for the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, and UNESCO chair in journalism and communication at the University of Queensland." . We can continue the he said, she said argument as infinitum. or address it more positively and with an agreed methodology which will still not make everyone happy but the alternative is this circular continuum. The Original Filfi (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not recent at all. That article is over eight years old, and explicitly doesn't contradict him being a journalist. And even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything because it's an opinion. If a record producer said something once eight years ago about Britney Spears not really being much of a songwriter, would that be a reason to remove the description from her biography, even though countless reliable sources say that she is, in fact, a songwriter? That's what this amounts to. You wouldn't have an argument to remove it just because an editor "only" found 20 reliable sources calling her a songwriter, whereas x number of sources just don't mention her writing those songs, and lots of people don't like her. The criteria need to be this: notability and reliable sources. They both say Assange is a journalist. You can look for compromise all you want, I'm all for it, but you can't compromise those basic principles of Wikipedia. Walkinxyz (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

And the quotes from the MEAA union representatives were said once over eight years ago.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

hence the quotes, and check the ref The Original Filfi (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

They're both opinion pieces. What's your point? That some people don't like Assange?

Also, Peter Greste is sadly misinformed and distorts the facts. Press freedoms in countries like the United States and other liberal democracies do not apply only to journalists. They apply to everyone. If they didn't, the government would be able to create a list of approved journalists and censor everyone else, a hallmark of authoritarian regimes (Greste should know, having been imprisoned in Egypt himself for the crime of journalism). This has been one of the red herrings in this debate. The question of whether Assange is a journalist or not has no bearing on whether or not he can be prosecuted for publishing. Raising it (as the Trump administration has done) is evidence of an attempt to unduly politicize the question. Also, Greste writes, "Julian Assange did none of that" in relation to editing, contextualizing, and researching what he published. This simply isn't true, as Le Monde explained almost a decade ago. Walkinxyz (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter Greste is a poster boy for Australian press freedom, having been imprisoned in Egypt for his reportage. If he says Assange is not a journalist, that is noteworthy. Maybe he's wrong. Maybe UFOs landed in Oz; maybe Bigfoot wore high heels; maybe Donald Trump is secretly a Muslim orang-utan brainwashed by North Korea. You're entitled to your opinions, but Wikipedia is based on sources and neutrality. It is clear there is a range of opinions on the topic, and news sources do not consistently call him a journalist. Since, as you rightly say, the issue of whether he is a journalist is legally irrelevant, why keep pursuing it against overwhelming evidence? What this really about? Bigfoot doesn't care.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely notable that he said it. And you're absolutely right that it also doesn't change the facts. The fact is that Assange is a journalist, and journalists are targeted around the world. But if politicians can get people to accept that someone isn't really a journalist, they have a political wedge to use against them. And then they can set a precedent: if Assange doesn't have press freedoms, neither does anyone else. Not because journalists have special protections relative to everyone else, but precisely because they don't. Glenn Greenwald explains this here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/28/indictment-assange-is-blueprint-making-journalists-into-felons/

I'm a Canadian, and I campaigned for the release of Greste and his colleagues, as well as for the release of John Greyson and Tarek Loubani while they were imprisoned in Egypt. Neither Greyson nor Loubani (who are also Canadians) are journalists, but they have the same rights as anyone else. Greyson is a filmmaker. I didn't try to argue that he is a journalist, because he isn't.

That people are questioning whether Assange is really a journalist seems to me purely a function of misguided or disingenuous political distortions, Greste's included. Or if not, they amount to aesthetic judgments, like someone might say "that's not really art" about something that hangs in an art gallery. What Greste said about the actual journalism, i.e., that Assange didn't edit, research or contextualize any of what he published, is false. What he said about press freedom is also false. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't admit falsehoods as facts. It matters to get those facts right, despite the politically-motivated distortions and personal/aesthetic judgements. That's what this is about.

You seem to be embracing a very fluid, relativist notion of truth here: some people say this, some people say that, so who can really know the truth about this man's occupation? There are plenty of opinions about Assange, and the most notable ones should be documented here. But he is also a journalist (and publisher, and dissident), and in a biography, that should be mentioned. It does a disservice to readers otherwise. Walkinxyz (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right that if politicians get people to accept that Assange isn't a journalist it puts our freedom of speech in jeopardy.  You may even be right that he is objectively a journalist, whatever that means, but this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia, objective can only mean verifiable based on reliable sources. Nothing I said about the wider context belongs in the article, but it may help us editors understand the subject we are writing about. I have been narrowly concerning myself with preserving the descriptor "journalist", which was here when I arrived. You don't have consensus to remove it, because it's well sourced and belongs in the article. That's not writing a great wrong, it's just good Wikipedia editing. -Walkinxyz (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI, personally I think he is a journalist, but that is irrelevant.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Having read all of the above, (24 hours well spent?) I see there is general consensus that he is not a journalist, however, there are some sources from reputable organisations that do call him this, some appear to be opinion pieces or bordering on opinion pieces, and some appear to be genuine news articles and if they have followed the principles, even if we think they may be somewhat unbalanced, must be "allowed", however I also note there is also sources from the very same organisations that do not call him this, that omission is not definitive and they must also be "allowed".

Looking at the manual of style and how it is applied to other BLP's we see some discrepancies and I think the overriding need of the encyclopedia state that he should be described by the most logical, notable and concise way as possible, that most people would recognise for each individual (as in Donald Trump way way above), I think the same applies here, the lead, descriptive sentence, should state one or two of his occupational descriptions 1. as most people that know the individual concerned, 2. in this case, 3. at this time, Assange is most noted for "co-foundering Wikileaks and avoiding arrest in the UK by seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy", and nothing else is anywhere near as relevant at his time His journalism, hacking etc can be covered later in the lead or article and the phraseology needs to state something like "while some sources believe Assange is a journalist and needs to receive the same protection afford to that industry, other dispute this both directly and in-directly" obviously adding one or two sources to each point that needs verifying.

Somewhat outside the scope of this discussion, but highly relevant going-forward, can we have a new article "Julian Assange Profile" (or similar), which pipes into any and all articles that requires this, that way we can have a stable agreed, sourced, concise mini article that would be highly readable, relevant and suitable for most browsers (people, not firefox IS etc.) of this article and not muddied or rehashed on other articles along these lines, we could also, and I can see the value in this,an article "JA timeline" (or similar) chronologically detailing each role he may have performed, also piped in to any relevant article, please extend as appropriate.

We can then apply this principle to any and all biographical subjects that have multiple articles with many layers or viewpoints that need to be rationalised and presented in the best possible way

I have deliberately placed the below the references as this is not a vote as such and more a solution to the totality of the above which appears to never have a chance of being resolved to complete satisfaction of all.

Thoughts The Original Filfi (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Consensus if you haven't already, and rethink your view. The reliable sources cited on this Talk page say that Assange is a journalist. There are no fact-based reliable sources stating the opposite, and there is definitely no consensus among the editors here that he isn't a journalist. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the whole post before replying. 1. The majority have said he is not a journalist, hence I said "general consensus", 2. I addressed the sources 3. You cannot prove a negative, terrible argument. 4. I did not rule out "journalist" as a lead descriptor, just a solution to bring all article in to line. Do not address your personal views on any of these points. The fact that this will not be fully resolved as per my post stands true.

Please critique my methodology rather than re-hash the detail, a few Wikipedians bombarding this topic does not create a close contest, indeed my methodology allows this obviously contentious view to be addressed and published.

PLEASE ALL - keep all arguments and the continued repeating of the same points to the circular RFC above. Anyone that wishes to discuss this potential solution and methodology please feel free to do so.The Original Filfi (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I must confess that I find your contribution above rather hard to follow, but I think I understand it better now. I asked you to read Wikipedia's policy on consensus because it doesn't matter what the majority of editors say. That's not what Wikipedia means by consensus. As for the rest of your suggestions, I think that any decent biographical article about a well known person should mention the person's occupation up front, not just what they are "known for" (currently, or otherwise). Britney Spears is "known for" her songs, albums, and videos, but that's not the first thing her Wikipedia article says about her. It says she is a "singer, songwriter, dancer, and actress." It doesn't say she is better known for her singing than her songwriting or acting, or that her being an actress is disputed because lots of articles about her don't mention the fact. Therefore, any description of Assange's occupation(s)/profession(s) that meets the notability and reliable source criteria of Wikipedia should probably be mentioned in the first sentence of the lede. These are basic facts about him as an individual that should be covered by any decent biographical article. A recap of major events that he is/was involved in can be mentioned later in the lede. Walkinxyz (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, The Original Filfi, for a well-considered response. People like you make me glad that I am involved in Wikipedia because you actually considered the issue. Thank you, thank you, thank you.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think we've heard enough, and the discussion is getting repetitive. @All participating editors, please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON, and let the RfC run its course. — JFG ^talk 14:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could approach the issue differently. Assange defenders believe that his prosecution would be an attack on freedom of the press, which is protected under the First Amendment, while the Trump administration claims it does not because they argue that Assange is not a journalist. TFD (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I agree that this issue should be approached carefully. At the moment we have a large number of both reliable sources and wikipedia editors who consider Assange a journalist, and describe him as one. At the same time, we have a larger number of sources that refer to Assange without calling him a journalist, and we have a larger number of editors who state that Assange is not one. Simply eliminating any reference to Assange as a journalist in the lead or the body will neither describe the totality of reliable source descriptions available, nor the opinions of a sizeable fraction of editors on this site. Some kind of wording which recognizes this dispute — including the positions of free press advocates, and the position of the Trump administration — is both important and feasible. -Darouet (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We could say something like, "Assange has been awarded for journalism, but critics have denied his work is journalism". However, there is no legal issue so far, hanging on the question of whether he is a journalist. As I said before, we should avoid hypothetical legal arguments.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Lede length

The WP:LEDE is excessive and seems to be growing. Some of this needs to get snipped. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is OK at the moment, but would be easy to trim. There is a lot of excessive detail which is unnecessary as it duplicates material in the rest of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

it appears to violate lede length guidelines. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How specifically?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

DNC "Timeline"

While I find some of the information interesting, this topic is already extraordinarily bloated in an article that has a lot of other material to cover (including Assange's life, all the other leaks besides those related to the 2016 election, and the current extradition and espionage cases). I've moved the material here [33] — fitting since that article actually covers how this episode has been treated in a court of law — in case anyone wants to edit. I didn't want to simply delete since User:My very best wishes presumably took some time to compile the information. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• That timeline includes only events which specifically involve Assange (and I only started making this timeline). This is NOT a timeline of Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation. Such timeline could be created, but it would include a lot more than Assange. One could create a separate sub-page with timeline for Assange and link it here, but it wound not stand as a separate page. If you totally disagree with including such timeline and no one else comments or gets involved, I might start an RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Why, on a BLP about Julian Assange, is a Timeline about him and the 2016 election needed, in addition two five extra narrative article subsections: "(1) 2016 US presidential election — (2) Criticism of Clinton and Trump — (3) Seth Rich conspiracy theory — (4) Democratic National Committee leaks — (5) DNC lawsuit" ?

Do you believe the article should also include any of these additional timelines that could, similarly, be created?

• Timeline of Julian Assange publication of the Afghan and Iraq War Logs
• Timeline of Julian Assange publication of CableGate
• Timeline of Julian Assange publication of CIA Files
• Timeline of Julian Assange sexual assault allegations
• Timeline of Julian Assange asylum within the Ecuadorian embassy
• Etc

Using the approach you're advocating, random timelines about any aspect of Assange's life could be added to random parts of this article. For instance, thousands of reliable sources could be found to create at least four of those five hypothetical timelines I mentioned above. -Darouet (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it would be a good idea to create a single "Assange biography timeline" for everything, but we should start from something. If certain items need to be removed, then fine, I also do not mind. Bu why remove everything? I also agree with Jack Upland (see below) that the page became confusing after your last changes. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this was excessively long. However, as a result of recent changes, the article is moving out of chronological order again. Assange's involvement occurred when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy. The way it's presented could be confusing. Also, we now have a section called "Political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" followed by one called "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI the recently-inserted timeline is a reaction to a proposed re-organization of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections into a threaded timeline at Draft:Threaded timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Draft of threaded timeline. — JFG ^talk 11:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I simply think some political controversies (such as ones involving Assange) are very complex and difficult to understand for a casual reader without providing such timelines. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, Jack Upland, and JFG: I have now renamed "Asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy" to "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy," since at this point in the text Assange has already been granted Asylum. I also think that the section could be renamed "Conflict with the Moreno administration," since the section documents increasing conflict between Assange and the Moreno administration and embassy staff during this period.

The whole article isn't perfectly chronological, but with the changes I've made, all major leak publications are now placed under the "Wikileaks" heading, and are chronological within that. Previously, the election publications were the only major leaks that fell outside of it.

JFG, I do see that discussion and will think about making some comments over there — I don't know what the best option is for arranging these various timelines — but per my comments above, such a timeline here is totally WP:UNDUE and skews the article down a path that has, already, significantly distorted this biography. MVBW, Assange's whole life is one long and complicated political controversy, and this timeline, here in this article, distorts rather than clarifies. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the information is best presented in prose form in this biography. Looking forward to your comments on the draft threaded timeline in general. — JFG ^talk 15:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Prose and timeline(s) are not mutually exclusive. And no, the timelines generally clarify things because they list factual events that are more difficult to distort than by writing something in prose. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the full timeline of events related to Russian interference on a single page, and once the threaded version is published, make a link from individual articles to that central timeline. That gives readers access to the fully detailed information without overloading individual articles. And it remains a central place to maintain. — JFG ^talk 18:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This option would preserve the work done to create the timeline somewhere on Wikipedia while not unbalancing the Assange biography. -Darouet (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet. That sound reasonable. @JFG. No one agreed on talk so far to replace the page by your draft. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"No one agreed" to something I haven't asked. The threaded version of the timeline is almost complete, and I asked for feedback. — JFG ^talk 07:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Indictment in the United States

This section continually refers to his "arrest" as if he was arrested on the basis of the US indictment. In fact, he was ostensibly arrested for breaching bail and sentenced for that crime. It's true that some sources use the term "arrest", but, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be clear about this. The US indictment and the bail violation are separate issues, and the text should make that clear. I will make the changes unless someone objects.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The text as it stands seems clear enough to me. I don’t think we need to spell out the difference any further. Regarding your recent removal of text, which discussion in May were you referring to? Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes the text you removed does use the term “arrest” when it should be using “US indictment”. Are you also aware of other places on the Assange page where a similar mistake is made. If so, there is no problem in correcting the text. Regarding the text you removed, I have looked at the sources and they seem to support something like “Some jurists and the organisations ACLU and EFF consider Assange’s indictment by the US to be an attack on the first amendment and freedom of the press”. The last sentence about a UK tribunal recognising Wikileaks as a media organisation does not seem to fit anywhere on the page but would be relevant if we created a section discussing Assange’s status as a journalist. Burrobert (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversial journalist

@Neutrality: you reverted Rebecca jones edit [34] to put Assange as a journalist in wikivoice. The close of Talk:Julian_Assange#Request_for_Comment_-_Journalist stated that there were multiple sources that refer to Assange as a journalist and that it was controversial. I suppose Assange has won some awards but I didnt see sources that state he is a journalist in the RfC. Are there sources that support this? If yes, the lede should probably state something along the lines that Assange is also controversially referred to as a journalist as well. Certainly if there are sources for this for WP:NPOV we would need to address it. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The article already makes clear that he considers himself a journalist and that some others do as well. So I don’t think we really need to do anything further on that point. Neutrality^talk 03:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have spent more than enough time discussing this.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I went through the article quickly and didn't see that. When I google it, it looks like he has won at least half a dozen journalist awards. Note that whether he considers himself a journalist is not the point and I dont think wikipedia places much weight on what the article subjects think of themselves. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain any statements of the form "X considers Assange to be a journalist". It does contain sentences which may possibly imply that various people or organisations consider Assange a journalist. I counted four as follows:

"The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said that the lawsuit "raises several important press freedom questions" ...".

"The deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Robert Mahoney, said "With this prosecution of Julian Assange, the US government could set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information ...".

"Ben Wizner from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) speculated that if authorities were to prosecute Assange "for violating US secrecy laws [it] would set an especially dangerous precedent for US journalists, ...".

"The French union of journalists, Syndicat national des journalistes (CGT) [fr], said that "the dissemination of documents or information of public interest" could not be considered a legal offense". Burrobert (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In this interview, Assange says, "I started one of the first ISPs in Australia, known as Suburbia, in 1993. Since that time, I've been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist." That's not a ringing endorsement for the proposition that Assange calls himself a journalist. We list the awards that he has won. We include many, many comments by his supporters. I agree with Neutrality's remark that we don't need to do anything further about this. I don't think there's a major controversy about whether he is a journalist (apart from the one at this page). As previously discussed, some people think that journalists get special legal protections. This is wrong, and I don't think we should get involved in a discussion based on a false premise. The only valid question is whether "journalist" is the best term to describe Assange. We have had a RfC, and decided no. The fact that some other people call him a journalist isn't particularly noteworthy. As that interview shows, some people call him a hacker. I don't think we need to bother with this unless there is a major controversy about whether he is a journalist or not, or if it becomes decisive in a court case etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: In the RfC above, I presented over 20 reliable sources that directly call Julian Assange a "journalist" (see the reference list in the RfC). Nobody could find any reliable source saying that he isn't a journalist. In any normal case, that would be much more than sufficient to establish a fact in WikiVoice. But this isn't a normal case. The topic of Julian Assange is highly political, particularly after the 2016 US Presidential Election, in which many hold Assange responsible for Trump's victory. The argument made against calling Julian Assange a "journalist" was that there are reliable sources that do not call him a "journalist" (they also don't say he isn't one), so this lack of any statement one way or another in some reliable sources should overrule the explicit statements in other reliable sources. It's not a normal argument, but Julian Assange isn't a normal article. It's gotten caught up in the broad sweep of Russiagate, like many articles on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this issue has been well and truly aired. I initiated the RfC after realising the issue had been debated for years without conclusion. I didn't have Russia on my mind. Many people took part in the RfC. There is nothing abnormal about the conclusion. All it means is that Wikipedia is one of the many sources that doesn't call him a journalist. In no way does that mean that Wikipedia doesn't document his activities.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, there is no policy to prevent discussion. Thucydides411 are there sources that state that calling Assange a journalist is controversial? Or is it simply controversial on these talk pages? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: There are opinion pieces that say he's not a journalist or which say that the designation is controversial, but no reliable sources. At least, none have been presented. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: What's abnormal is that 20 reliable sources were not deemed sufficient to document a fact, especially given that zero reliable sources were presented that dispute that fact. That does not normally happen on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Various news sources such as CNN, Spiegel, BBC, The Guardian, etc refer to assange as a journalist although he primarily referred to as a whistelblower."

• "Australian journalist Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks, an online nonprofit that publishes news leaks and classified information from anonymous sources" -The Guardian ("profile: Julian Assange")

• "Award-winning Australian journalist Julian Assange, who infamously hacked into US state defence, US Navy and NASA pages, founded news leaks website WikiLeaks in 2006."

• Assange, an Australian journalist depicted in media reports as a former computer hacker, described WikiLeaks in a January interview as run by five or so full-time people supported by hundreds of volunteers.

• He also claimed that the Australian journalist had treated embassy staff in a "very bad" way - and that he even installed cameras to spy on them and broke into his phone..

• The government in Quito has been providing Assange with political asylum since August 2012, but the relationship has recently soured and the Ecuadorian president would now like to see the Australian journalist leave the embassy sooner rather than later.

• The Australian journalist has been holed up in the embassy since 2012 to escape deportation to Sweden for questioning over rape allegations.

Something like that should be fine (of course doing as citations, not as a list of quotes). Thucydides411 could you please add the urls to these citations? This subject seems highly politicized and thus the urls are certainly needed for others to verify. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent mainstream RS discussion of Assange does not call him a journalist. So neither can Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion is becoming pointless. (I think it is also against policy, if that matters.)--Jack Upland (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There are about 20 recent, mainstream reliable sources listed in the above RfC that explicitly call Assange a "journalist." Wikipedia very well can call him a "journalist" - the source basis documenting the fact that he is a "journalist" is excellent. You can make an argument that these recent, mainstream RS should be ignored, but you can't argue that they don't exist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU refers to respecting consensus. The consensus was determined by the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus to exclude this from the article, only that it shouldn't be in the first sentence of the lede if I recall the RfC close correctly. Both Jack and Thucydides are bludgeoning this issue. @Thucydides411: please add the urls to the citations that you have listed so we can check those and look at adding the content. Thanks!

There are two different issues here:

• An attempt to rerun the RfC. That is, as I said, pointless.
• An apparent proposal to include something like the following sentence: "Various news sources such as CNN, Spiegel, BBC, The Guardian, etc refer to Assange as a journalist although he primarily referred to as a whistleblower". Firstly, this is inaccurate. It is clearly not a general rule:[35][36][37][38]. All you can conclude is that some news sources have sometimes called him a journalist. Secondly, we have no source which says he is primarily referred to as a whistleblower. Thirdly, this is inconsequential. He has been called many things. I don't object to sentences such as "Pamela Anderson called him the best journalist in the world" or "Amnesty International says that journalists are allowed to rape women" (if those statements are true). But simply noting that someone somewhere sometime called him a journalist seems pointless. Both Thucydides and I have agree that we have found no major controversy about whether he is a journalist (apart from here). So why address the issue? Fourthly, where would it be inserted into the article? If it was put into the lead, I think that would be subverting the RfC. But I can't think of where else to put it. It's also redundant. If we've decided to call him an "editor, publisher, and activist", why bother saying that some people have called him a journalist? It's not extra information; it's just a different way of describing the same facts.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not an RfC, it is a talk page discussion. Thank you for providing the sources. Indeed if the controversy only exists on this talk page, it should not say the title is controversial. It seems the article's subject is simply referred to this journalist title at times (apparently less than he is referred to as a whistleblower). This sounds similar to an WP:ALTNAME to me, is there such a thing as an ALTDESC? Maybe someone can comment on WP:MOS for this issue? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added this [39]. From my understanding this complies with Bradv's closure of the RfC. Brad, any comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the RfC established consensus not to describe Assange as a journalist in Wikipedia's voice. Strictly speaking, this edit complies with the result of the RfC, but I'm still not sure it belongs in the lead. I think WP:WEASEL would come into play here. – bradv🍁 00:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, as an editor who recognizes that Assange has been described as a journalist by many reliable sources: please undo, or per Bradv, at least move your text out of the lead. There is something to be said for process. -Darouet (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: and @Darouet: I have edited the content to add a section Julian_Assange#Question_of_journalist_title and I have summarized it in the lede. Per Brad's close the consensus was to limit use of the title 'journalist' in the first sentece of the lede to deal with what I suppose of are weight issues. The consensus of the RfC was not to censor all mention of the article's subject as a journalist (there seem to be many sources). My use of words is in no way WP:WEASEL as it doesn't add any vagueness. There is no vagueness that the article's subject is referred to as a journalist. There is a news event that I added in a new subsection news where the US government disputes that he is a journalist, thus creating an independent notability event that is sufficient for this to be covered, regardless the consensuses of what is clearly a controversial topic where a few editors continue to bludgeon the issue to push their POV. There is no basis for an RfC to excluded properly cited content with multiple WP:RS. We have principles at wikipedia that are higher than the daily political banter that goes on some of these articles (such as this) and an RfC is not a weapon in an edit war. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I didn't see anything in the RfC that made me think there would be consensus for a whole section on whether or not Assange is a journalist. I think this requires further input and discussion. – bradv🍁 04:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Clearly we dont need an RfC to get permission to add a section, nor is this RfC a ban on adding one. The subject of this RfC was if the content could be banned from the page, and your close noted that there was not consenus to ban it from the page, only to ban it from the first sentence and also not to refer to Assange as a journalist in wikivoice. Note that I doubt an RfC close could even ban properly cited content from a page, unless it violated some BLP issue, but maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong on this. This close does not preclude an examination of him as a journalist in RS, nor does it preclude a summary of that that provided it is duly weighted and left out of the first sentence of the lede. "Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling." To be clear I am not saying you are stonewalling, I just quoted this as I think it is relevant policy here, that this RfC is not meant to create some sort of rule that would prevent content from being added to the page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: reverted your edit here [40]. You need to find consensus on this page to delete controversial content. The RfC was not related to the new section added after the RfC. Your objection to this content is well noted, ad naseum above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear that you don't have a consensus. Putting that sentence into the lead goes against the spirit of the RfC. It is also pointless. We have given a description of Assange as an editor, publisher, and activist. It is redundant to say that he is also called a journalist. That duplicates the description of him as an editor and publisher. He has also been called a hacker. He has also been called a spy. What we are trying to do is give a neutral description which gives the reader a good idea of what he is famous for. The section is less worse. But it is predicting the issues in the US indictment. It is better to document the issues as they appear. News sources like to speculate about what the key issues will be. But Wikipedia is not news. It is not particularly useful to note what some people think will be the important issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not predict anything at wikipedia, see WP:CRYSTALBALL and your speculation relating to the article subject's legal situation is irrelevant. WP:LEAD covers summation of content in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented on your addition to the lead, apart from you, has been in favour of removal. Therefore I will remove it. The lead does not have to mention everything covered in the body of the article. (For example, you opposed including his hacking convictions in the lead.) We have previously agreed that there has been no major controversy about whether Assange is a journalist (apart from at this talk page), so it is undue to mention in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You again deleted the content in the lede here [41]. This talk page section began with your deletion of cited content. Your WP:TE is pushing a particular POV that you have bludgeoned on these talk pages. You keep referring to an RfC that was held prior to the creation of the section, thus is irrelevant. Hold another RfC based upon the updated page content and the summary in the lede if you feel so strongly about it. Today is the third time in a week you have deleted content from the lede that is being added by multiple editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I only deleted it twice. But does anyone else agree with you on this?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: do you care to comment? In light of the fact that the disputed lede sentence summarizes the section content, there should be no issue for summary to be in the lede. As to wikivoice (NPOV) is the sentence sufficient NPOV given that it states that the journalist title is disputed by the US govt and others? Or do we need to weaken it more, for example stating: It is disputed by the US government and others if Assange should be referred to as Journalist." What do you suggest in this sort of case where the RfC covered content prior to additional content being added and an editor seeks to use an RfC to prevent new content from being summarized in the lede. Note I believe this is one of these POV pushing article that has a 1RR restriction. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I assume we're referring to this text: Assange is also sometimes referred to as a journalist, although the US government and others have disputed that title. I don't see any reason to include that in the lead. It's not an important biographical detail, and it's barely relevant to the rest of the paragraph. I would also get rid of the paragraph later in the article as this is a biography, not an essay on whether "some people" think Assange is a journalist. – bradv🍁 01:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, As you mentioned, this article is a BLP. Most of Assange's notoriety revolves around his dispute with various govt agencies relation to their reaction to the releases (I am assuming that wikileaks organizational notoriety can be separated from Assange, which might be a stretch). Much of the article currently focuses on the wikileaks info, the wikileaks releases, etc. These are all probably outside the scope of this BLP and probably most of it should be moved to the wikileaks article. However, the remaining BLP parts that are core to this article are assange's biography, his court cases, and his what various notable organizations think of him (awards, detractors, disputed classification as journalist, publisher, allegation he is traitor, etc). I believe the same cleanup I did on the Reed Hastings article to move out most of the Netflix info and focus on the person not the company he runs. Pretty routine BLP treatment. I would suggest to ax most of this section Julian_Assange#WikiLeaks to focus on Assange as BLP. The reader can always go over to the wikileaks article. Then also we have much more space in this article to go over the article's subject, and different people's opinions on what is important will have space in the lede, which will improve NPOV. If the US Justice Dept makes the effort to refute Assange's position that he is a journalist, it is clearly notable (while some may or may not agree) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are we going through this again?  We don't need to discuss differing opinions on his status as a journalist other than to say that journalists are concerned that if he is prosecuted for similar things that they do as journalists it may threaten them.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

References

UK tribunal (again)

The information about the UK tribunal recognising Wikileaks as a "media organization" has again been inserted into the article. This link provides more information, including the text of the judgment. Essentially, La Repubblica newspaper was applying for the British prosecutor's file on Assange. The tribunal made a ruling against it. The tribunal did not make a ruling that Wikileaks was a "media organization"; it simply described Wikileaks as "a media organization which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances". This seems unexceptional. By the way, it describes Assange as the "Australian founder and publisher of WikiLeaks". The article also says, "the verdict appears to deal with the risk of Julian Assange being extradited to the US without any concern for his status as an editor of a media organization". In response Assange tweeted "WikiLeaks just recognised as a 'media organisation' by UK tribunal making it harder to extradite me to the US" [42]. This is Assange's assertion, but there doesn't seem to be any legal opinion to back it up. It is elementary law that precedents are only binding on lower courts or tribunals. Even if it was a ruling, which it isn't, the ruling of a tribunal is not binding on the court that will rule on his extradition. It is certainly not binding in the USA! In any case, the tribunal indicated that "his status as an editor of a media organization" was irrelevant. It is therefore misleading to say, in the context, that a UK tribunal recognised Wikileaks as a media organisation. The tribunal's ruling was not a win for Assange; it was a loss for an Italian newspaper. I don't think there's any reason to include this in the article, unless it does become an issue in his extradition case.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I'm very glad you've posted here because it's crucially important to clarify what reliable sources are saying about the Tribunal's description of Wikileaks as "a media organisation." As the directly quoted text in these sources demonstrate, the Tribunal's description of Wikileaks is, in fact, a finding that is relevant to Assange's extradition case and his prosecution for the publication of leaked documents:

• La Repubblica, London Tribunal dismisses la Repubblica's appeal to access the full file of Julian Assange [43] Extraditing a publisher or a criminal? Not all extraditions are alike. Though the First-tier Tribunal's verdict is an outright dismissal of our appeal, it still contains some interesting and important nuggets: the Tribunal does not question the status of WikiLeaks as a media organization "which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances". This could sound of little interest, but it is important considering the vitriolic attacks experienced by WikiLeaks throughout the last year, with characters like Mike Pompeo, the CIA head nominated by Donald Trump, calling WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service"

• The Guardian, WikiLeaks recognised as a 'media organisation' by UK tribunal [44] Definition by the UK information tribunal may assist in Julian Assange’s defence against US extradition on grounds of press freedom. A British tribunal has recognised WikiLeaks as a “media organisation”, a point of contention with the United States, which is seeking to prosecute him and disputes his journalistic credentials. The issue of whether Assange is a journalist and publisher would almost certainly be one of the main battlegrounds in the event of the US seeking his extradition from the UK. The definition of WikiLeaks by the information tribunal, which is roughly equivalent to a court, could help Assange’s defence against extradition on press freedom grounds... the UK’s information tribunal, headed by judge Andrew Bartlett QC, in a summary and ruling published on Thursday on a freedom of information case, says explicitly: “WikiLeaks is a media organisation which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances.” The comment is made under a heading that says simply: “Facts”.

• Huffington Post, A Guide To The Eccentric Cast Of Characters Surrounding Julian Assange [45] Maurizi has also pursued freedom of information cases against British authorities, seeking the release of documents related to Assange’s extradition. Her challenges forced a British tribunal to recognize WikiLeaks as a media organization, as well as exposed that U.K. authorities destroyed key emails with Swedish authorities related to Assange’s case.

• Syndey Morning Herald, Assange hacking charge limits free speech defence: legal experts [46] Assange has long said WikiLeaks is a journalistic endeavour protected by freedom of the press laws. In 2017, a UK tribunal recognised WikiLeaks as a "media organisation."

• International Business Times, Julian Assange welcomes UK ruling that WikiLeaks is a media organisation [47] WikiLeaks has been recognised as a "media organisation" by a UK tribunal in a ruling that flies in the face of claims by US officials who have branded it a "hostile intelligence agency". The anti-secrecy website – helmed by Julian Assange – has faced the ire of CIA director Mike Pompeo, who has compared its work to Hezbollah, Isis and al-Qaeda. Over the years, WikiLeaks has disclosed countless documents pilfered from the US government. The assertion of the first-tier tribunal (information rights) in London was made in a legal filing published on Thursday (14 December) by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi.

Jack, the suggestion that Assange himself and alone has (mis)interpreted either the substance of the Tribunal's description, or its importance to his legal case, is belied by every media description of the Tribunal's finding. In fact, given the weight each of the sources above attaches to Assange's case and media freedoms more generally, our bio of Assange needs to have better coverage of the Maurizi case. -Darouet (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Darouet, thank you for links. Jack, I don't understand how you missed this.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I missed nothing. We have previously noted media reporting of the tribunal's decision, and there was already a citation in the article. As La Repubblica says However, despite these important nuggets, the verdict appears to deal with the risk of Julian Assange being extradited to the US without any concern for his status as an editor of a media organization. The reports are purely uninformed speculation: this decision "may assist" Assange. It is cherry-picking in the extreme. The reports are merely echoing the claims of Assange and his defence team. There is no independent legal opinion to back it up. We don't need crystal ball-gazing. We can report the extradition hearings when they happen, not rely on assertions from years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, your opinion on what these sources really mean is your own WP:OR. If the sources state something, then we cover it as such. There is no room for your personal interpretation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. And I don't see that commenting on secondary sources is OR. Simply because a reliable source reports something doesn't mean we have to cover it - see WP:ONUS. So far, I've seen no explanation why a biographical article on Assange needs to refer to an Italian newspaper's FOI request.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the lawyer who represented the newspaper said, in summing up the case, But it must be remembered that the tribunal was not determining the legal status of WikiLeaks, nor was there substantial argument about that status. [48]. It seems this is a case of cherrypicking, digging for nuggets, and clutching at straws.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There is broad discussion and consensus above that wikileaks is a media organization, thus your ONUS point is invalid. Your comments on this page look like WP:OWNERSHIP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone question that Wikileaks is a media organisation. But so what? The question is why we need to refer to a failed FOI request from 2017 which has little relevance to the US indictment. I don't see a response to that. I don't see how I could be accused of "ownership" of the page. I have come here recently and written very little of the content. I think there are too many personal attacks here and too little dealing with the real issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I think your conduct has been totally fine.

Regarding you comment "I've never seen anyone question that Wikileaks is a media organisation," 4/5 of the sources I quoted above state that US officials have questioned that status.

Regarding your comment that the "failed FOI request from 2017... has little relevance to the US indictment," 5/5 of the sources I quoted above state that it is relevant.

For instance you cited the La Repubblica article in your earlier comments. That article [49] states "the Tribunal does not question the status of WikiLeaks as a media organization "which publishes and comments upon censored or restricted official materials involving war, surveillance or corruption, which are leaked to it in a variety of different circumstances"." The text of the article then addresses your "But so what?" position directly: "This could sound of little interest, but it is important considering the vitriolic attacks experienced by WikiLeaks throughout the last year, with characters like Mike Pompeo, the CIA head nominated by Donald Trump, calling WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service." Do you not see how La Repubblica is paraphrasing your own objection, in order to refute it?

The same can be said of the other sources. For instance the Guardian article [50] explains the relevance of the "failed FOI request" (your words) to Assange in this way: "A British tribunal has recognised WikiLeaks as a “media organisation”, a point of contention with the United States, which is seeking to prosecute him and disputes his journalistic credentials." Contrary to what you write, the article also states that Wikileaks' status as a media organization is contested. The article continues to explain the significance and relevance of the case to Assange: "The issue of whether Assange is a journalist and publisher would almost certainly be one of the main battlegrounds in the event of the US seeking his extradition from the UK. The definition of WikiLeaks by the information tribunal, which is roughly equivalent to a court, could help Assange’s defence against extradition on press freedom grounds."

This couldn't be more crystal-clear. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying that Wikileaks is not a media organisation. Calling it a "hostile intelligence agency" is not necessarily incompatible with calling it a media organisation that publishes leaks. La Repubblica explicitly says it is trying to find "nuggets" in the tribunal's negative finding. I think its comments are more ambivalent than you think, and the lawyer pours cold water on the idea that the tribunal declared Wikileaks' "legal status". Yes, the articles suggest the tribunal's use of the phrase "could help", "may assist" etc Assange's defence. That's speculation. There's nothing crystal-clear about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers what the sources say, not the editors interpretation of the sources (in this case your position that something is crystal clear it will help or hurt assange). You have failed to provide any evidence to exclude cited content other than your OR of why it is not relevant to your POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Burrobert has now created a paragraph about the La Repubblica case under "Life in the Ecuadorian Embassy", which is where it fits chronologically. I moved the sentence about Wikileaks as a media organisation to that paragraph because I didn't think we needed to mention the case twice. Rebecca jones reverted my edit twice saying it was "vandalism". It is clearly not vandalism. We now have two very similar sentences on the topic, one under "Life" and one under "Indictment".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:, did you make this talk page comment above? If yes, please sign it. Second, are you moving things out of the lede, is that what the subject of all these reverts on the article today page are? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now signed it. No, I have [not] been moving things out of the lead. You can follow the changes in the history page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the sentence you moved was made by the same tribunal that heard the la Republica case otherwise I may have merged the two references myself. It does seem a better fit. Perhaps Rebecca didnt notice you had simply moved the passage rather than delete it. Anyway I will leave things as they are now. Burrobert (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"First person to be prosecuted for publishing classified information"

According to this edit (which was a restoration of something I removed earlier), Assange was the first person to be prosecuted for publishing classified information. This is sourced to an opinion piece by the Washington Post. While I don't deny they're making the claim, I'm having trouble believing that this is true. Can we corroborate this somehow? What about the Pentagon Papers from 1971, where both Daniel Ellsberg and Tony Russo were charged with publishing classified documents? According to our article on the Espionage Act of 1917, a 1984 government report stated that "the unauthorized publication of classified information is a routine daily occurrence in the U.S." This claim by WaPo seems far fetched. Or I'm missing something. – bradv🍁 04:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It too sounds impossible to me as well. There must be journalists rotting in jail in China, Turkey, Russia, etc for just this type of thing. Should we delete it for that reason? Or just leave it and attribute to the Post? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well to be fair, the WaPo article does say "in the U.S.", which isn't included in our article. But even with that qualifier it's far fetched. – bradv🍁 04:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually says "to face prosecution", and plenty of people have faced prosecution, including Philip Agee and those involved in the Plame Affair. I think that claim is just a piece of rhetoric in an opinion piece. If included it should be attributed to the author, not to WaPo. But I think we should remove it. It's just misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

If a source is wrong, I'd rather exclude it unless the fact that it is wrong is somehow relevant to the topic at hand. The same would apply if the information is unverifiable – this line should be removed. – bradv🍁 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I dont know whether the claim is true or false. It isn't obviously wrong though. As far as I can tell Russo and Ellsberg were charged with espionage, theft, and conspiracy. Ellsberg says "I was charged with 12 counts, including one of conspiracy, in 1971, for a possible sentence of 115 years. In this case they brought 17 counts under the Espionage Act, plus the one conspiracy". The charges didn't relate to publication. Regarding Philip Agee, I can't find information about any charges against him. He was deported from a few countries and had his US passport revoked but I can't see that he was charged for publishing classified information. The quote "the unauthorized publication of classified information is a routine daily occurrence in the U.S" is quite believable. Often it is done with the assistance of the administration as a way of pushing the public in certain directions. Anyway we don't need to research this as we can attribute the claim to a reliable source. If it turns out to be wrong then it can remove it. It seems like a significant statement. Burrobert (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Burrobert, I dont see how this WP:OR can get so spun out of shape on this talk page justifying deleting content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the quote is about facing prosecution, not being prosecuted. Assange hasn't been prosecuted yet. It may be in some sense the quote can be defended, but it is misleading. After all, Assange is charged under the Espionage Act too. And the source is an opinion piece. Nothing in this discussion gives a reason for inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Jakc, content in wikipedia does not require a reason for inclusion. WP:NOTFORUM applies on this talk page and your chatter is excessive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed cleanout

I propose to remove a lot of wikileaks content so we can focus on the biographical parts. I did this proposed edit [51] and self reverted. Seeking comments (the edit was crude, it might have also snipped something that should stay). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is hard to separate Assange and Wikileaks. If I was going to trim the article, I would get rid of a lot of the commentary. But I'm not sure if the article is oversized.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Categories

I removed a number of categories as inappropriate:

• His Ecuadorian citizenship has been suspended.
• He's not a fugitive anymore.
• "Internet celebrity" is used for vloggers, influencers etc, not publishers.
• The term "whistle blower" refers to someone who has first hand information. He has published whistle blower's information, but he is not a whistle blower himself.
• He is not a memoirist — where did that come from???

My edit was reverted. Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower seems relevent, the others not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you both — I think by maintaining the largest / most famous whistleblowing platform on earth, "whistleblower" is justified — but the other categories are not. -Darouet (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

His Ecuadorian citizenship was certainly suspended, but that overlooks the fact that he remained an Ecuadorian for some time prior to the suspension. Does that not make him eligible to stay in the Ecuadorian category, along with an additional Category:People who lost Ecuadorian citizenship. As far as I know, nationality-based categories on Wikipedia often include former citizens due to their association with that country at some point. Mar4d (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

He was made an Ecuadorian citizen last year. As far as I know, he never visited Ecuador, so calling him an "Ecuadorian activist" is misleading. I think his time in the embassy is notable. We have a List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission, but no category that covers this. I don't think the granting of Ecuadorian citizenship last year is particularly notable. We don't have to cover every facet of his complicated life in categories.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In terms of notability of Ecuadorian citizenship I suspect Assange is up there at the top, lending weight towards inclusion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about your apparently conflicting opinions. I also don't understand how Assange, being a Ecuadorian citizen for a year, without living in Ecuador, can be a more notable Ecuadorian citizen than the many people have been Ecuadorian citizens all their life, who have lived in Ecuador all their life, and who have been intimately involved in Ecuadorian affairs. In fact, it's kind of insulting to Ecuadorians.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I'm not insinuating that he should be added to all Ecuadorian categories. Only the Category:Ecuadorian people of Australian descent as well as Category:People who lost Ecuadorian citizenship. He qualifies for both in my opinion, given his high-profile association in these contexts (even if it's no longer current). The nature of his previous links to Ecuador merit the inclusion of both these categories at the least, in my humble opinion. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Mar4d: considering that this is an encyclopedia and research aid, I would assume someone wanting to investigate a category called "Ecuadorian people of Australian descent" would be interested in finding Assange in that list. While that would be true as well for "People who lost Ecuadorian citizenship," that category doesn't exist yet. -Darouet (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The category Category:Ecuadorian people of Australian descent is up for speedy deletion as there is now no page in that category. I don't think we should create or keep categories solely for Assange. A list of one person is not useful or interesting to anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

One-page categories are acceptable, provided they meet the criteria for inclusion. For someone looking at a list of Australians who held citizenship of other countries, they would be interested in finding Assange as someone who was an Ecuadorian subject. My 2 cents. Mar4d (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

US juridiction

Sorry to be so thick; but since Mr Assange was not in the US when the alleged offences were committed, neither is he a US citizen, I fail to see how he can be charged with breaking US criminal law. Surely Australians are not legally bound to obey US law, any more than Americans are bound to obey Australian law?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the "Indictment in the United States" section, you will see that Assange has been charged with being in a conspiracy with Manning, who was in the US. When this comes to trial, we will find out whether the charges can be substantiated.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Jurisdiction applies based on some international law.

" FN3. The defendant acknowledges in his further briefing that “the protective principle, though rarely used, had been a part of the jurisprudence of this country both before 1961 and in 1961, when Congress enacted the statutory amendment at issue here.” Under international law, the “protective principle” gives a country the “jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law attaching legal consequences to conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a state or the operation of its governmental functions, provided the conduct is generally recognized as a crime under the law of states that have reasonably developed legal systems.” Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations § 33 (1965). "

this is found in reference 64 of the Espionage Act 1917 article. It basically lays claim to international law saying this - and would also apply to other states too that accept international law. Which law is a not made clear. Is there a treaty - which one? Custom and practice? Or bilateral agreements? The extradition aspect is something else - as this would apply for example to Snowden or possibly to some USA citizens that have engaged in espionage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you: I have never seenany of this mentioned in the news. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

UN statements as absurd, and COATRACK of DNC lawsuit

Snooganssnoogans, your changes to the article and lead [52] grossly overinflate Assange's alleged role in the DNC leaks, especially considering that the DNC lawsuit was thrown out of court. I strongly oppose these changes: what you're doing is turning a biography in a COATRACK for something else entirely. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As to Seth Rich, a sentence in the bio is enough if you really want it: we don't need a whole section on this. -Darouet (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of long-standing RS content

Darouet is removing long-standing content on Assange's role in the 2016 election, which included not only leaking documents stolen by Russian hackers but also actively promoting conspiracy theories about the origins of the documents (Seth Rich conspiracy theories). This is all highly notable and subject of extensive RS coverage (including by academic sources) - it obviously belongs here in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Darouet is brazenly violating WP:BRD by repeatedly forcing new additions to the article (some rubbish about UN working groups into the lede) and removing long-standing content in the absence of consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brazenly my ass: you've just reverted yourself, twice. The Seth Rich material was vastly over-represented in this biography, as were other aspects of the DNC lawsuit. After that lawsuit was thrown out of a US court, I pruned it down — keeping probably too much material in — because it was WP:UNDUE here. Subsequent US indictments against Assange have nothing to do with this, which I think is further confirmation that you are COATRACKing this biography. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the DNC lawsuit can be summarized in one sentence, but the rest of the long-standing content should be restored in full. It's bonkers to claim that only one sentence should be devoted to Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories when academic sources identify Assange as a key driver behind these conspiracy theories, and when the Mueller report indicates that Assange spurred on these conspiracy theories even though he knew they were false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

These issues could be outlined more clearly by including a timeline of Assange's involvement in the 2016 election. I did just that [53], but Daroquet edit war to remove it: [54]. Perhaps it needs to be included back? My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

seems to me too much detail. especialy this seth rich issue, this has a whole article. one sentence on this article would suffice. and why so much discussion of every statement that Assange made on the election. this is wikileaks content, not assange BLP content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How on Earth can one sentence be sufficient for the Seth Rich conspiracy theories when academic studies link Assange as the essential purveyor of the conspiracy theory, and when the Mueller report literally takes Assange to task for the intentional deceit involved in his promotion of the Seth Rich conspiracy? This also relates to Assange's ethics and credibility, as well as whether he should be considered a journalist (note that many of the same editors who desperately want to scrub this from the article maintain that Assange should be considered a journalist) - it's clearly relevant context to cover how he was the main purveyor of a batshit insane conspiracy theory (which led to the harassment of a family) and that he appears to have intentionally and deceptively pushed what he knew was a falsehood. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the DNC lawsuit section as it is. Regarding Seth Rich, as far as I can tell it is conjecture and interpretation so the various statements need to be attributed. I’ll leave it to others to determine how much should be included under that topic. Burrobert (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Seth Rich has its own article. Why do we need to hash it out here as well, other than saying that Assange believes the conspiracy existed or not and maybe his role in it (if he had a role). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of expression and information

Why is Bolivia classed under "UK and Europe" and the French union of journalists and the yellow vests classed as "US"???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes some adjustment is definitely needed there. Is is worth creating a new sub-section just for Bolivia? Burrobert (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "US and other"?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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.[55] 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)
• One UN guy's opinion that Assange's "life is at risk" in the lede.[56] 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)

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)

Snooganssnoogans please explain this [57] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jtbobwaysf, who are you accusing of being a circus?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Neutrality^talk 19:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

References

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)

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)

Melzer is a notable person even if his comments are nonsensical. Other people have said Assange's life is at risk [58][59] or that his health is deteriorating [60][61]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Of course not. Did I miss something? O3000 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasoned criticism and evidence of error by the UN rapporteur is not "vitriol". SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

RFC on Julian Assange location and condition

This edit [62] (which adds below quoted text) is suitable for the lede:

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

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

Survey

• Suitable location and health condition of WP:BLP subject is standard content for WP:LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable Cherrypicked UNDUE opinion. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for lead - The special rapporteur's opinion is already mentioned in the body of article, which is more than sufficient. It would be WP:UNDUE for the lead section, as many have pointed out. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable, perhaps with modifications: I don't understand the objection to stating that he is in prison and in ill health so long as it is done in a neutral, accurate way.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Location suitable, single opinion not - Mentioning specifically where he is incarcerated is uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Mentioning one specific person's uncorroborated opinion is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suitable : I don't think anyone has disputed Melzer's statement. He has the necessary experience to be able to make that assessment. His assessment has been reported in numerous sources (duckduckgoing the phrase 'nils melzer assange life at risk' brings up reports from ABC (oz version), New Indian Express, Yahoo News, MSM, The Statesman and others. Other people who are close to Assange such as John Pilger and Pamela Anderson have said something similar. It is important enough to include in the leading paragraph. Burrobert (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for the lead, at least as far as the opinion goes; the location alone could be included. If there are other reliable sources saying this, add them; but as presented it's just one person's opinion, and especially when dealing with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about high-profile subjects, the requirement for an opinion to be WP:DUE for the lead is very high. It could be mentioned in the body, but there's no particular indication that this is WP:DUE for the lead given the lack of secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not suitable for the lead per Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

References

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)