Talk:Julian Assange

family

• https://www.dw.com/en/julian-assange-fathered-two-children-with-lawyer-in-embassy-report/a-53099462

Page length 2

By my calculation, the "prose size" of this article is 76 kB. This is nothing like the size of Trump's article (see previously), but is still over the 60 kB limit proscribed by WP:SIZE. It is worth noting that there is a separate article Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange and that this article's "Reactions to the US indictment" is currently a duplicate of text in that article. In this article mentions of his writings and awards are duplicated or triplicated. Some sections such as "US criminal investigations" are out of date. There is obviously much more of the story to go, so we need to look at further splitting the article or summarising what we have. We certainly cannot include in this article every letter that is written or every court hearing where nothing happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

that seems to be a weight issue. We haven’t reached that point in the discussion yet. Burrobert (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see a discussion. Secondly, the size of this article is a fact, and we will need to start trimming.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

we are still working on the sub-headings above. Once these are finalised the next step is to assign a weight to each sub-section. We can’t start trimming until we know the weight of each sub-section. Burrobert (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it, but regardless I thought it was important to answer the question that was raised above but never answered.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As there is clearly no ongoing discussion, I have summarised the "Reactions to the US indictment". As stated, the text removed is duplicated at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. There is no reason to complain about loss of information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As a result, the "readable prose size" is now 71 kB. This is still over the recommended limit, and it seems likely that the article will continue to grow for years.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for trimming:

• Removing a lot of quotations — see WP:QUOTEFARM. There are a lot of quotations that are long and unnecessary. They could be summarised. Some of them are from news articles, which is completely inappropriate.
• Removing repetition.
• Removing trivia. We don't need to know everything Assange did.
• Removing information that is out of date. Some information might have been newsworthy when it was published, but it is now unimportant as Assange's situation has dramatically changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to advocating (unless I misunderstand) removing the biographical part of the article. I think we should remove the part about the reactions, all the US focus stuff, and focus on the guy's life. As you pointed out in the start of this thread there is already a US indictment article, so anything duplicate should be deleted here. Then we can look again at article size and go through the other matters. Maybe quotes by assange are useful as part of his biography. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not advocating removing the biographical part of the article (whatever that means). Where did you get that from? I'm merely putting forward suggestions from trimming across the board. The indictment is part of his biography and we have to summarise it here. In any case, the indictment is a relatively small part of this article, much smaller than his time in the embassy. The quotes are by many different people, including journalists. Quotes by Assange are useful if they reveal his opinions etc. I'm only suggesting removing quotes that are unnecessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I think we are all in agreement here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is already too long, can we please not add material better suited to another article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see we are still trying to add more material, why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors who have long argued that the material on the 2016 presidential election is entirely overdue. This seems to be especially obvious now, since the election does not figure into the charges for which Assange may be extradited. Slatersteven, Jack Upland, or Jtbobwaysf, would you mind taking a stab at reducing that section down to a single section, instead of 6?

Slatersteven, in this edit [1] you removed the fact that Assange published the Iraq and Afghan war logs with major papers, prior to releasing the larger document lists. However, how Assange released this information is important if the release itself was important, and the issue is even relevant today, as the nature of the releases is be litigated in court.

Jack Upland, in this edit [2] you remove a quote about Winner, and the removal could arguably be justified, though the longer quote from Assange about Clapper and Petreaus contains political commentary describing Assange's beliefs, surely relevant to his biography. The other content removed — chopping down an already short quote — distorts the summary of the statement made by US officials, indicating that not only the NYT, but also the WP and the Guardian are relevant.

In these edits [3], you remove a lot of information from the article, some of your edits are really helpful, but I think you've removed too many of the reactions, many by prominent figures opposed to Assange's treatment. I think it's possible to preserve some of your edits and removals, while also preserving some of the content you've removed, but cutting / summarizing. It's too bad that you're just cutting from statements by public officials who are speaking about Assange's current condition, but are leaving untouched the bloated section on the 2016 elections that is not a part of Assange's prosecution or extradition. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has different views on what is important. As discussed before, some think the 2016 election is very important. We just have summarise. If we included every tweet by Assange that gives insight into his political beliefs, this article would be gigantic. I have taken the NYT out of the sentence you mention. We don't need to list media organisations here. By the way, that was a quotation from the source, not from officials. We don't need to copy slabs of text. As discussed, the reactions have been moved to the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. There is no need to duplicate them here.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me start by plagiarising some very sound advice from The Guide - DON'T PANIC!. Grab your towels and I’ll let you know what I have discovered.

• We are over the limit. But being over the limit is not by itself reason to panic because Wikipedia has practically unlimited storage space.
• Did you know that content, especially summary, well sourced and non-tangential information, should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length?
• There is no policy that stops us from adding information to articles that are over the limit. Our hero is only 49 years old. With a bit of luck and a lot of public anger, hopefully he can go on for another 40 years and remake the world a few more times. It would be unencyclopaedic to leave this part of his life out of the article. He is currently involved in the most important trial since Dreyfus. We need to be free to document this so that the public is informed. They expect it of us. We are also constantly improving the article, which sometimes requires adding text. This should not be a cause for concern. Today we had an anonymous editor point out that we had been using a biased title and wording in the “Seth Rich” section. This type of continuous improvement is good.
• Our elders have provided a solution. They say that, when an article is over 100 kB, it should be divided. This is a good idea. The most obvious place to start splitting is the section dealing with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The space devoted to the DNC leaks is immense in comparison with the space devoted to other publications such as the Collateral murder video and the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs. Given that an article for the DNC leaks exists, this should be fairly straight forward. The same applies to the Swedish enquiry.
• Regarding another matter that doesn’t seem to be related to article size, there was some concern about including Wikileaks related material in the article. Firstly, it is too late. Secondly, I was trying to provide some information about one of the largest leaks of US military information which currently has half a sentence devoted to it. The space devoted to the DNC leaks indicated that a paragraph devoted to the Afghanistan war logs was not unreasonable.

Burrobert (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have just trimmed DNC leaks section and the readable prose size is 67 kB. Now I await the complaints.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes we were all watching. Sure to be some comments. Anyway we now have 33 kB to play with so let's start adding in more text. There is a lot more that needs to be said and will need to be said over the future course of our protagonist's life. Burrobert (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the trimming I have done could be justified by WP:TOOMUCH. No one is panicking, but we don't have "33 kB to play with". > 60kB probably should be divided. The fundamental issue is readability. See WP:SIZE. We have already effectively split the article by creating the "Indictment" and the "Swedish investigation" articles. I can't see any opportunities for splitting at the moment. Yes, there is likely to be much more for the article to cover, including his trial. That's why we don't want the existing article to be bloated. There are technical limits. The Donald Trump article has reached technical limits, and this is dire.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now looked through your redactions. Unfortunately I can't find much to complain about. I am giving you an A. Here are some points that I noticed:

• You removed a phrase that explained what type of neo-McCarthy hysteria that Assange meant. I have re-added the phrase so that readers don't get confused.
• At one point we refer to "claims" that we say Assange made. However, this refers back to the earlier sentence "Assange implied that Seth Rich, ... was the source behind the DNC emails". Implications and claims are not synonymous so if "implied" is the correct term in the initial sentence then we should replace "claims" with "implications" for accuracy. I know you did not introduce this wording so it doesn't count against your overall mark.
• "According to political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks released damaging emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls". The source discusses why the emails are talked about more when Clinton surges ahead in the polls. They come up with two possibilities. One was that the media like a close race. The other was that Wikileaks may have been releasing the emails when Clinton went ahead in the polls. The wording in the source is "perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands". So we should remove "damaging" as this is not in the source and secondly we should indicate that the source is not definite on the point. Something like ""According to political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks may have been releasing emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls". Again I am not marking you down for this as you didn't introduce that wording.

Burrobert (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have re-edited the sentence about the "neo-McCarthyist hysteria". I think one of the problems with this section was that it kept repeating things. We know what the issues are. They don't have to be spelt out anew in every sentence. Or twice every sentence.
• I have changed "claims" to "comments".
• I can't access the Baum/Gussin article, but based on what you say, I question why we are including this here if it is not definite on the point. Clearly, the emails damaged Clinton. We don't need speculation about the timing...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the only paragraph in the story that mentions Wikileaks. It comes after the article has mentioned that the media may have been timing its mention of Clinton's emails to create a close contest. It is speculation and can be removed.

But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands. For instance, the Oct. 7 release of emails belonging to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta followed a week during which Clinton’s lead in RCP’s polling average expanded from 2.7 to 4.7 points. On the day of the release, stories mentioning “Clinton email” doubled from the previous day. Yet over the next several days, attention to her emails fell off sharply, suggesting that WikiLeaks failed to drive the media narrative, at least beyond a single day.

Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the moment I have changed the wording to reflect the uncertainty in the WaPo article. The sentence can be removed if appropriate. I think we should mention in the lead that the Swedish investigation was dropped in 2019. We don't need to mention that is was closed and reopened multiple times but the closure is an important point. Burrobert (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have returned the dropping of the Swedish investigation to the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article climbed up to 70kB, but with trimming it is now down to 64kB.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone awake?

There is a lot of snoring coming from this page. Meanwhile the rest of us have been working hard.

Assange has been particularly busy this week, being involved in two separate court cases, one in Spain and the other in a different country entirely. Decisions were made in Spain about who can be called as witnesses in the trial of David Morales. Decisions were not made elsewhere, mainly due to the Americans beginning a “go-slow”. After ten years of investigation they haven’t yet worked out what charges to tell the court they are making against Assange. Of course, the Americans did publish the superseding indictment on the internet so the rest of us have a rough idea of what is happening. Some people think the possibility of having an election in the US later in the year may be affecting the Americans strategy. There is of course the possibility they are worried that Britain may eventually reject the extradition, so the best way to punish Assange and keep him in prison is to take as long as possible with the case.

In other news related to the English hearing, Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis have published an investigative article on Daily Maverick. Some of the conclusions were already known but don’t appear in our Assange article. I'll give a list of the main points below. Some of the points seem significant and would be worth including in the article.

• The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice is blocking the release of basic information about Judge Vanessa Baraitser in what appears to be an irregular application of the Freedom of Information Act.
• It appears that Vanessa Baraitser is something of a hanging judge, having ordered extradition in 96% of the cases she has presided over for which information is publicly available, and 26% of her rulings were successfully appealed. 
• Assange is one of just two of the 797 inmates in Belmarsh being held for violating bail conditions. Over 20% of inmates are held for murder.
• The article describes the appointment of Baraitser to preside over the Assange case as controversial and the decision untransparent and says it is likely Chief Magistrate Lady Emma Arbuthnot was involved in the decision to appoint Baraitser to the case.
• Arbuthnot’s family’s has connections to the British military and intelligence establishment which of course were affected by Wikileak’s revelations. Arbuthnot has personally received financial benefits from partner organisations of the UK Foreign Office, which in 2018 called Assange a “miserable little worm”.  Arbuthnot directly ruled on the Assange case in 2018-19 and has never formally recused herself from it. According to a statement given to Private Eye, she stepped aside because of a “perception of bias”, but it was not elucidated what this related to. 
• In a key judgment in February 2018, Arbuthnot rejected the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – a body composed of international legal experts – that Assange was being “arbitrarily detained”, characterised Assange’s stay in the embassy as “voluntary” and concluded Assange’s health and mental state was of minor importance.
• In a second ruling a week later, Arbuthnot dismissed Assange’s fears of US extradition. “I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable,” she said. 
• The UK Home Office is blocking the release of information about home secretary Priti Patel’s role in the Assange extradition case. Apparently Patel has had communications regarding Assange during her tenure as home secretary, but the government is reluctant to disclose this information. Patel is linked to Arbuthnot’s husband, Lord Arbuthnot and will sign off Assange’s extradition to the US if it is ordered by Baraitser.

Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, we should be focussed on the extradition decision and any appeals which result, not speculating in advance about how biased the decision is going to be. Secondly, we discussed Arbuthnot in April. Given the article is already over–long, I don't see how we can justify including commentary on someone who is not a major figure in the saga. The argument seems to prove too much, as it would apply equally to any case in the Magistrates' Court. Thirdly, Assange has finished his sentence for skipping bail, so that information is out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing anything we need to discuss is not the same as being asleep.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I think you were asleep because you both sound grumpy. I wasn’t advocating including every one of the above points in the article. However, some seem to be noteworthy. The statistic about bail jumpers being held at Belmarsh seems noteworthy. Yes he is no longer a bail jumper but he was initially so we could include that in an earlier part of his bio. The “go-slow” being applied by the Yanks seems noteworthy though we can’t mention their motive as the source only speculates about one. I wouldn’t mention Patel at this stage though she will become important later. Baraitser’s background as a hanging judge is interesting but would be more relevant on her own wiki page unless it gets more coverage in the context of Assange. Arbuthnot’s role and background is shadowy and important as she is responsible for overseeing Baraitser’s work, has presided on the case and has made some noteworthy remarks while presiding. I don’t think the argument applies to all cases in the magistrates court, as I would expect that not all cases involve people who have published information harmful to the Arbuthnots’ interests. Burrobert (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bail jumping stats says nothing about him, its irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I am going back to sleep zzzzz Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

With regarding extradition statistics, according to this, between 2004 and 2012, 75 suspects were extradited to the USA and only 7 refused.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Keystone courts

Anyone looking for a bit of slapstick could have watched Assange’s latest hearing. Apparently the US has filed more charges two days after the closing date for submissions and after the defence had lodged all its documents. It’s very hard to work out what Assange’s current status is. He won’t be charged until 7 September but remains in gaol for “reasons that I told you about before” according to baraitser. Is he still charged from before? Anyway this is what happened.

The case was delayed this morning as Assange’s lawyers initially struggled to contact him at the prison in Woolwich, southeast London. This seems to be normal practice at his hearings.

The court then scrambled to find a US government prosecutor after wrongly listing the 10am hearing for this afternoon. Dobbin, representing the US, dialled in to the court, was cut off, accidentally connected to a different courtroom and re-connected back. She said: “I intended to appear in person at 3.30pm, according to the listing.” The judge replied: “That may be the explanation, but nevertheless it was announced for 10am”.

After the hearing had ended Assange’s legal team asked to talk with their client so the judge asked the defendant: “Do you still have a jailer in the room with you, Mr Assange? Is it possible to arrange a post-court conference today?” The prison guard responded: “Unfortunately not, because you’ve overrun by 35 minutes. It would impact on other cases due to lunch breaks”.

Burrobert (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We know Assange is in the middle of an extradition hearing and he has been denied bail. There's no mystery.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we include the comedy capers routine in the article even though it does show the shambolic nature of the proceedings. I also hesitate to suggest any edits lest we upset the page's current state of delicate perfection. However, what about mentioning that "Assange will be re-arrested on the first day of his hearing at the Old Bailey on 7 September under a new indictment drawn up on 12 August". Or "The charge sheet contains further allegations that he conspired with others to obtain US government information by encouraging computer hacking". By the way has anyone else wondered why the US chose the Eastern District of Virginia as the location for his trial if it goes ahead? Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Because its not yet September?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you expand on that answer. I am not sure what question or issue is relates to. Burrobert (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As it is not yet September we cannot say what will happen in September.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll defer to your greater knowledge of fortune telling. Baraitser thought she could do it. By the way has anyone else wondered why the US chose the Eastern District of Virginia as the location for his trial if it goes ahead? Burrobert (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not a general forum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This must be your day for cryptic comments. I am going to make a guess here (correct me if I am wrong) and assume that the last comment was in relation to the Eastern District of Virginia. Let me put it in a way that is extremely un-forum-like and extremely page-focused. Should we mention why the US has chosen the Eastern District of Virginia as the location for his trial if it goes ahead? Burrobert (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do any RS speculate as to why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are a few. Looking at it from the other angle no RS says it was chosen randomly. Venue shopping: "Prosecutors will seek to charge a defendant in the federal district where he or she is most likely to be convicted". The nature of the court and the reason for its nature are quite well known and discussed outside of the Assange case. There are also RS's that mention the nature of the court specifically in relation to Assange. Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Care to provide a couple if sources that discus it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This thread is getting a bit long and is under a misleading title. Besides I feel like we are the only two left on the island in And then there were none and I am starting to think you may have killed off all the other editors. I'll start a new topic. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The part that the judge asked to confer with Assange and the jail said no to extra time is encyclopedic and worthy to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we add something like: “Julian Assange’s lawyers have been denied face to face contact with him since March 2020. They had a short video link meeting with him prior to the hearing but were unable to speak to him after the hearing because “It would impact on other cases due to lunch breaks.” ”? Burrobert (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I am ok adding the denied face to face contact and that it continued after the court case. I think better to summarize than to use quotes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. It might be hard to capture the absurdity of the situation in a summary of that quote but perhaps another editor can think of a way. Burrobert (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A question, is this unique to Assange or is it a case that no face to face contact have been allowed in court cases?09:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly not unique [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This extradition process has been going on since May last year. There have been various delays, including due Assange's ill health. Yes, mistakes have been made. But I don't see any source saying this is somehow unprecedented. As discussed previously, we shouldn't document every detail of the court proceedings.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The lawgazette reference didn’t mention the situation at Belmarsh. I did a quick DuckDuckGo search but couldn’t find anything specific. It is certain that COViD-19 is having an effect on prison visits. Whether Assange’s treatment is different from other prisoner’s is unclear. It seems notable to me that he hasn’t seen his lawyers since March and there have been hearings during that time. It would be a notable situation for any prisoner. And then someone’s lunch break intervenes. I put forward a suggested wording above which interested editors can play around with. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Any wording must not imply or be worded as to imply this is anything other than just (at this time) a not unusual practice. Moreover I would argue is is undue specifically because it cannot be shown this is unusual or special treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we are in a position to indicate that it is either usual or unusual at this time. If we were to mention it, we should merely state the facts. I am happy for it to be included in some form. The lunch break quote and telling the judge that she went 35 minutes over time is something that readers will appreciate for its black humour. It shows how thin the thread of justice is. There are other points in the computer magazine reference that need to be added to the article. The US has revealed a third indictment against Assange drawn up on 12 August. The article provides some commentary on that. Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is any wording will not give an accurate picture as we do not know. Thus we cannot word it expect as a factoid that adds nothing to our understanding of THIS case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that this article is already excessively long. We shouldn't record everything that happens in the courts.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Personal life?

I don't think we should have a "Personal life" section at the beginning. This is confusing because it overlaps the period when he was convicted for hacking. He had a child at that time. I think the other two relationships should be dealt with chronologically.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy for the text to be moved to an appropriate place in the page. However, you won't be able to put Julian's relationship with Stella in one place as they first met in 2011, started a relationship in 2015 and had two children at different times between 2015 and 2020. That time period straddles a number of sections. The one sentence we devote to his relationship with Sarah from 2009 to 2012 straddles the 'Early publications', 'Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables', 'US criminal investigation', 'Swedish sexual assault allegations' and 'Swedish sexual assault allegations' sections. The birth of Daniel when Julian was 18 would go into the hacking section which seems to cover that time period. It's hard to say what chronological section should contain the sentence about Julian's hair turning white or the sentence about him being "Daniel's primary caregiver for much of his childhood". If you are going to start sorting things chronologically you will need to reorganise or merge the Hacking and Programming sections as there is some time overlap. Burrobert (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have established an "Early life" section which is really about his early life. We can't have everything exactly in chronological order, but I think someone reading about Assange's activities in the embassy deserves to know that (apparently) Assange fathered two kids in his time there. It would be good to include the "Hacking" section in this section, but I can't see how to do it without being confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to combine "Hacking" and "Programming" into "Early life". It's not exactly chronological but it does show that these events occurred in the same period.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• From 2009 to 2012, Assange was in a relationship with British journalist Sarah Harrison. There are several problems with this. Harrison is hardly a journalist. She is (or was) a Wikileaks staffer. Secondly, as I read the source, the "intimate" relationship started in 2010, and there is no statement about it ending. Thirdly, I question why we mention this. Harrison's work with Wikileaks is noted. Whether she was Assange's girlfriend (or intimate with him in some unspecified way) at some point doesn't seem to matter. They were apparently not publicly known as a couple. They didn't have any children... We don't need to list every one of Assange's girlfriends.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence. Other sources indicate that the relationship was somewhat casual[5] and that the pair have "never commented" on it.[6] Including it seems gossipy, unless there's something more to say about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I noticed this piece in The Australian earlier. I haven't read all of it, but it looks to be based on an interview with Moris. Might contain something usable. [7] - Ryk72 ^talk 07:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox currently says Assange has four children. I haven't seen a source for this. It seems a matter of addition: two children with Stella Moris, one child in France, and Daniel. I don't think we really know how many children he has, but perhaps "at least four" is unencyclopedic. In this source, Sarah Harrison, speaking to Assange in 2011, asks, "Have you been at the births of all your children?" And Assange replies, "All except one". The use of the word "all" implies there was more than two at that point. In this source, dated 2012, Assange says that he has not seen "any of my children" (not either) since being under house arrest and refers to his "eldest son" (as if he has more than one). The description of Assange's "young children" seems to exclude Daniel who was an adult that time and, according to this, he hadn't seen his father since 2007. According to this, Assange had at least four children by 2011. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting we delve into original research about Assange's children. I think a biographical article should note that the subject has children, but in this case we seem to have very limited information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This and the mention of Teresa have now been removed from the infobox by Connor Behan. On reflection, I think it would be good to note his children somehow...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I have gathered together the information we have. There is some information that is probably too vague to use, such as this which says that he had a daughter born around 2006. This says that he had a daughter from a Korean woman in Paris, presumably the same one he told President Hollande about. This says he was given a kitten by his "young children" in 2016. This says in 2012, he was "thought" to have a boy and a younger girl (as well as Daniel). I guess we don't know how many children Assange has, without doing DNA testing. Only three have been publicly identified. However, to say that he might only have three implies that he has been lying repeatedly, including to the French President. I don't think we should imply Assange is lying without evidence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed this: Julian was Daniel's primary caregiver for much of his childhood. What Assange said was, "I raised my eldest son as a single father for more than 14 years in Australia". However, the our source says that he reached a custody agreement with Daniel's mother in 1999, that is, when Daniel was around 10. According to this, Julian and Daniel last had contact in 2007, when Daniel was around 18. I don't doubt that Julian looked after Daniel, but not as primary caregiver for much of his childhood.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the text saying Julian was married to Teresa, Daniel's mother. There are at least three sources used in the article which say they were married, so I don't think this is in dispute. From what the New Yorker says they were probably married in a registry or something like that. The infobox gives her name as "Teresa Doe". I don't see this in any source. "Doe" might be a pseudonym, as in John Doe. If so, I think it's inappropriate. Also, I don't see a source saying they divorced in 1999. Finally, I have described her as a "girl", not a woman, because she was 17 when she gave birth to Daniel.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• The passage about Assange's hacker handle when he was a teenager correctly says that his handle was Mendax, but then is followed by a comment that the word means "liar." This lacks the necessary context for understanding his choice of handle and is clearly politically motivated. Assange got his handle from Horace's Odes, in which the phrase "splendide mendax" (nobly untruthful) appears. Assange discusses this in his autobiography. I added this to the page today, but the edit bot kicked it back because it did not like the URL for one of the two sources I provided. Onerevolutionary (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not "clearly politically motivated". It is a statement of fact. I have added your information in an abbreviated form.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

What does this mean?

What are these sentences referring to?

• Some supported the indictment. (Some what?)
• Assange as an attack on freedom of the press and international law. (it seems to be missing something, possibly a verb)

Burrobert (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hako9 has provided the missing bits so that the two phrases above now have meaning. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert and Jack Upland: Content was removed by Jack. Although splitting was necessary, Jack might have inadvertently botched the sentence structure, meaning and context. Please review the old version of the article here and compare with current version to check if content was removed properly. I am on mobile now, maybe I'll check later though. - hako9 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It looks OK now.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just took a cursory look at the indictment article and the previous version of this article. Looks fine to me too. - hako9 (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes almost everything was in the indictment article. I added the one missing piece. Burrobert (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hearings on extradition

As has been pointed out before, there is no point in recording every hearing. So far, there are ten different hearing dates mentioned (and counting). The article generally tells us little or nothing about what happened at those hearings. It is not explained, for example, how the hearing on 19 February differed from the hearing on 24 February. In other words, we are told very little about the process. It's not actually a blow-by-blow account. So what's the point in recording the hearing dates? The most important thing is the decision (still to come) and, then, the arguments for and against. So far, we have only one sentence which mentions argument. If editors feel they need to mention delays, Assange's ill-health etc, this can be summarised.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

wp:notnews we are an encyclopedia, and content must be encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest something like this: Assange's extradition hearings have been delayed due to requests for extra time from the prosecution and the defence[8] and due the COVID-19 pandemic.[9]--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

By comparison, we use only five sentences to deal with the Swedish extradition attempt, including two appeals.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the added interest in the UK extradition effort by newspapers results from the near-universal concern of human rights and press freedom organizations, and many prominent editorial boards, that the Assange case likely represents the greatest danger to press freedom since the Ellsberg case. A second factor is the manner in which Assange is being handled by the court. -Darouet (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe its another reason, Assange gave them lots of copy for little cost. Or maybe must of this comes from his Russian handlers. Or maybe...that's the problem with maybes, there are a lot of them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be the case that we disagree, Slatersteven, but I think we can both agree that what's published in reliable sources should serve as a guide for content and interpretation. In any event Daniel Ellsberg has also been very outspoken about the Assange case, and his biography could serve as a good template when thinking about Assange's. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And I am not sure its quite as one sided as you claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the content of the current section is not about human rights, press freedoms etc. This seems irrelevant to the issue. Ellsberg's life has been totally different from Assange's. The article on Ellsberg is about half the size of this one. I don't think this is a practical suggestion for editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have made the edits mentioned above. This is justified by WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BETTER, and WP:TOOMUCH.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to know who was protesting outside the court. I don't think we need to know which court building was being used. Again, we have the addition of any kind of material other than actual arguments about extradition.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Also, we already have a section on the US indictment.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the section seems to be slanted heavily towards Assange at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: near-universal media and NGO condemnation of Assange's extradition to face Espionage Act charges are certainly going to influence the tone here. Unless we try to actively ignore editorial boards and human rights organizations, our coverage is going to reflect their views. -Darouet (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump will pardon Assange if he will testify in Seth Rich family v. Fox news case

Just remember it can be again fake news like first time Trump "promised" Julian a pardon to his laywer, that then said it never happened. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2691XD 91.78.221.238 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You ought to read your linked story more closely. It reports a meeting at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2017 between Assange and Republican then-U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher. That is not a new promise in 2020; it's the first (and only) one made three years ago. NedFausa (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Except now we have "His lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, said in a witness statement to the court that she observed a meeting at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2017 between Assange and Republican then-U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher" under oath. And also that Seth Rich lawsuite. While Dana Rohrabacher still denies it in writing. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement under oath by his lawyer. What possible significance could that have? It proves nothing. NedFausa (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course it proves nothing moreover I think it is fake news in some way. But the point here is that government of USA will try to get that info, even Clintons can be in play and we can get that info even before extradition because of Fox news case. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Rohrabacher has confirmed that he made an offer to Assange. That's not in question. What we don't explain in the article is how this relates to the extradition case.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier/Archive_19#Assange_fake_news Here Will copy paste from there (Dana Rohrabacher): My Meeting with Julian Assange

​There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration. Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich. Now, compare this to “They stated that President Trump was aware of and had approved of them coming to meet with Mr Assange to discuss a proposal – and that they would have an audience with the President to discuss the matter on their return to Washington DC,” she said.2A00:1370:812C:DACF:2D69:C13F:5652:4F70 (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Also, this is not a forum for discussing Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Swedish pretext

Assange denied the allegations, and said they were a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents.

I have taken the second part of this sentence from the lead. I don't see this in the body of the article, and I don't see this in the citations provided. I believe that Assange said this, but if we are going to air extreme claims like this, I don't think it should be in the lead without any support. Since there is now an extradition process from Britain, I don't think this claim makes much sense in retrospect. We don't have to repeat every conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is in the body in a different form: "Assange and his supporters said he was not concerned about any proceedings in Sweden as such, but believed that his deportation to Sweden could lead to politically motivated deportation to the United States, where he could face severe penalties, up to the death sentence, for his activities related to WikiLeaks".

I think you are doing our main character a disservice to call the claim "extreme" and a "conspiracy theory". His analysis of his situation has been quite accurate over the years. If you remove this from his bio, you remove his motivation for entering the Ecuadorian embassy. He has indicated many times that he was not concerned about the Swedish case. He visited the Swedish police prior to leaving the country. He surrendered himself to the British police after the Swedish arrest warrant was issued. And he was proved right about there being a US extradition request waiting in the wings. His argument was that extradition from Sweden would be easier than from the UK. Here are a few references and quotes where he and others have put that view:

... the “sex scandal” in Sweden was a set up and an American hellhole was the ultimate destination. And he was right, and repeatedly right".

"From the outset of Sweden’s preliminary investigation, Julian Assange’s expressed concern has been that waiting in the wings was a United States extradition request that would be unstoppable from Sweden – and result in his spending the rest of his life in a US prison".

"He expressed fears that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US".

Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what makes this claim "extreme," and calling it a "conspiracy theory" is unnecessarily belittling. It's Assange's widely publicized view of the reasons for the allegations in Sweden. This played a major role in the Swedish extradition attempt, as Assange very publicly asked for a guarantee that he would not be extradited by Sweden to the US.

This sort of major deletion should have been discussed before it was carried out. I think it was clear that it would be controversial. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I made deletion because I didn't see the idea of a "pretext" supported by the article. I still don't. The sentence quoted by Burrobert doesn't mention that it was a "pretext".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for the "pretext" claim: [10] [11] [12] [13]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

But they are not in the article. Which is the point I made in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We now have a source (the NYT article cited by Thucydides) which says almost exactly what had been in our article: "Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him and said that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to send him to the United States". One of the functions of a bio is to accurately present the views of its subject. If there are sources which describe his view as "extreme" or a "conspiracy theory" then these can also be included in the bio with attribution. I haven't been able to find a policy on longstanding content. Given there is opposition to the removal, it seems reasonable to leave this text in the article while a discussion occurs on the talk page. Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the main points. It is hard to see that the "pretext" claim is a main point if it is not mentioned in the body of this article (and only mentioned briefly in the Swedish allegations article). The paragraph in question already mentions "fears" of extradition to the US. I think it is reasonable to include this claim in the article (with a citation), but I don't think it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's also a very vague statement. Who fabricated this pretext? Why would it be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than Britain? I don't think it's good to leave the reader wondering. In fact, it seems like the reader is being fobbed off with a superficial explanation: Assange says this is a pretext.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Assange's much publicized view on the allegations in Sweden. This BLP lists the Swedish allegations very prominently (at the top of the second paragraph of the lede), and it must also give the Assange's response to those allegations. Saying that "Assange denied the allegations" is not enough, because it does not capture the main thrust of Assange's response - which is that the allegations were politically motivated. Whether or not you find Assange's response convincing is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that that is how he responded, and that his response has been widely reported. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by Thucydides an editor’s opinion of Assange’s response isn’t relevant. One of the function of a bio is to present the subject’s views. His view of the Swedish enquiry is notable and reported in reliable sources.

There is now a hole in the narrative in the lead. We say: “After failing in his battle against extradition to Sweden, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012. He was granted asylum by Ecuador due to fears of political persecution and extradition to the United States”. So, seemingly, Assange entered the embassy to escape a Swedish extradition and was then granted asylum for a completely different reason. It doesn't hold together and I know you are greatly concerned with reducing the number of fobbing off's that we inflict on readers.

I am also curious to know whether you consider the view that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leak as “extreme” and “a conspiracy theory”?

Burrobert (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the United States began investigating Assange and WikiLeaks in 2010 has also been removed from the lede (in my view, it's important enough that it should be put back in the lede), further removing context for Assange's views on the Swedish allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are avoiding the main issue, that the "pretext" claim is not a main point in this article. Previously, the lead had seven sentences relating to the US case against Assange. I think that's a bit repetitive. There is nothing to stop you adding to the lead, but the lead has to reflect the body.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretext is now in the body. What about the hole and Seth? Burrobert (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an improvement, but I would like something more specific. I have tried to plug the "hole". With regard to Seth Rich, I don't really understand the question. As far as I can see, his death is an unsolved murder. It would probably be reasonable to call the idea that he was killed because of the leak a "conspiracy theory". Regarding the Swedish pretext, if Assange is saying he was "set up" (see quote above), then I think that is a "conspiracy theory" (even if it's true). But there is no reason we can't include "conspiracy theories" in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: If the problem is that it's not in the body, the solution is to add it to the body (as Burrobert has now done), not to remove it from the lede. Removing this from the lede was a BLP issue, in my eyes, since it removed the central response by Assange to quite serious accusations made against him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now that everyone seems to be in agreement about the "pretext" claim being admissible in this article, let's put it back in the lede. It was central to Assange's response to the allegations in Sweden. We can add this Deutsche Welle source as a reference, since it uses the word "pretext" directly: [14]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it belongs in the lead. MOS:LEAD says the lead should summarize the most important points and As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. If a reader reads the lead and thinks, "I would like to know more about the pretext", he or she would search in vain for more information in this article and in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. As I've said before, it's hard to claim that this is one of the most important points based on the articles as they stand.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: This belongs in the lead and should remain there. Assange's view of the political character of the Swedish case is absolutely one of the most important points of this article. The case is the origin of his present legal and physical condition. Assange's view on it is widely reported upon and is shared by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. The exact phrasing that you've removed was in the lead for over 18 months, and text highly similar, expressing his views on the matter, were in the lead for over four years until just now. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've restored this information to the lede, with two new sources that explicitly use the word "pretext." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is UNDUE now as ever. It never should have been there, and there is no consensus to put it there now. Please remove it and seek consensus here or at NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been there a long time, and your opinion if unsupported by arguments or sources is irrelevant. Seek consensus if you want it removed. -Darouet (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. Moreover per @JzG:'s page restriction, it was a violation to reinsert it without consensus. See my comment above. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The text has been here for 18 months narrowly defined, or four years if we accept paraphrase. Are you suggesting that any text in the article can now be removed by any editor, and once removed that text cannot be restored, unless a consensus for restoration is demonstrated?

By the very metric you're advocating, a number of your own edits here are DS violations, namely:

• [15][16] your restoration of a longer description of Russian intelligence officers into the lead, after that longer description was removed.
• [17] Your restoration of a long quote from the Washington Post.

So, are you also guilty of "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus", or how does that work? -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. For valid content, it is an easy test to meet. There is currently no consensus for this bit in the lead. It is WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your argument, insofar as it is described, suggests that material may be added back if it is "valid content". Does valid content trump consensus? Wikipedia's policies aren't actually that complicated. What's complicated is an interpretation of policy that does worse than change with the winds, but wholly reverses itself from one post to the next. So you can add back removed content to the article because it is "valid content", but none of us can add back removed content because it would be "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus"? -Darouet (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That is deflection. Just read ONUS and establish consensus and due weight for the lead. It's not a difficult matter for appropriate content. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to your earlier edits: you didn't have consensus to restore this content, yet did so anyway [18][19][20]. Were you guilty of, in your own words, "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus"? How do your edits conform to WP:ONUS? -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments above imply that the "pretext" claim was Assange's defence against the Swedish allegations. However, as far as I can see, he didn't mention this in extradition hearings. With regard to political motivations behind the extradition, Judge Howard Riddle said, "This has been hinted at, but no evidence has been provided". As far as I can see, the "pretext" claim comes from Assange, not from his high-powered legal team, and is just something he's said to journalists. As far as I can see, no evidence has been presented to court. With regard to Darouet's assertion that this has been in the lead for over four years, the previous sentence did not mention "pretext" or anything like it. As discussed previously, there is a difference between referring to the possibility of extradition from Sweden to the USA, and saying that the Swedish allegations were a "pretext", a "set up" etc, to bring that extradition about. "Pretext" is the key concept here. So the "pretext" claim was not long-standing content (no more than 18 months), and it has never been part of his legal defence, as far as I can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "pretext" has been in the text since at least April 2019, which certainly makes it long-standing. I have to say that I find the claim that this was not a major part of Assange's objections to extradition to Sweden absurd. This reason has been reported over and over again:

But Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him, and he had maintained that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to eventually send him to the United States.

-New York Times

The Wikileaks founder claims the Swedish allegations against him were politically motivated and a pretext for his transfer to the US over the Pentagon leaks.

-Deutsche Welle

He has long claimed the allegations were a pretext for possible extradition to the US, where federal prosecutors investigating WikiLeaks have filed sealed charges against him.

-Al Jazeera

The 47-year-old has claimed the Swedish allegations were a pretext to transfer him to the United States, where he fears prosecution over the release by WikiLeaks of millions of classified documents.

-France 24

Mr. Assange and his team of lawyers say that criminal inquiry is a pretext for prosecution, and that Mr. Assange is essentially a political prisoner, targeted by the United States and its allies because of WikiLeaks’ role in publishing more than 250,000 leaked State Department diplomatic cables — a deep embarrassment for the Obama administration — starting in 2010.

-New York Times

Assange apparently fears that Sweden would send him to the United States. He is said to believe he might face a trial there for espionage, although the US has made no announcement to this effect. Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition from the UK in connection with alleged offences of sexual molestation and rape. If it turned out that this was simply a pretext for handing him over to the Americans, Sweden would risk breaching article 28 of the EU framework decision that forms the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.

-The Guardian

Assange, 46, denies the accusations and argues that the extradition was a pretext for his transfer to the United States to face justice for publishing secret documents on WikiLeaks.

-NBC News

Shall I go on? There's no consensus for removing this material. It's a central reason given by Assange for fighting extradition to Sweden, and removing it would be a serious BLP issue. It's important to include the response by Assange to serious accusations made against him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources where Assange has given this "central reason" to a court?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring. If you have a reason for excluding this material, Jack, then explain it. Thucydides411 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus to include. There has not been consensus for this since Jack first spotted it sitting inexplicably in the lead and did us all the service of removing it. That's why I removed it the first time it was reinstated, and that is why it needs to come out now. Editors who favor including it can pursue the various channels available for that purpose. We do not push every claim made by an accused criminal in the lead of his bio. And at this point, Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Can you elaborate on why you think this material is undue? You haven't yet explained your reasoning - you've just stated again and again that it's undue. I just quoted 7 reliable sources above that discuss Assange's "pretext" claim, and you yourself state that his claim is widely noted. The fact that this is Assange's widely noted response to serious allegations made against him makes it due, in my view. As for onus, you have it wrong: you're trying to change long-standing content, so the onus is on you to make the case for that change. Explaining why you believe this material is undue would be a start. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've explained it repeatedly. I did not say this claim is widely noted. I said his conspiracy theorizing and self-serving statements are widely noted. That is why we mustn't amplify the less noteworthy among them in the lead. Kindly remove per DS. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the sum total of your explanations about why the material is undue:

It is UNDUE now as ever.

-[21]

It is WP:UNDUE.

-[22]

Those are repeated assertions, not explanations. The closest you came to an explanation was this:

We do not push every claim made by an accused criminal in the lead of his bio. And at this point, Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted.

-[23]

You state that his claims are widely noted (which is actually an argument for them being DUE). You call them "self-serving conspiracy theorizing" (your own opinion, which you're entitled to, but which is irrelevant here unless backed up by reliable sources). You also state that not every claim has to be included, but you make no argument as to why this widely reported claim (as shown by the numerous reliable sources I gave above that discuss it) should be removed from the article.

This is why I've asked you to elaborate on your views about why this material in particular should be removed. So far, you've asserted that it's UNDUE, stated generally that not everything merits inclusion (without addressing this material), and called this material "conspiracy theorizing" (your own opinion). As I and others have explained, this material has been in the article for a long time (since April 2019, if I'm not mistaken), so the onus is on you to argue for removal. Assertions and vague generalities are not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeating myself: I did not say that this claim is widely noted. You reinserted w/o consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that this claim is widely noted. Then what were you talking about? If you weren't talking about this claim, then your comment was irrelevant. As I detailed above, you haven't actually given any reasoning for considering this material UNDUE. You've just repeatedly asserted it. You reinserted w/o consensus. Again, assertions are not arguments. If you explain your reasoning, then I'll respond. If you keep making assertions without any reasoning to back them up, then there's no point in responding to you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a claim is widely reported is not a reason for it to be in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: but "widely reported" is not and never has been the only argument for inclusion, is it? From the very beginning, Burrobert wrote,

If you remove this from his bio, you remove his motivation for entering the Ecuadorian embassy. He has indicated many times that he was not concerned about the Swedish case. He visited the Swedish police prior to leaving the country. He surrendered himself to the British police after the Swedish arrest warrant was issued. And he was proved right about there being a US extradition request waiting in the wings.

Burrobert provided helpful news links, one including a quote from Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief [24]:

Sweden has dropped its preliminary investigation into Mr Assange for the third time, after reopening it without any new evidence or information. Let us now focus on the threat Mr Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the first amendment.

As someone from Assange's legal team noted,

Now that the US does seek Mr Assange’s extradition to stand trial on unprecedented charges for journalistic work, it continues to be a matter of extreme regret that this reality has never been properly acknowledged and that the process in Sweden – with which Mr Assange has always expressed his willingness to engage and indeed did so – became so exceptionally politicised itself.

Burrobert linked an AP news story that further explained [25]:

[Assange] expressed fears that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US."

Burrobert explained one reason why Assange's arguments must be prominently noted alongside a mention of his charges in Sweden:

One of the functions of a bio is to accurately present the views of its subject.

Thucydides411 elaborated on this argument:

It's a central reason given by Assange for fighting extradition to Sweden, and removing it would be a serious BLP issue. It's important to include the response by Assange to serious accusations made against him.

Jack, here's a question for you: Sweden's charges against Assange are widely reported on. But do we need them in the lead? If widespread coverage isn't the metric here, perhaps that shouldn't be. One of the main issues that we have to address is not merely that Assange has been incarcerated in some form since 2010, but why. You want us to write that it's because, initially, Sweden had opened a criminal investigation. But Assange has long maintained that he was incarcerated as a mechanism to extradite him to the US to face espionage charges. Now, Sweden's case has been dropped, but Assange is facing extradition to the US to face espionage charges. Assange's argument, in his own biography, has at least equal merit as others, and should be included. -Darouet (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental reason the Swedish allegations are in the lead is because there is section about them in the body (which was expanded into a whole article). As said before, the lead should reflect the body. With regard to this pretext claim, this is only represented by one sentence in the body (which was added the other day). The Swedish article only has one sentence too. (I support including these sentences in the body of these articles.) This claim has apparently never been raised in court. Is it a main point in the article? No, obviously not. There is also a lack of neutrality. There are currently three expressions of opinion in the lead, and they are all pro-Assange. We include Assange's claim that the allegations were a pretext, but we don't include the opinions of the alleged victims, the prosecutor, or anyone else. We already explain that one of the reasons Assange received asylum was fear of a US indictment. Why do we need to add this pretext claim, a claim we never explain? Having said that, I think this discussion is very long and repetitive. I think we should move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, it should not be surprising that Assange’s views appear in the lead of his own biography. -Darouet (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, leads of Wikipedia biographies don't normally feature claims made by their subjects. This isn't meant to be a fansite.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't trivialize the matter. We're talking about the response of a living person to serious accusations made against them. That response has been reported over and over again by reliable sources. It's the stated reason why Assange fought extradition to Sweden, and the stated reason why he was granted asylum for nearly a decade by Ecuador. This is a major part of Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reset

Getting back to business, my reading of this is that @Jack Upland: and SPECIFICO believe that, at the least, this pretext bit is UNDUE for the lead. Therefore we have no credible claim of WP:CONSENSUS for it, and per WP:ONUS, it falls on others to establish such consensus, which does not now exist. Per the page restriction Discretionary Sanction placed by @JzG:, the pretext bit should not have been reinstated in the lead. It should be removed, and any subsequent reinstatement without consensus would again violate DS. I suggest that, once it's removed, if editors still feel strongly about including it, an RfC or NPOVN posting might help resolve their concerns. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agree. Default is to exclude disputed text anyway, and that particularly applies here. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG I disagree. Default is to go back to the status quo ante...the stable version before the dispute ensued. And from what I understand the disputed text has been stable in the Lead since at least 2019. (See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and WP:Silence and consensus.) The exception would be if the disputed content made contentious negative statements about Assange, but that's obviously not the case here since it's just a statement of Assange's own views. ~Awilley (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, that might apply in another article, but this one has been WP:OWNed by a small cabal of fans and Mueller denialists for a long time. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people have edited and been watching this page over the last few years, while the material in question has been in the lede. Please abide by WP:NPA. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You're not saying anything new here. You're again misrepresenting ONUS (the onus is on you to argue why longstanding material should be removed) and the discretionary sanctions (the removal was challenged and cannot be done again without consensus, not the other way around). It would be more productive if you would finally explain why you believe this material is undue - something you have not yet done. Not explaining your reasoning and continually saying "no consensus" just comes across as stonewalling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What's new is that I'm saying that somebody is going to remove this and you will need to seek consensus through appropriate collaborative channels or face sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of longstanding material requires consensus, which you do not have. Moreover, it requires a reason, which you still have not given. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You violated the Discretionary Sanction Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). JzG confirmed this above. You can still self revert to avoid AE. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have asked Awilley to give input here, as an uninvolved admin. Your interpretation of the "Consensus required" restriction appears to me to be exactly opposite to what the restriction actually says, and how it's been generally understood (particularly at your recent WP:AE case, in which every admin appeared to be working off the understanding that consensus is required to remove long-standing material). But hopefully as an uninvolved admin, Awilley will give some guidance on this policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've commented above. ~Awilley (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Postscript

I have said above that the article gives no explanation who created this pretext. However, I've just realised that's not exactly true. Under "Writings and opinions", we note he said it was a "radical feminist conspiracy". I think this is a rather odd placement for this information.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Swedish sexual assault allegations.

Edit09/24/2020 Assange visited Sweden in August 2010. On 20 August 2010 two women, then known only as AA and SW, went to a police station in Stockholm ‘to inquire whether Mr Assange could be compelled to take an HIV test’.[173] Consequently he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women.

Reverted to: Assange visited Sweden in August 2010. During his visit, he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women.

The revert removes the critical information of how the allegations were initiated and removes the relevant date and reference without any reason.

So apparently this article is not asleep. Without a civil response we can assume that the reversion was merely an inadvertent error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Read the edit summery, it explains some of the reasons why.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool just enjoy retirement :) If reducing size means removing all relevant detail why not revert the whole article. To me detail is critical in understanding the event. Its extremely unusual in Western society for 2 woman AA & SW to go to the police to ask if someone can be forced to undergo STD tests. Perhaps if you read Assange's statement and reports of the allegations of AA & SW you would realise that the devil is in the detail. Assange was in an extremely vulnerable/desperate position and at the mercy of AA & SW. There's probably enough material here for another article after all the allegations allegedly cost UK taxpayers as much as $30,000 pounds for the sole benefit of some what silencing free speech. What this cost the Swedish citizens and AA & SW is not known. Its a major embarrassment to us all to watch Assange's slow execution by bureaucrats costing perhaps billions world wide because he provided a service to people with some conscience to disclose atrocities. Anyway Assange is locked away unable to defend himself and thus deserves fair commentary. As they say dead man walking although he doesn't get to walk much.

What details will you accept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Assange is not "locked away unable to defend himself", he can do so in court, and his lawyers are not locked up. Also p[lease read wp:not. Nor do I see how this allegation (and that is all it is) they wanted to have him tested for aids tells us anything (see wp:undue. Nor am I sure that unsubstantiated allegation shave a place (see wp;blp).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We have a whole article dealing with the Swedish allegations. We only need a summary here.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Last I heard Assange is locked in maximum security for 23hours 30 minutes with no resources. Assange's lawyers are exactly that "Lawyers" What purpose is there in locking a non violent person in maximum security? Is Assange even a serious flight risk. Where would he go? "Sweden"

You and I are his voice if you would let us hear you? The point of the std test is that neither Anna or Sophia wanted Assange charged. Sofia was making a report and Anna piped up to support Sofia which inadvertently triggered a complaint and investigation that injured all three. Of course you know this already or should do having edited here for years but its not obvious to a new reader.

Interesting Jack please specify the whole article title.

Well as he has tried to flee justice at least once, yes it would be reasonable to assume he might try it again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The other article is Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. It could do with some improvement. Adding the STD test here doesn't explain much to our readers. And I don't understand the comment about lawyers. Regarding Belmarsh Prison, we don't have an official account of why he is there. He is clearly a flight risk. He has been accused of sex offences, and they are violent crimes. He has now been indicted for espionage, which is a serious crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Jack thanks for the response.

"The other article is Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" is the name of an English court case internationally condemned as disgraceful or worse.

.

"He has been accused of sex offences, and they are violent crimes."

You've pinpointed a serious problem with this article. Even you (a long time editor) draw the conclusion of violence from the AA & SW inquiry of police about ordering a STD test. The worst violence that can be gleaned from the 12? statements (Protocols) is that Assange was on top of the 31 year old AA during consensual sex and held her arms near her ears which she found unpleasant. Even this is doubtful given AA's other statements. If you've had sex with anyone its likely you would have found yourself in a some what similar position either on top or underneath. AA clearly was not impressed and did not engage in further copulation while Assange shared AA's bed for the next few days. AA described the experience as "The worst lay ever".

There is a report that Assange's confinement in super max ?? eventually caused serious discontent among other prisoners and he has been removed from solitary confinement. There is also a report that during a court day Assange is handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked twice. Assange is not Hannibal Lector (from silence of the lambs) who might feast on our brains nor is he responsible for any terrorist attack or murder.

In tabloid vilifications he is described as smelly, an enormous turd, a narcissist,an egomaniac a perve etc but never as violent as you have inferred.

Assange's espionage was Wikileaks assistance to courageous whistle blowers trying to keep you, Jack and the rest of us informed. The Guardian published the encryption key to the diplomatic cable file entrusted to them by Assange himself. This security breach by a Guardian journalist meant that Wikileaks lost control of the cables and was not able to redact the files as was Wikileaks usual practice. The result was that the governments of the world had full access to the files while the people named in them did not.

Wikileaks response was to notify the State Department that the files would have to be made available unredacted at short notice. The Guardian and other media joined in general condemnation of Assange personally for this breach of Wikileaks security by a journalist at the Guardian. Forgive my disbelief that this is any reason to keep Assange in solitary confinement in super max? Maybe in the medium security general population but super max no way!

All that needs to be recorded about the current attack on free speech and freedom of the press and persecution of Assange won't fit into Wikipedia without more articles and restructuring the subject. Assange himself says, "this is bigger than me" and Wikipedia articles also need to be bigger than Assange.

Nnoddy: first, we are here to neutrally report on what sources tell us, and not to act as advocates for or against Assange. Second, please make arguments that are supported by reliable sources. Otherwise this is a waste of time. -Darouet (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

There was a RfC about the sentence about Russian intelligence officers in the lead. The consensus was to keep.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The lede has been significantly shortened since that RfC. The RfC had a small majority in favor of keep, but no policy-based argument was advanced to back up that position. In particular, no argument was made as to why this information is relevant in Assange's biography. The GRU indictments have very little to do with Assange's biography. There's no possible sane justification for giving them more space in the lede than Cablegate, for example. Given the weakness of the arguments made in favor of the "keep" position and the substantial shortening of the lede, the RfC close should be revisited. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

"In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual assault.[8] Assange denied the allegations. After failing in his battle against extradition to Sweden, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012.[9] He was granted asylum by Ecuador on the grounds of political persecution, with the presumption that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be eventually extradited to the US.[10]"

This paragraph is over long, prejudicial, salacious, misleading and reiterated later in the article. I suggest.

In November 2010 a Swedish prosecutor based in Gothenburg acting on a request made by a political colleague, lawyer and friend reopened an investigation that had been closed in Stockholm. After some weeks Prosecutor Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden. During the flight from Stockholm to Berlin Assange's checked in luggage was stolen. Ny then issued an international arrest warrant for Assange culminating in him being granted asylum in an embassy.

Please don't dismiss the above because of the lack of references. It is all verifiable and factually describes the event. Unfortunately it is not short enough. Its kind of important that a politician lawyer friend asked to reopen an investigation on the other side of Sweden and NY did it. A bit like a case being closed in London and then reopened in Manchester. Kinda crazy right. (I believe that Ny transferred to Stockholm at some time.)

I anticipate that the fact that Assange's luggage disappeared in this political climate won't go down well but it adds to Ny's crazy behaviour. Why did the politically motivated Ny let Assange leave? Crazy right? Suddenly his luggage containing sensitive information disappears. Is this coincidence or an easily executed intercept of sensitive information? This raises the question whether you would meekly return to any country after this had taken place? Not me brother.

Ny's persecution cannot be adequately addressed without the mention of the euphemism "RENDITION" This is the kidnap, transport, imprisonment, torture and sometimes murder of people in foreign state by the USA, Israel and maybe other resourceful countries. Rendition of foreigners had already been tolerated by Sweden on a number of occasions.

"Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police in December 2001. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories were inserted in their anuses and they were put in diapers, overalls, hoods, hand and ankle cuffs, they were then put onto a jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men." Source Wikipedia

After Ny got Assange to leave Sweden she issued an arrest warrant supposedly to question Assange and then refused to do so for many (9) years before dropping the investigation. No charges were ever laid. The evidence (Protocols) speaks for itself. Ny's behavior has been internationally condemned. Wikipedia should record this accurately

Ny then disappears and a new prosecutor drops the investigation yet again (It was only an investigation)after the USA extradition proceedings began stating total nonsense:

Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Eva-Marie Persson took the decision to "discontinue the investigation regarding Julian Assange", the Swedish Prosecution Authority said. "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question,".

Really! There's enough evidence on record in the public domain to determine the matter. 12 Original statements (protocols),multiple posts, attempts to remove posts, sms messages with held from Assange's lawyers because he wasn't entitled to them until "charged". How can this evidence get weaker over time? Assange admits copulating with both AA & SW. The only holdup has been the prosecutors disgraceful delay to either charges Assange or permanently end the investigation.

Assange has been totally vindicated in his fear of extradition to USA now the proceeding is in process. That is what weakens the Ny's evidence or rather negates its usefulness. Poor SW must regret ever hearing the name Assange after being used and spat out during this international political attack on truth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I'm glad that your only concern is sources. Mainstream media has not published an account of the political nature of Ny's prosecution so little details like the location of prosecutor Ny in Gothenburg need to be gleaned from biased articles. You are clearly much more experienced than I am at editing Wikipedia. Please help identify what facts need support from sources.

"In November 2010 a Swedish prosecutor based in Gothenburg acting on a request made by a political colleague, lawyer and friend reopened an investigation that had been closed in Stockholm." are facts referred to in the same BBC Source [26] Except for the relationship between Anna Ardin's lawyer/political candidate Claes Borgstrom and Prosecutor Ny that was not reported. Claes Borgstrom has a wikipedia page as well.

"After some weeks Prosecutor Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden." [27]

During the flight from Stockholm to Berlin Assange's checked in luggage was stolen." [28]

Ny then issued an international arrest warrant for Assange culminating in him being granted asylum in an embassy.

[This disgraceful dirty trick is apparently not mainstream reported. What is available is an uncontroversial account by Wikileaks and a Wikipedia link to Swedish paper The Local that denies me access. The warrant was issued by a prosecutor. The prosecutor was Ny. This hardly needs a source]

Thanks for comments.Nnoddy (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Dead Mary's recent edits

After Jack Upland's monthlong effort [29] to reduce the size of this article, Dead Mary has selectively restored [30] a great deal of material about the 2016 elections. Dead Mary's edits bloat this section, giving it weight that is WP:UNDUE in the context of Assange's whole life and current prosecution:

• The BBC's recent summary articles on Assange at the time of his arrest don't mention the elections once [31][32].
• The Guardian doesn't mention this either [33].

The sole case against Assange for the 2016 elections was thrown out of a US court [34]. Since those Guardian and BBC overview pieces were written, coverage of Assange has been dominated by his indictment under the US Espionage Act of 1917:

• The Columbia Journalism Review calls his current legal predicament a terrifying threat to press freedom [35], and
• The New Yorker calls it an offensive on the first amendment [36].

Media discussing Assange today or introducing him to readers don't discuss the 2016 elections. For this reason, adding back all this content [37] after Upland trimmed the whole article [38] — he also removed a lot of "international support" for Assange — has turned Assange's biography into a WP:COATRACK to recapitulate the 2016 US elections. Some amount of material should obviously be there, but what Dead Mary has added is far too much. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think a lot of the verbiage doesn't convey much information. For example, On 4 October 2016, in a WikiLeaks anniversary meeting in Berlin with Assange teleconferencing from his refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, reporters spoke of a supposed promise to reveal further information against Clinton which would bring her candidacy down, calling this information "The October Surprise". Rightwing pundits as well as Trump campaign staffers like Roger Stone also hinted at further releases to be imminent. I think this was newsworthy at the time, but as soon as Assange published the new batch of emails this was old news. Also, it's not directly reporting something Assange himself said. Also, the phrasing is extremely verbose. We don't need to keep repeating Assange was in the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you and have reinstated the helpful edits you made. -Darouet (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reinstated the "pre-trim" version. The "trimmed" version you just reverted to is a convoluted mess. Its extremly hard to decipher what actually went down. If there are some problems please fix it and don't just delete it. Please just don't blank revert and hear my reasoning:

It's definitely true that this article is too long, but the 2016 US election paragraph is not the place to cut.

Assange is mainly known for 3 things:

• founding of Wikileaks and early leaks about the US
• his involvement in the 2016 election
• his legal problems: Sweden rape case, flight from the UK authorities, Ecuador embassy, current trials and detainment

80% of the article is about his legal problems, hiding in the embassy, surveillance, indictment etc. Meanwhile the US election interfence part, the big thing he is mostly known for during the last years - which dominated the news for a long time - is just a tiny fraction of the article. Like 5%. And after your cuts its pretty much impossible to understand what went down and why it is a big deal. It's really badly written in its current form. If you want to trim the article, start with all these insanely long prose text walls about Assange's live in the embassy and all those 10.000 sentences about random organization and individuals uttering their opinion about "things" - but not that one part Assange is actually known for. Dead Mary (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been trimming the whole article. I agree that the 2016 election does not form a major part of the article. However, it is given much more space than any of the other leaks. Based on media coverage, as discussed before, Assange's role in the 2016 election is considered important in the USA, but generally not elsewhere. Similarly, a Syrian might think the "Syrian Files" is the most important thing Assange is known for. I think the 2016 election section as it stood was very verbose. I gave an example above. Even after my trimming, I think it was verbose. After all, the killing of Rich is just an unsolved murder that Assange made a comment on. I agree that the coverage of the embassy period is excessively long, and I have tried to summarise it. I have in a war for months against the "quotefarm" of a roll-call of individuals from Amnesty International to Pamela Anderson giving their opinion on Assange. I think the article needs a lot of copy-editing, not just in regards to verbosity, but also accuracy. If you want to help, please do...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Jack Upland here. From an international perspective, the 2016 US election is a distant third place to the other two items. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile the US election interfence part, the big thing he is mostly known for during the last years: Outside the US, I don't think this is true. Subjectively, it seems like almost all the international coverage over the past 18 months has been about his extradition battle and Wikileaks' 2010 publications. There was a discussion a year ago in which this analysis of interest in Assange over time was posted, showing that he is best known for Wikileaks' 2010 publications. The 2016 US Presidential election was far behind the 2010 publications, in terms of public interest.

For that reason, I don't think that the 2016 US Presidential election should be given as much weight as it's currently given. Jack Upland has trimmed a lot of content out of an article that already significantly overweighted the 2016 US Presidential election. Selectively restoring all the 2016 election information makes that imbalance even more severe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You can use Google Trends to track interest in Assange over time: [39]. The four largest spikes are around the time of Wikileaks' 2010 publications, Assange's arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2019, the 2016 elections, and when Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I cannot agree with that at all. I can assure you, that these leaks were big news outside the US and synonymous with the surprising Trump 2016 victory. Not sure if you want me to copypaste a couple of hundreds French, German and Russian news articles about this to "prove" that. It's not on the same level as the other leaks, which usually just gain like two days of news coverage and are then forgotten. "Russian election meddling" is a continuous topic at least in Europe too. In the US the Mueller investigation went on for several years and led to the indicment of 34 people with several major Trump staffers. And the Wikileaks mail leaks played a central role in all that. The big problem with the "trimmed" version is that it leaves out a lot of context and gives the reader no idea what went down and why these mail leaks were even a thing at all.

Besides, my edits only restored an almost miniscule amount of additions. Or to be specific, my edits literally restored exactly 5 sentences and you are making such a fuss about that? The entire "2016 election" is just a fraction of the article. There is no reason to push for an inferior version when the additions are like 0,3% of the article. I am a bit surprised that we even have to talk about this in such lengths - but "the article is too long" just doesn't hold water here. Arguing that the "2016 election" paragraph is too long when the entire section went from 5% to 5,3% of the article is just ridiculous. This topic is already barely covered at all. Dead Mary (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been a huge amount of coverage of many aspects of Wikileaks and Assange's life. If you want to compare the weight that should be given to the 2010 leaks vs. the 2016 US election, then you have to do some sort of systematic analysis of coverage. I linked the Google Trends graph because it shows overall trends over time, rather than just individual news stories. It's not on the same level as the other leaks, which usually just gain like two days of news coverage and are then forgotten. The 2010 leaks were not forgotten within a few days (the diplomatic cables alone spawned major news stories in a large number of countries), and are the reason why Assange has been charged in the United States.

In the last 18 months or so, there has been very little European coverage of the 2016 US Presidential election, while there has been a substantial amount of coverage of Assange's legal battles (which relate to the 2010 publications). That's my impression, at least, and I try to follow the news in a few European languages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. We are talking about the addition of 5 sentences here. This article has like 1000 of them. Its a miniscule addition to an already very small section which is badly needed because it provides vital context to an otherwise incomprehensible mess. "The article is too long" is just not a valid argument at all here. Dead Mary (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, the problem is that your edits, by a curious coincidence, no doubt, always end up minimizing the things for which Assange is criticized, and maximizing the things for which his fans laud him.

Example: the 2016 election. His role as a conduit of information stolen by the Kremlin was of monumental importance. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what matters for weight is coverage in reliable sources. If you want to increase coverage of the 2016 US election in this BLP, then present some analysis of sources that shows that that subject deserves more coverage here. Ad hominem attacks on me do not advance your case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

... Alleged to have been stolen by the Russians. Perhaps, in the long term, we'll find that Craig Murray was telling the truth, that they were given to Wikileaks by Democrat insiders "motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'" (the first results from a Google search: [40][41][42][43][44][45]) Do you think it's possible that your own edits might reflect a bias towards the viewpoints or versions of events you believe to be true?     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of bringing up the WP:fringe stuff? Are you using those sources to make a joke or did I miss something here, you do appear to be serious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting: Craig Murray saying that he's in a position to know who the sources of the leaks were because he was the person who was handed the material (and I'm guessing that Wikileaks itself and Julian Assangte back up what he said) is not worth bringing up? Do you think that it might be fair to say that politically-instigated inquiries are not famous for uncovering the truth, particularly when the stakes are high and they're depending on "intelligence"?     ←   ZScarpia   16:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you unaware that The Epoch Times etc are highly unreliable? Craig Murray is also not a reliable source in their own right so what exactly are you proposing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the bit where I wrote "first results from a Google search". What I was doing was showing that a simple Google search did turn up results. I made no judgement as to reliability.     ←   ZScarpia   09:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then whats the point of showing that a google search returns bad results? That would appear to hurt your argument not help it. I also note you didnt answer the question, what exactly are you proposing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I run into this problem with most of my political Google Alerts. I have hundreds of them on many of these topics, and the right-wing counterfactual narratives (Russiagate, Spygate, Ukraine did it not Russia, etc.) are consistently from unreliable sources, so that tells me when not to include a subject here. When mainstream media pick up a subject, then we're dealing with RS and might see an opportunity to use them for content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of my original comment was to address the factual claim in one of JzG's personal comments about Thucydides411 that Assange was "a conduit of information stolen by the Kremlin." As far as I can make out, we haven't moved on beyond the point where, for the most part at least, sources have been reporting comments made by American officials and CIA intelligence officials to the effect that they were confident, not certain, that WikiLeaks had been passed material through Russian channels. Since, the orinal release, we have had the trial of Roger Stone which shows that figures in the Republican Party had contact with WikiLeaks before and after the presidential election. That shows foreknowledge of Roger Stone that material would be leaked. However, it didn't actually show that the Russians were necessarily WikiLeaks' source. I mentioned Craig Murray because he has stated that he acted as the go between for, at least, some of the material and so was in a position to know that one, at least, of the leakers was a Democrat insider. I did a Google search to unearth information. One of the results was an article of Murray's where he states, "As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two," though not one where he explains why he was in a position to know why he was in a position to know that insider leaks were involved. I made no claim to the reliablility of the sources I listed. A point of listing them was so that others could read up on what was being written about Murray's statements. Even if those sources were not reliable in themselves, they can lead on to sources which could be considered reliable. For instance, Murray's blog piece leads on to a Guardian article which says:

"The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government. Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.” “I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things."

That shows that, counter to some claims which may be made, at least some attention was paid in the mainstream press to what Murray wrote about WikiLeaks' sources.

Other editors have weighed in with claims that it is a fact that WikiLeaks' source was Russian. There are a number of faults in those claims. The first is logical. Even if it can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russian-governmnet-affiliated hackers hacked into Democrat servers, it does not follow that those hackers were necessarily WikiLeaks' source. There may have been other hackers. Also, there could have been a leak from, as Murray claimed, a Democrat insider. It is also possible, of course, that WikiLeaks was fooled into thinking that its source was a Democrat insider when in actual fact there was a state-affiliated actor in control. Another fault in the arguments is that American officials and intelligence organisations aren't, of themselves, reliable sources. If news organisations are attributing to them claims about WikiLeaks' sources, then the most that can be done on Wikipedia is to state what claims have been made, not to state those claims as fact. It could well be that particular sources may be cherry-picked in order to try to state particular beliefs as fact. Then, the Neutrality Policy would be invoked.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, Alleged Proven "to have been stolen by the Russians". Get it right. Those sources, except for Snopes, are unreliable sources, and the Snopes source does not prove your point. Please don't make such comments on article talk pages (and even userspace) as advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden at Wikipedia. If you had RS to back such views it would be more tolerable, but that's not the narrative told in RS. Please keep the fringe conspiracy theories off-wiki. Thanks. (BTW, I see that we both created our accounts in December 2005!) -- Valjean (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a deja vu moment, as I have warned you before about doing this. -- Valjean (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your absolute "proof" that the Wikileaks' source was the Russians rather than disaffected Democrat insiders is what, exactly? Just because Russians likely hacked the computers doesn't mean that they were then Wikileaks' source. The fact is that Wikileaks say that their source was not the Russians. "Robert S Mueller III", the CIA etc do not have a version of papal infallibility (and neither do Wikipedia editors who confuse their opinions on which version of the facts is likely to be true with what is actually true).     ←   ZScarpia   09:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence that prove it was the Russians who hacked the DNC (and RNC, but they didn't release it) and then funneled that to their cutouts, WikiLeaks and DCLeaks. Keep in mind that the emails were seen on Russian intelligence servers, the Russians offered the hacked emails to the Trump campaign, which welcomed the help, and Dutch intelligence penetrated the system in the Russian building used by Russian intelligence to hack American targets. They hacked the surveillance cameras and created dossiers on each person who worked there, recorded their keystrokes, and knew, by name, who did what. That's why the warrants were for named Russians. We have multiple articles about this stuff, with the sources, and I have previously asked you to not push views found in unreliable sources. Why haven't you gotten up to speed so you don't spout off this disinformation spread by fringe sources? You can count on anything from Trump and his administration, Fox News, and Trump-friendly sources, as heavy on misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbuthnot

I have removed this:

The judge presiding over the extradition case in London was initially Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot. In a court appearance, Assange and his lawyers accused her of not disclosing a conflict of interest related to the fact that her husband is former defence minister James Arbuthnot who was named in several disclosures by WikiLeaks. Primary oversight of the case was transferred to District Judge Vanessa Baraitser with Arbuthnot remaining involved in an advisory role. Reports that her son has worked for or invested in the cyber security companies Darktrace, Rightly and Symantec led to further allegations of bias against Arbuthnot.

The sources do not say Arbuthnot was initially presiding over the extradition case. They indicate Arbuthnot was involved in the bail case, prior to 2 May 2019. They do not say that Assange and his lawyers accused her of not disclosing a conflict of interest. They do not say primary oversight of the case was transferred to Baraitser. They do not say Arbuthnot is an advisory role. As far as I can see, the claims about her son were not made in court, and I don't think they should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave her son out of the discussion. No claims were made about him in court or as far as I know by Assange's lawyers. The revelations about him come from the Daily Maverick investigation. As far as the earlier points go they can be found in the Times of India article mentioned other articles as described below:

• "Walker said an application had been made twice before Westminster Magistrates’ Court claiming there was no public interest in pursuing Assange for skipping bail, but chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot had upheld his arrest warrant".
• "He then went on to make an astonishing claim against Arbuthnot, who is also overseeing Nirav Modi’s extradition, saying: “The district judge Emma Arbuthnot should have recused herself on the basis of bias as WikiLeaks impacted Lord Arbuthnot her husband. We would like her to recuse herself from all further hearings ... ".
• "Defending Assange, Liam Walker claimed that chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot, who previously dealt with the case, was biased against him. Her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks, Walker alleged".
• "Presiding over the UK legal case is Alexander Arbuthnot’s mother, Lady Arbuthnot, who as a judge has herself previously made rulings on Assange and now oversees the junior judge, Vanessa Baraitser".
• "Westminster chief magistrate Lady Emma Arbuthnot made two key legal rulings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in February 2018, which ensured he would not be able to take up his asylum in Ecuador. On 6 February 2018, Lady Arbuthnot dismissed the request by Assange’s lawyers to have his arrest warrant for skipping bail withdrawn, after the Swedish investigation into sexual assault allegations was dropped. If this request had been granted, Assange may have been able to negotiate safe passage to Ecuador to prevent his persecution by the US government. A week later, in a second ruling, Lady Arbuthnot said: "I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable".".
• "Lady Arbuthnot’s rulings were also scathing about Assange’s perceived personal failings. She noted in her 2018 judgment: “He [Assange] appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour.” The judgment added: “Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years. Defendants… come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too".".
• "It has been reported that Arbuthnot stepped aside from directly hearing the case because of a “perception of bias”, but it was not elucidated what this related to. This refusal means Assange’s defence team cannot revisit her previous rulings".
• Private Eye magazine reported that Arbuthnot stood down from the case because Assange's legal team complained about her links to the arms trade and intelligence and that her partner worked for a company headed by a former head of MI6.
• "Lady Arbuthnot became involved in the Assange legal case around September 2017 and presided over the hearing on 7 February 2018, before delivering her judgment a week later".
• "Lady Arbuthnot has recently appointed a district judge to rule on Assange’s extradition case, but remains the supervising legal figure in the process. According to the UK courts service, the chief magistrate is “responsible for… supporting and guiding district judge colleagues".".
• "In a key legal judgment in February 2018, Lady Arbuthnot rejected the argument of Assange’s lawyers that the then warrant for his arrest should be quashed and instead delivered a remarkable ruling. She rejected the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention—a body composed of international legal experts—that Assange was being “arbitrarily detained”, characterised Assange’s stay in the embassy as “voluntary” and concluded Assange’s health and mental state was of minor importance".

Burrobert (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

So her key judgments were in February 2018, more than a year before the US indictment was unsealed. They related to him jumping bail. The accusation of bias was made before Judge Snow in the trial for jumping bail. This does not relate to extradition to the US. Most news outlets have not pursued this story. The exception is The Daily Maverick. The Times of India described the claim of bias as "astonishing". This seems to be undue weight as well as inaccurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Its a bit concerning that you have changed your reason for not wanting this in the article. Burrobert (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have never been completely against including Arbuthnot, and I am reacting to what comes up. As far as I know, this is the first text on Arbuthnot proposed or inserted into the article. Unfortunately, it seems very inaccurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your various reasons for excluding mention of Arbuthnot are on record above and in the archives. I am not interested in detailing all of them. For the information of you and other editors, I will provide a timeline of Arbuthnot's role in Assange's life. Much of this is taken from the notes and references above but I have added some more information and provided the relevant references:

• Arbuthnot became involved in the Assange legal case around September 2017 and presided over the hearing on 7 February 2018, before delivering her judgment a week later. This is the case around Assange skipping bail.
• Arbuthnot made two key legal rulings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in February 2018, which ensured he would not be able to take up his asylum in Ecuador. On 6 February 2018, Lady Arbuthnot dismissed the request by Assange’s lawyers to have his arrest warrant for skipping bail withdrawn, after the Swedish investigation into sexual assault allegations was dropped. If this request had been granted, Assange may have been able to negotiate safe passage to Ecuador to prevent his persecution by the US government. A week later, in a second ruling, Lady Arbuthnot said: "I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable”.
• In her February 2018 judgement, Lady Arbuthnot rejected the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that Assange was being "arbitrarily detained", characterised Assange’s stay in the embassy as "voluntary" and concluded Assange’s health and mental state was of minor importance.
• Arbuthnot noted in her 2018 judgment: "He [Assange] appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour". The judgment added: "Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years. Defendants… come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too".
• In April 2019, at the court hearing into skipping bail, Assange’s barrister, Liam Walker stated "The district judge Emma Arbuthnot should have recused herself on the basis of bias as WikiLeaks impacted Lord Arbuthnot her husband. We would like her to recuse herself from all further hearings ... " and stated that her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks.
• On 2 May 2019, District Judge Michael Snow presided over Assange's first extradition hearing.
• Arbuthnot presided over an extradition hearing on 30 May 2019 at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, where Julian Assange's solicitor Gareth Peirce told her that Assange was too ill to appear by video link from Belmarsh Prison for the hearing in relation to his possible extradition to the US. The date for the next hearing was confirmed as 12 June 2019 and Arbuthnot suggested that it might take place in Belmarsh Prison, where Assange was being held, if convenient for all parties.
• On 14 June 2019, Arbuthnot presided over a procedural hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court when she decided that a full 5-day extradition hearing should begin on 24 February 2020.
• Around December 2019 Private Eye reported that Arbuthnot stepped aside from directly hearing the case because of a "perception of bias", but didn’t say what this related to. Her refusal to recuse herself means Assange’s defence team cannot revisit her previous rulings".
• Around November 2019 Arbuthnot appointed district judge Vanessa Baraitser to rule on Assange’s extradition case, but Arbuthnot remains the supervising legal figure in the process. According to the UK courts service, the chief magistrate is “responsible for… supporting and guiding district judge colleagues.

Burrobert (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you've established that she was involved in the extradition hearings, but only to a limited degree. Do you have some text you want to insert?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. You're the sceptic. What do you think? Burrobert (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's really up to you. I don't think there's a strong reason to include anything about her. Her decisions on the bail case merely affirmed his ongoing situation. I've never seen an argument that another judge would have decided differently. I don't believe this is mentioned in the article currently. There were at least three judges presiding over his extradition case, and Arbuthnot doesn't seem to have done anything exceptional. Now, she has stepped aside because of perception of bias, and Baraitser will make the decision. The issue seems to be resolved. Sure, Arbuthnot is Baraitser's and Snow's boss. But this argument implies the whole of the Magistrates' Court is tainted because of her, which seems to me to be a big call...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

After your recent pruning (you may have tip-toed a bit around the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section - understandably given the AJAFC’s views) we have room for all of it and more. However, in the wise words of our Premier, we must take slow, steady and safe steps. Sticking to what we know which, as far as I can tell, is undisputed, we have a judge who:

1. has a partner who was affected by Wikileaks releases

2. has made a number of decisions related to the bail and extradition cases

3. has been asked in court by Assange’s legal team to recuse herself

4. stepped aside from directly hearing the case because of a "perception of bias"

5. appointed Baraitser to rule on Assange’s extradition case

6. continues to supervise the legal process as chief magistrate

My view is that this is noteworthy and warrants some coverage in Assange’s bio. We can come to that conclusion without needing to consider whether her actual judgements were flawed or that the system is tainted. We may not even need to refer to any of her rulings, although a proper full bio would include those as well. The timeline of Arbuthnot’s involvement stretches over a number of sections. We can condense it into one point by giving a summary at the time Baraitser took over the hearings. Here is a first draft:

Arbuthnot was the presiding judge at Assange’s extradition hearings until she stepped aside because of a "perception of bias" and appointed Vanessa Baraitser as the presiding judge around October 2019. As Chief Magistrate, Arbuthnot remained the supervising legal figure "responsible for… supporting and guiding" Baraitser. Arbuthnot had also previously presided over legal proceedings related to Assange’s skipping bail. In April 2019, Assange’s legal team had requested in court that Arbuthnot recuse herself from any further extradition hearings because her partner James Arbuthnot had been impacted by some of Wikileaks' releases.

Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it, Arbuthnot's rulings in February 2018 probably should be included because they are milestones in his case and because they explain why he was jailed for skipping bail years after Sweden had dropped its case. Regarding your draft, I think "the presiding judge" seems overstated. From the sources presented, she presided over a few minor hearings. I don't think the recusal request referred to "any further extradition hearings" because the extradition hearings hadn't started at that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I thought you may say that about "presiding judge" and you are probably correct. Change that to something like "presided at several/some/a number of Assange's extradition hearings". If there is a better description than "extradition hearings" change that too. The source says Assange's legal team said: "We would like her to recuse herself from all further hearings". We can change "any further" to "all further" or just "all". With those changes, have a go at adding the Arbuthnot rulings that you think are appropriate. By the way, in your recent travels did you consider doing away with the cat? Consider breaking the Arbuthnot connection into two parts by inserting the following two paragraphs into the appropriate place in the story:

1. In April 2019, Assange’s legal team had requested in court that Arbuthnot, who had previously presided over legal proceedings related to Assange’s skipping bail, recuse herself from all extradition hearings because her partner, James Arbuthnot, had been impacted by some of Wikileaks' releases.

2. Arbuthnot presided at several of Assange’s extradition hearings until she stepped aside because of a "perception of bias" and appointed Vanessa Baraitser as the presiding judge. Around October 2019, Arbuthnot, who had presided at several of Assange’s extradition hearings, stepped aside because of a "perception of bias" and appointed Vanessa Baraitser as the presiding judge. As Chief Magistrate, Arbuthnot remained the supervising legal figure "responsible for… supporting and guiding" Baraitser.

Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of information about Arbuthnot stepping aside. According to the Daily Maverick: The MOJ ... told Declassified it “does not hold any information” on what date the decision was made for Lady Arbuthnot to step aside from the case. The same questions put to Westminster Magistrates Court also went unanswered. Declassified previously revealed that the MOJ has blocked the release of basic information about the current presiding judge in the case, Vanessa Baraitser, in what appears to be an irregular application of the Freedom of Information Act. Baraitser, who was likely chosen by Lady Arbuthnot.... So we don't even know for sure Arbuthnot appointed Baraitser. And, as far as I can see, we don't know that Arbuthnot ever intended to make the decision on Assange's extradition.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We know that Arbuthnot did step aside because of a "perception of bias" and as Chief Magistrate, remained the supervising legal figure "responsible for… supporting and guiding" Baraitser. That can go into the article. In 2019. Daily Maverick wrote ""Lady Arbuthnot has recently appointed a district judge to rule on Assange’s extradition case". In 2020, it wrote "... Baraitser, who was likely chosen by Lady Arbuthnot". How we describe that is a matter for discussion. As far as I can tell we haven't mentioned or discussed who would be making the final extradition decision so I am not sure why that is relevant. Burrobert (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is easy to jump to conclusions when there is limited information. The circumstances could suggest that Arbuthnot was going to make the decision but stepped aside in favour of Baraitser. I was making the point that we don't actually know that. I think it's a matter of wording the text carefully to avoid implying something that we don't know.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's the theory but we don't always follow it. Why don't you have a go at living up to that ideal? Burrobert (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbuthnot must be doing something right in the opinion of those who hold power. She has been appointed a Justice of the High Court to take effect from 1 February 2021. Perhaps just in time to hear Assange’s appeal?[46] Burrobert (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope the powers that be will also recognise my contribution.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sure they, she and we all appreciate your efforts Jack. Any thoughts on squeezing her into the narrative. She is larger than a cat so it will be harder but I have provide some suggestions above. Burrobert (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, since she is now headed for the High Court, she should have her own page...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Australian usage: "court" or "courthouse"; "U.S." or "US".

At the top of the talkpage, it specifies that Australian English is the variant which should be used in the current article. In the "Hearings on extradition to the U.S." section a couple of American English usages appear, "courthouse" instead of "court" and "U.S." instead of "US". Are those normal Australian usages too?     ←   ZScarpia   11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Australian usage is US rather than U.S. In theory, the courthouse is the building, while the court is the institution, but in practice "court" is often used generally.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Would anyone then have any objections if I were to change both?     ←   ZScarpia   09:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change "courthouse".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation of your comment about theory versus practice was that institutions such as the Old Bailey would tend to be described as courts rather than courthouses in Australia. If you think it should be left as it is, that's fine with me.     ←   ZScarpia   20:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment on "court" versus "courthouse" was meant to be general, not referring specifically to Australia. My feeling is that it is better to be precise, rather than colloquial. A court is an institution; a courthouse is a building. If you say people were protesting outside the Old Bailey, that is clear because the Old Bailey is a building. But if you said outside the Crown Court that would be unclear because the Crown Court is an institution. I think we should also be mindful of how the courts and court buildings are described in England. Personally, I would leave this as it is, unless someone has objections to it.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I note that the courthouse article (to which there is a redirect of "court house") says: "The term [courthouse] is common in North America. In most other English-speaking countries, buildings which house courts of law are simply called "courts" or "court buildings"." There was though, a debate on the talkpage on whether the article accurately reflects the Australian situation, which is probably why the word "most" was inserted. The Old Bailey article, written in British English says: "The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales, commonly referred to as the Old Bailey after the street on which it stands, is a criminal court building in central London, one of several that house the Crown Court of England and Wales. ... The Old Bailey has been housed in a succession of court houses on the street since the sixteenth century, when it was attached to the mediaeval Newgate gaol." Probably not worth expending any further thought on though.     ←   ZScarpia   14:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

MANDY statements

When Robert S Mueller III says that Wikileaks was a conduit for the emails stolen by the Kremlin, and the em ails were published on Wikileaks, and Roger Stone was convicted for lying about his contacts with Wikileaks regarding this, the denial by Assange should be discussed in the body but not the lead. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't give the subject the last word, and of course Assange denies deliberate collaboration, per [p[WP:MANDY]] - btut he facts don't require culpability and the denial is a non-sequitur. Assange denies everything, and always has. But he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy, and in this case we have court findings of fact and extremely credible sources that contradict his denial. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another instance of the obstinate insistence to promote Assange's self-serving narratives despite all evidence and mainstream thought to the contrary. It's the same as the problem with the Sweden-will-deport-me narrative in the lead and countless other bits that have drained editor resources on this article for years. Of course it's MANDY. There's no credible argument to the contrary. The key word here is "credible". SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: First, WP:MANDY is an essay, not a policy. Second, what you believe to be credible is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say, as well as WP:BLP. When serious accusations are made against a living person, then there should be a strong bias towards including their response. Third, your more personalized statements about Assange are concerning. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. Your personal attacks on Assange are completely unnecessary here.

@SPECIFICO: The "Sweden-will-deport-me narrative" has been reported extremely widely by reliable sources. I cited half a dozen in an above discussion, and Burrobert cited a few more. It was the major stated reason why Assange fought extradition to Sweden, so it's clearly relevant. I'm having a hard time understanding why you and JzG are arguing for removal of extremely widely publicized responses by Assange to accusations made against him. If you're concerned about editors' time being wasted, then I suggest you stop arguing for the removal of highly notable, highly relevant, well sourced material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to understand -- policy, fact, sourcing, whatever -- is not an argument for putting invalid content into the encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Which policy have I misunderstood? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it's an essay describing the application of policy (NPOV) to self-serving statements, referenced to a well-known historical precedent.

But you "forgot" to engage witht he substantive argument. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that WikiLeaks was used as a conduit for information stolen by the Kremlin. Assange says "I did not collude with the Kremlin". Can you see how that is (a) one man's word against many; (b) facile and (c) irrelevant, because the question is not whether he knowingly collaborated, but whether Wikileaks was the conduit, which it absolutely was. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

[EC] The sequence of edits:

• JzG completely removed all mention of Assange's denial that the leaked material had been supplied to Wikileaks by the Russians citing WP:MANDY. WP:MANDY is an essay which was created and largely written by JzG. JzG is therefore citing an essay which was largely his own work as a reason for the deletion.
• I reverted the deletion, citing the "public figures" section of the WP:BLP policy. This says that, in the case of a ,public figure (which I contend applies to Assange): "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." That is policy rather than an essay such as WP:MANDY (which is largely JzG's creation).
• Calton then reverted my revert, writing: "What JzG said: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper with some sort of proforma automatic right-of-reply style." That ignores the "public figure" section of the WP:BLP policy cited by me.
• JZG wrote the justification given above. It does not address that his complete deletion of Assange's denials appears to have violated the WP:BLP policy. It implies that results of the Mueller inquiry, which, I'm guessing, took various intelligence claims as being factual without trying to verify them, must be accepted as authoritative. Those results may be true; on the other hand, the investigation may have been botched. If memory serves correctly, no attempt was made to examine the Wikileaks version of events. In any case, presentation in the article is governed by the Neutrality policy. I would have to read up on the Roger Stone case before commenting on it.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, the denial can be covered in the body. This is equivalent to Roger Stone saying "Roger Stone did nothing wrong". Notable, but nowhere near as prominent as the mountain of evidence that Roger Stone did in fact do something wrong.

Remember, what interests the public and what is in the public interest are two very different things. Assange struggels with this. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is nonsense. Of course, the denials made by the subject are important. And, no, we cannot assume that someone has denied an allegation.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In the lead? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is important to include Assange's denial wherever in the article the accusation is made, whether in the lead or in the body.
• Assange's denial is not equivalent to the statement "Roger Stone did nothing wrong". The equivalent statement would be ""Assange did nothing wrong" which no one has suggested adding to the article.

Burrobert (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, no it's not, because (a) the denial does not address the allegations, (b) it is self-serving and (c) the allegations are credible while the denial is not. We are not a newspaper. We do not give the subject the last word. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you believe his denial is self-serving or not credible. WP:BLP is policy. Your MANDY essay is not policy. A living person has been the subject of serious accusations, and has denied those accusations (and those denials have been widely reported). WP:BLP is very clear: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since we're on the topic, what does Assange actually deny? We say he denies the Swedish allegations, but what precisely? He agrees that he had sex with those two women. Does he accept he had sex with them without a condom, against their wishes? When one of them was asleep? On this page and on Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, we don't say. His claim about the Swedish pretext is not a defence to the allegations, and, as far as I can see, has never been tested in court. As pointed out ad nauseum, it is not explained on either page. So, with regard to Sweden, as recorded here, Assange's response to an allegation is to make a vague allegation against a whole lot of other people.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us to try to determine how Assange would answer the string of questions that you've posed (some of which have been addressed in court, I believe, while others have not). The important thing is to explain what he has said - particularly the statements that have been widely covered by reliable sources. The "pretext" statement has been widely covered, and it's a central reason given by Assange for not going to Sweden, so it should be included in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, well, that's interesting, because you seem to think it's up to us to bend over backwards to excuse every single bad fact about him. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I just think that we should adhere to WP:BLP and not censor Assange's responses to serious accusations from his biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me we don't have Assange's responses in the two articles. I agree we should hear his point of view, but where is it?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Can we agree that the statement "Roger Stone did nothing wrong" is not equivalent to “Assange denied any co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks”?
• "(a) the denial does not address the allegations”. Agreed that the denial is not very informative. That is our fault not Assange’s. In fact Assange has addressed the allegations in more detail. The lead doesn’t summarise the body accurately here. The body states "Assange repeatedly denied that the Russian government was the source of the DNC and Podesta emails". More detail is in the Belfast Telegraph article that we use as a source in the body. Assange is quoted in that article as saying: "We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication". More detail about what Assange has said about the allegations could be added to the article if the current level of detail is inadequate.
• "(b) it is self-serving". Apart from being a denial, there doesn’t seem to be anything else in the statement. Does that make all denials self-serving? The policy is "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".
• "(c) the allegations are credible while the denial is not". This is subjective. Anyway, the policy is: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".
• "We are not a newspaper". Agreed.
• "We do not give the subject the last word". We could put Assange’s denial before the allegation if you like but readers might get confused. Again the policy is "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".

Burrobert (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the discussion, there seems to be a problem with the statement in the lead that "In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with ... working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the documents".

• It is not supported by the three references given in the lead as these are from 2016, two years prior to any charges being laid.
• It is not mentioned in the body. Generally the lead is a summary of the body. The body does say "According to the Mueller report, this group shared these mails using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0 with WikiLeaks and other entities. The investigation also unearthed ... " but does not say that this formed part of the charges against the 12 Russians.

Burrobert (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". So not it is not a policy it is a few users ideas of how policy should be applied. But also we have wp:primary, if his views are self serving they should not be here. If RS have reported them we can have them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not primary - it's currently sourced to a CNN article, which is a secondary source. As for "self-serving," I'm with Burrobert. I don't know what the opposite of "self-serving" denial is. Perhaps we should amend WP:BLP to read, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, provided that those denials are entirely selfless. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Actaully CNN says "CNN attempted to reach WikiLeaks for comment but received no response. WikiLeaks's founder, Julian Assange, has previously denied any connection to or cooperation with Russia.", this is not in relation to the CNN claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's in relation to claims that Wikileaks received the emails from Russia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To previous claims that lacked as much evidence. Nor does it relate to Muller.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The body of the article ([47]) sources an article from the Belfast Telegraph, which is even more explicit: WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has again denied that emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were hacked and leaked to his organisation by the Russian government. [48]. This article is in response to claims from US intelligence - the claims that underlie Mueller's report. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That source is also not referring to Muller, And Muller was an independent investigation. We cannot word this in a way that implies these denials were in response to the Muller report, they were not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

They're in response to claims made by US intelligence - claims that Mueller included in his report. Before it was shortened, the lede used to read, Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks. If that's clearer, I have no objection to that wording. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there one source for a denial after Muller was released, if not then we do not have one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The accusations were made by US intelligence in 2016, long before the release of the Mueller Report. Reliable sources that have commented on Assange and the Mueller Report have cited Assange's consistent denials that Russia is involved. For example, this CNN article discusses the Mueller Report and then discusses Assange's denials: Assange, a native of Australia, has always denied working for the Kremlin and has insisted that the source of the leaks "is not the Russian government and it is not a state party." -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLP: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".
• The policy does not mention that the subject needs to make a denial every time the allegation is made. If says "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported".
• The Belfast Telegraph article that I quoted earlier makes Assange's position on the source of the DNC material quite clear.

Burrobert (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

These are not allegations, they are findings of wrong doing. But the new source is better, as it is after Mullers findings.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to be precise, these are not "findings," but rather charges made by a prosecutor. In any case, they are certainly "allegations" in common parlance. Slatersteven, if you find the old wording of the lede - Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks - to be more precise, then I have no objection. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Afaik the Mueller report didn't make any findings of "wrongdoing" against Assange or Wikileaks.
• Again afaik, the claims/findings in the Mueller report have not been tested in court yet. In the only case that I know of that reached court, the allegations were withdrawn and the case dropped.

Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only one court has yet found on any matter relating to Assange and the 2016 elections, and it found in Assange's favor: [49]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"“primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtedly the Russian Federation,” a lawsuit against that government is barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act." not quite "there was no hack by Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"[A]lleged criminal enterprise". The court could not look into those allegations, because it has no jurisdiction. It could, however, look into Assange's actions, and it found that he's covered by the First Amendment. In any case, the issue here is that allegations have been made against a living person, and that living person is on the record denying those allegations multiple times. Those denials have been covered by numerous reliable sources. WP:BLP makes it very clear that those denials must be included alongside the allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it courts can only look at charges brought before them, and if a case is dismissed cannot decide to examine others issues. But as I said, I think you have now produced a source that says he still denies them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don’t doubt thats true, we just currently appear to be lacking a current reliable source. You cant deny something that came out in 2018 in 2016 etc... We can say he’s made blanket denials but if we want to say he’s denied a specific accusation then he needs to have denied that specific accusation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You can if the allegation was also made in 2016. What specific allegation did you have in mind? Burrobert (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Very true, the Mueller report came out in April 2019 so we just need something more recent than that. Obviously if he hasn’t specifically denied the information in the Mueller report we can say he denied similar allegations but we cant specifically say he denied those allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I cited a July 2019 CNN article above, which states, Assange, a native of Australia, has always denied working for the Kremlin and has insisted that the source of the leaks "is not the Russian government and it is not a state party. The allegations are the same, and his response is the same. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then we can say that Assange has always denied working for the Kremlin etc but not that he denied these specific allegations. We cant go rogue and say stuff reliable sources aren’t saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Before the article was shortened, the lede used to say, Assange has consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks. I don't think that the Mueller Report represents new accusations against Assange (it contains the same accusation as US intelligence officials made in 2016), but I'm fine with the older wording. That wording is also accurate. If I can add: one of the problems is that Mueller's charges against GRU agents were shoe-horned into the lede, even though they are only tangentially related to Assange. This has been justified with the argument that The Mueller Report is important in general, though why it's important to this article has never been made clear by proponents of inclusion. That's how we got to a situation in which Assange's denials of US intelligence accusations are put next to Mueller's charges against GRU agents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

[EC] A few other sources and the style in which the denials are stated:

- The Guardian - Damian Gayle - CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election, say reports, 10 December 2016: "The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government."

- Belfast Telegraph - Julian Assange: Russian government not source of leaked DNC and Podesta emails - WikiLeaks editor contradicts CIA claims in new interview, 16 December 2016: "WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has again denied that emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were hacked and leaked to his organisation by the Russian government. In an interview with Sean Hannity he was asked: "So in other words, let me be clear...Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?" The Australian founder of the whistleblowing website, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years, responded: "That's correct." Assange said: "We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all. "We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. "And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication," he told Hannity. ... Last week Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, dismissed the CIA's claims that Russia was the source of the emails as "bulls***". The accounts by Murray and Assange directly contradict the story advanced by the CIA. On Friday the Washington Post reported on a 'secret assessment' by the CIA, which concluded that Russian intelligence hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers and that of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta, specifically to help Trump win the presidency. Mr Murray said: "I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.""

- Aljazeera - Assange extradition battle resumes after coronavirus delays, 07 September 2020: "He has also attracted more recent criticism for WikiLeaks’s release of documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee, which damaged nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential campaign. He has denied accusations by US investigators that WikiLeaks obtained those documents from Russian hackers."

- A more detailed denial quoted by Kevin Gosztola on Shadowproof and Aaron Maté on RealClearInvestigations: "For his part, Assange has repeatedly claimed that Russia was not his source and that the U.S. government does not know who was. "The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly," Assange said in January 2017. "WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not state parties. They do not come from the Russian government.""

- "Collusion. Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win" (2017), Luke Harding, Ch.04 "Hack": "Then there was WikiLeaks, a platform that Trump openly praised in the months before the election. “We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks,” the report [co-authored by the CIA, FBI and NSA and published on 06 January] said, adding: “Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity.” Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ editor in chief, disputes this and says the leaks didn’t come from a “state party.” The agencies don’t believe him."

    ←   ZScarpia   20:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC) [augmented: 19:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)]

ZScarpia, the endless problem remains the same: the DNC emails were stolen by the Kremlin and released through Wikileaks, so Assange's denials that he dealt with Russian agents give the appearance of Trump attempting to claim that Mueller's lack of evidence of criminal conspiracy is equivalent to a finding of no collusion, despite half of the Mueller Report being proof of collusion and the other half proof of a cover-up thereof. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, please stop posting views from unreliable sources. Assange was offered a pardon from Trump in exchange for denying Russian involvement, and he complied. He went even further by claiming the hacking was a DNC insider job, even though that explanation makes no sense and there is no evidence for it. In short, he can't be trusted. WikiLeaks is considered a "malicious foreign actor". "Assange has repeatedly disputed claims that the emails came from the Russian government. Yet, in a December interview on Hannity’s radio show, he left open the possibility that Guccifer 2.0’s activities were linked to the Russians. “Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”" -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Assange was offered a pardon from Trump in exchange for denying Russian involvement, and he complied: Assange was reportedly offered a pardon in 2017, after he had already denied that Russia was the source (see The Guardian's recent article). I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that Assange "complied" with Rohrabacher's request. You really shouldn't be writing posts like this on talk pages of living persons. Remember that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages: WP:BLPTALK. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[Reply to JzG's comment of 20:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)]
We've gone around in circles several times here. Assange's denials are widely reported by reliable sources, though some editors personally believe that those denials are not credible. WP:BLP says, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, and this article is a BLP, so I don't see what the point of this endless debate is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, but the denials repeatedly avoid the substance of the factual statement that the data released by Wikileaks was stolen by the Kremlin. Assange does not, as far as I can tell, actually deny that - only that he himself knowingly spoke to Kremlin agents. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Assange does not comment on Wikileaks' sources. His statement that Russia is not Wikileaks' source is actually quite unusual, but he is probably not going to go into much detail about how he obtained the emails. My understanding is that the Mueller Report could not actually identify how Wikileaks obtained the emails, though it speculated on possible methods. In any case, it's not up to us to judge how credible Assange's denial is. That would veer into WP:OR. The key policies are WP:BLP (which states that denials must be included) and WP:RS (plenty of reliable sources have reported Assange's denial). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• If the allegations are to be given in the lead, Assange's response should be provided as well. The dismissal of the DNC suit against Assange should also be noted in the lead: it is irresponsible to note these allegations without reporting on the legal outcome. -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Judges and cats

Burrobert, do you have a source which says it was Judge Michael Snow who presided over the first extradition hearing on 2 May 2019?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do. It appears that I omitted to add it to the text. Sometimes you fascinate me. Why didn't you ask for a source when we had Baraitser as the judge? Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: thanks for adding [50] the reference [51]. It's not unreasonable for Jack Upland to ask for a reference by the way. I also didn't know that Snow had presided over the first hearing. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. Apologies for the slightly aggressive tone Jack. I value your generally fair-minded opinion even if you aren't a paid up member of the Julian Assange fan-club (not my description). Burrobert (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Burrobert. I simply didn't notice the mistake. I think we should all be checking references for old edits and new because obviously there are a lot of mistakes. This means that Arbuthnot was not the first judge in the extradition case (see above).--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Snow found Assange guilty of skipping bail, but it was Deborah Taylor who sentenced him.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Add it into the mix if you think it helps. Any news on the cat? Burrobert (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems strange that the judge that sentenced him was different to the one who found him guilty. But who knows? Certainly a lot of judges have dealt with him. If you're referring to Assange's cat, I think it's legitimate to mention the cat (briefly). This is a biographical article about someone who was stuck in an embassy for seven years. The reference to the cat gives an insight into his life and also into the friction between him and the Ecuadorian government which eventually led to his arrest...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep the cat by all means, for the kiddies if nothing else. What about wording that incident in a way that doesn't imply Assange sued Ecuador because it wanted him to clean up after his cat? Burrobert (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If the cat fits, wear it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't fit. We have squashed it into a shape that is very unnatural for a cat. The slow, steady but safe approach you have used when discussing Arbuthnots has been forgotten when writing about cats and children. Burrobert (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The BBC says, The judge said a requirement to pay for internet use and clean up after his cat did not violate his right to asylum. The article says, An Ecuadorian judge ruled against him, saying that requiring Assange to pay for his Internet use and clean up after his cat did not violate his right to asylum. This seems to reflect the source very closely. Anyway, I have never written anything about the cat, so I don't think I have anything to clean up.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at the BBC source for the second sentence and we have transcribed it correctly. The issue is with the first sentence. By omitting in the first sentence the specific reasons why Assange sued Ecuador (I think there were over thirty conditions placed on him), the second sentence implies that he only sued because of Embassy Cat and having to pay bills. We just need to add his specific reasons for suing to the first sentence. That will of course make the second sentence sound petty and trivial but as you said we need to stick to the source. His specific reasons for suing are in the first BBC source. You may notice that his statement doesn’t mention Embassy Cat at all and that it is the BBC that notes EC is mentioned in the list of conditions. Burrobert (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are trying to use me as a cat's paw.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I’ll do my own dirty work. Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of 'deny'

I was surprised at the frequency with which we have written that Assange has "denied" various allegations. I counted seven uses that seem to infringe on the policy that we must "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability". (WP:claim) I will go through these cases and provide an alternative wording in line with our policy. Burrobert (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Assange is unusual in that he has faced many allegations.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Let’s keep the allegations. The policy is around how we phrase his response to the allegations. I haven’t finished going through all the examples so jump in and help if you have some free time. Burrobert (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Honours and Awards

Perhaps this could go under the Honours and Awards Section for this article. I've noticed that a sub-species has been named after Assange. See: R.T. Hoser, 2014. "A logical new genus-level taxonomy for the Xenosauride, Anniellidae, Diploglossidae, and Anguidae". Australian Journal of Heptology. 24:20-64, and p.47 for specific reference. The article states that the sub-species was "Named in honour of Wikiweaks founder Julian Assange, in recognition of his globally patriotic work for human rights and freedom from government tyranny in exposing reckless government corruption" (p.47). Now, I know that some are concerned that this article is already too long, so I thought I might seek suggestions as to how the above information might be added to the article. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a a brief mention under "Honours and Awards" should be fine, with a citation. It should only add a few words, after all. And the article size is under control at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO removing content whose earlier removal was challenged by reversion

Hi @SPECIFICO: please note that when I restored [52] the NYT's comment about the Obama Administration's view, I was restoring text that had been in the article for at least a year [53]. Your revert [54] violates the DS "consensus required" restrictions on this page, as Awilley recently explained to you [55]: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit." Please self-revert. You should be well aware of these sanctions since you have frequently warned other users not to violate them, including on this page [56]. I assume you were not aware that this text was long in the article.

Regarding content, your edit summary [57] doesn't provide a clear rationale for your actions: "SYNTH insinuation Assange is on par with journalists." Note that we are editing a section titled "Indictment in the United States," and the NYT article [58] I'm using as a citation (and that's long been the citation here) is titled, "Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues." So a priori there's no synthesis going on: the NYT article is discussing exactly the same topic as our section.

Lastly, your comment that my edit creates "an insinuation" is not particularly collegial. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)